Gay Marriage is morally wrong.

I will begin by refuting my opponent's claims. The first problem we encounter is that my opponent commits a logical fallacy by appealing to tradition - this is how marriage has always been. In fact, this is not only a logical fallacy but also an erroneous statement. My opponent asserts that "marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman" geared toward procreation and well-being. This is inaccurate. As stated by Professor Coontz at Evergreen State College, "the most culturally preferred kind of marriage through the ages was between one man and several women" [1]. Polygamy is far older than monogamy. The former even appears many times in the Bible - the most obvious example being King Solomon with his many, many wives. Thus the idea of "a man and a woman" is proven false. Additionally, as ABC News reports, Roman Emperor Nero was married to two men [1]. My opponent's first claim has been thoroughly debunked. Indeed, this even negates many of his later points regarding homosexual marriage somehow being different from heterosexual marriage. Both types are marriage - two consenting adults entering a legal contract and an expression of their love. I challenge my opponent's "specific primary purpose of marriage. " The purpose of marriage is not reproduction. First of all, if it were, why do we permit infertile and elderly couples to marry? The Center for Disease Control notes that around 6% of married women between 15-44 are infertile [2] - and this source only includes women, not men. Furthermore, what about couples who choose not to have children? Clearly the purpose of marriage cannot be procreation. It is not my BoP to explain the purpose of marriage. My opponent claims marriage is rooted in human nature. I challenge this claim as well. I have proven polygamous relations were around before monogamous ones, and they were certainly even more common before the Neolithic Revolution. My opponent makes claims about human nature without sources, evidence, or examples. This is especially important because he goes so far as to imply that gay marriage is evil. If my opponent seeks to make such a claim, he has a heavy burden of proof. Even if I throw out my counter-arguments and concede everything else to my opponent - which I do not -he would still have to prove that gay marriage is morally wrong. Additionally, if man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him, then morality is subjective to the beholder. A gay man or a lesbian would then see gay marriage as moral. My opponent then contradicts this position by claiming that morality is an objective norm. My opponent makes similarly unsubstantiated claims about natural law. I find it difficult to understand what he means by natural law. I can just as easily claim that natural law supports my argument. These are blanket statements that require support. My opponent has failed to do so, and I urge that the voters discredit these points. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" and a similar relationship (that is, a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law) between two people of the same gender [3]. Marriage is an expression of love between two consenting adults, not just procreation. There are many other reasons for getting married as well. For example, many couples enjoy the legal benefits associated with marriage. Unless my opponent claims that these marriages are also morally wrong or alters his stance, then his arguments fall apart. I look forward to my opponent's responses in the next round! [1] . http://www.abc.net.au... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...