The religious policies of the Republican Party are bad for society.

Start in the middle of my last post where I asked my opponent to prove that humans have worth. He did not do so. So he has failed to prove to you that under secular principles humans have worth. This takes out all of his arguments because when humans do not have worth then there is no reason to protect them or their rights, and there is no reason why republican policies are bad for society, because nothing is really bad for society. You can use religion to justify human worth but if our law makers cannot be motivated by religion then they cannot justify human worth in the law. I have told you that my opponent has not really attacked religion but the moral codes based on religion. He uses the same argument that he used before, but he misunderstands my argument. The argument is that the policies he was attacking are not religious. For a law to be considered religious it would have to officially endorse one religion or try to enforce a law over religious belief. My opponent has attacked neither of these things nor proven that republicans overwhelmingly support them. So his entire argument is non resolutional. To my opponent's first response: no religion is being established. Moral codes are being put into law. To his second: congress is not enacting laws for religious reasons the people in congress are. Senators and Congressmen are still people, with same rights as any normal citizen. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them from voting based on their faith, the same way it would not prohibit anybody else. The fact that they have religious reasons does not represent the official attitude of congress, which has never officially endorsed one particular faith. If you disallow their individual religious motives it violates free exercise in the same way it would if I am not allowed to give money to the poor for religious reasons. There is no reasonable difference. With freedom of speech and conscience comes the freedom to do what you do for whatever reason you want (call it freedom of motive). The establishment clause is not being violated because the government is still open to other religions, no religion is being endorsed by congress and no one is have a religion forced upon them (or "onto people" as my opponent put it). Furthermore, my opponent's interpretation would be contradictory to free exercise clause but clearly this would no have been meant by the founding fathers. The republican party can say whatever it wants for whatever reason it wants. If their reasons are religious then they are using their freedom of motive, which is part of freedom of speech and conscience. They may say we are a christian nation but the government has never been officially aligned, they have not changed that. My opponent goes on to refer to homosexuality as a victimless crime. But when the government changes the definition of marriage to include gay couples traditional marriage suffers. Traditional marriage is rooted not only in love but purpose. Men and women marry and have children and repopulate the world. The same cannot be said for gay couples (who obviously cannot have children). By expanding the definition of marriage to include gay union we eliminate the practical purpose of marriage entirely. At the point when we accept that marriage has no purpose to society, society suffers because married couples (even husband and wife) will see no reason procreate and repopulate the earth. Homosexuality should be treated by both government and people as a perversion of marriage and it's purpose to society. Even Orson Scott Card, an atheist science fiction author, described gay marriage as a "potentially devastating social experiment". Prostitution also hurts traditional marriage. Sexual intercourse has always been a special privilege of married couples. But with prostitution it is no longer restricted to married couples. At that point sex loses it's significance as a method reproduction and becomes more important as tool for entertainment. As with gay union, the importance of procreation is downsized and people feel less obligated to repopulate the world. Porn is essentially prostitution without the sex. People (especially young men) who become addicted to porn will take on a perverted sense of the purpose of sexual intercourse, using it purely for pleasure. And when those men get older they will look to prostitution to fulfill this perverted sense. Traditional marriage is essential to a sturdy society, it ensures that people have a purpose to repopulate the earth. If marriage and sex do not have this purpose then society could collapse as too many people choose not to procreate. On a similar note, the ability to terminate a pregnancy also takes away from the purpose of procreation because unborn babies no longer have to be born. So many of the things that republicans seek to stop are dangerous to society because fail to recognize peoples' obligation to procreate. On the issue of enforcement, my opponent never refuted what I said: "he says that more laws would decrease enforcement of other laws. But he forgets that we could simply increase the amount of police resources. " He says my attack on his principle of liberty is absurd, well the attack still stands. If I buy the last loaf of bread then nobody else is free to buy it and their liberty has been infringed. He says this is a privilege but privileges are liberties, and at the point when I get privilege that only one person can get, others are not free to get that privilege. He says this is absurd but I say it proves the absurdity of his idea that we should never let liberty be infringed. This requires more micromanagement because the state would have to decide in each individual case whether a job could be taken, a scholarship could won, or a product could be bought; all to ensure that liberty was never infringed. Further this would include economic micromanagement which is extremely bad for society. Religious order as my opponent has described does not include economic regulation at all which is better. This order is enforced against certain crimes; it can no more be micromanagement then any criminal enforcement that my opponent would advocate. On the issue of abortion, scientific evidence suggests that the fetus is human being from it's conception. But even if you do not except that, it is a potential human and it should still hold rights as one. Going onto the issue of drugs. Hard drugs like heroin and cocaine present a threat to liberty. They cause addiction, hallucinations, and other mental problems. Are you really free when you let your mind be manipulated by psychoactive drugs.