Since the US is a christian nation, christian morals should dictate the definition of marriage

Well, it appears that my opponent has given up. Without a doubt, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof or provided a single stitch of evidence, so this debate is already over. I'm going go through his new arguments line by line once again. "My opponent tries to deflect the topic of the debate from marriage to polygamy, which he assumes is relevant just because it is dicussed in the same book as marriage? As far as my opponent is concerned, I could be a proponent of polygamy! My opinions on that topic are utterly irrelevant to the subject of marriage, his only purpose in bringing said topic up is to seemingly make a bash at traditional christianity. "My opponent desperately insinuates that I have made a jab at Christianity. This is ridiculius considering that I'm a Christian, but what exactly did I? I quoted from the BIBLE. By quoting from the Bible, the scriptures upon which the faith is based, I'm bashing Christianity? Are you trying to run away from your own Bible, which by the way, endorses polygamy in several different places? I am not deflecting the topic. My opponent stated in his opening remarks that he will argue that marriage is one-man-one-woman and that this is based on Christian principles. I simply pointed out that Christian principles require us to endorse polygamy. So to uphold the resolution, my opponent must argue for Biblical marriage which is polygamy. Has he argued for it? Of course not. "My opponent also manipulatively twisted my words in saying that my argument was justified based on the assertion that "most people were christian" - my argument was that American Society and culture came into existence based off of Christian Tradition and culture, and to suddenly neglect one element of that culture and retain all of the others is fallacious! "This argument has two parts, and I will address both. First, Pro states that I have manipulated his argument. I have done no such thing, and Pro has in fact manipulated my own words. Pro claimed that, whether people know it or not -- and it's interested that he conceded that the U. S. may not be "explicitly" Christian, which means it is implicitly Christian (which doesn't even make any sense) -- they have been influenced by Christian values, so therefore we should impose Christian values because doing so would be redefining marriage. First, Biblical marriage is NOT one-man-one-woman, it's polygamy. So if the Bible is our standard for defining marriage -- it's not, because marriage is not ipso facto religious, but let's pretend for a moment that it is -- then we've already changed the definition of marriage because polygamy isn't legal. Second -- and this is the second part of Pro's argument which I will also debunk -- Pro's argument hinges on the notion that people and culture resulted from Christianity. But there is NO basis for this whatsoever. She provided us no sourcing of this whatsoever save for an ABC piece stating that most Americans are Christians and a biased faith website with a quote from Dinesh D'Souza -- who was just charged with violating campaign finance laws, by the way -- ASSERTING that it is. But there is NO evidence for this claim whatsoever. Nevertheless, Pro's argument is this:P1: American is a Christian Nation because Christianity is the basis for morality. P2: Christianity states that marriage is one-man-one-woman. C: Therefore, marriage should be one-man-one-woman. I have already refuted both P1 and P2 so the resolution falls. Pro goes on to conecede that the United States was not founded on Christian principle, but that it thrived under Christian influence, and that by following Christian ideasl, it has become the "center of freedom and liberty. " How? In what way? Where is the link or the causation? I proved that this nation does not follow Christian principles because Church and governed were designed to be secular. In what way has the country followed Christian principles? Let's even take an example: Jesus said "turn the other cheek" rather than fight back. Yet we have the largest military in the world. How is that a Christian principle? My opponent then disingenously makes a reductio ad absurdum to North Korea, forgetting that there is even a such thing as a secular religion: it's called a cult of personality. But even if this weren't the case, there is NO coherent link made here between secularism and horror. This is merely a bare-assertion fallacy and a non sequitur. He then claims that secularists don't get to claim the nation "as their work. " But I never stated that we do. My OPPONENT wants to claims it as the work of Christians, but it surely was not. It was founded as a secular nation, admittedly by some people who were religious, some more than others, and some of whom were not religious. But this is NOT a Christian nation, and my opponent has dropped all of my arguments and even conceded this point. Then my opponent once again attempts to cast asperions against me as a pathetic excuse of not addressing my arguments.