Gay marriage should be permitted

My opponent says that he will "start with a quote from the landmark Supreme Court case where same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States. " He provides the quote and then says nothing about it. I don't get why he included that at all. Then they say that "First, all Con proved was that the rate of disease spread was higher among homosexuals. This was a correlation. Con doesn't do anything to establish causation. " Really? My opponent said it was a coincidence and didn't support that claim at all. I said that sexual promiscuity was the reason for this. So ironically, I supported my claim and my opponent failed to to the same with their own argument. Then they say that "Con concedes that the reason for this is the 'amount of partners they have. ' The number of partners only *correlates* with homosexuality. Con doesn't establish causation, so this is a correlation/causation fallacy. Con has the burden to show that this is sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage. " No, I have to give reasons to show why Gay Marriage should not be permitted. The diseases that are spread due to homosexual relations causes damage to societies which is why I am against condoning the practice. Let me remind my opponent that they have to defend all of the assertions they make as well. Then it is said that "Banning gay marriage won't stop gay sex, or won't even reduce it significantly. " Again, we shouldn't legalize actions just because people will do the behavior anyway. My opponent drops my point. My opponent then asserts that "A link between homosexuality and mental health doesn't mean same-sex marriage should be banned, because there's no link between mental/emotional health and marriage. " The affects on emotional health do not disappear with marriage. So the problem still exists. "The source clearly notes that discrimination is a major factor in emotional harms, and if you read Con's own quote, that'll be indicated. " I have already explained what the quote said. I feel like I've addressed it well. "Con says 'the majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity should be the standard. ' This makes no sense, because the same logic is more direct: the majority of Americans are for same-sex marriage (including Christians), so legalizing same-sex marriage should be the standard. " Okay, well first of all, I never said that. I said that "The majority are for Christian principles and therefore the minorities (who are causing serious problems) should not be given special rights. " So my opponent has misrepresented me. As for polls showing that the majority want same sex marriage, I could also show articles proving that most Americans don't want government to be involved with this decision (. https://www.lifesitenews.com...). Article number three that my opponent provides is questionable. I would like to see a more reliable source before coming to any conclusions. "I've proven, through this debate, that it is unjust to deny homosexuals rights that we give heterosexuals, since homosexuality is an innate characteristic and isn't a choice. " No, my opponent has merely misrepresented his own sources and then claims that homosexuality is not a choice. "Finally, I've shown that legalizing same-sex marriage brings with it a plethora of economic benefits, boosting consumption and creating jobs. " Yes, and I have proven that lots of damage happens because of homosexuality and the diseases they spread costs lots of money and has a negative impact on our society. "Con's case, meanwhile, is primarily homophobic nonsense that extrapolates supposed causation from mere correlations and has no impact outside of retributive justice when there's no moral culpability involved. Con also doesn't prove that an ideal society is a Christian one or that the tyranny of the majority is desirable, and fails to realize that the majority actually supports same-sex marriage, turning that argument. Con doesn't have any offense left. " No, none of this was homophobic. Pro failed to support any of their original claims such as homosexuality being a choice, economic benefits and etc. .. and I have not only refuted those claims but have also supported my arguments. As for the slippery slope argument, I am not bringing up a new argument. It is one I used in the first round and I am just going to defend myself. i fail to see how this is unfair. My opponent asserted that pedophilia is not okay due to consent reasons. My question is "If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay? " (. https://carm.org...). My opponent pretty much admits that the other things should be allowed (Necrophilia. .. doesn't address a lot of the others things I mentioned. )