Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.

Your quote, here is part of it. "...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I believe many homos could say that marriage for them falls under the category of the pursuit of happiness, so by the quote you use to help your argument you are going against it. This is part of my point that in a secular country they have a right to get married because it is part of the foundation of the U.S and it is a right they just should have. If you argue back that he mentions his creator and Yahweh (Christian God) does not agree with homosexuality, then I say that Thomas Jefferson was actually most likely a deist. Or at least he did not believe that Christianity did not have a place in law. "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." http://www.positiveatheism.org... Scroll down for a while and you will find that specific quote under the section titled Establishment of Religion. Why can we assume it is not natural, what is your grounds for that, it has been observed in over 450 species, that makes it natural. Natural means this-existing in or caused by nature. Clearly as I said it exists in nature, and is not created by humankind, therefore it is natural. So lets hypothetically assume it is natural, because it literally fits the definition of natural perfectly. Yes the burden of proof is on me to prove it is natural, and I did, because if it has been observed by nature and was not a creation of humankind, it is natural, that's it its pretty much indisputable. However okay humans are different from any animals, but we do share many similarities with monkeys. Examples, monkeys can actually do math, and chimps do have culture. This shows it- http://www.livescience.com... But even if we are quite different, what does that mean, if it has been observed in nature it is still natural. I proved its natural by showing it has been observed in at least 450 species of animals, that makes it natural, that proves it. But if that does not show it, what do we need to determine if something is natural I will ask. Here is a question for next round. If something being observed in nature does not make it natural and therefore homosexuality is not natural, what makes heterosexuality natural? I mean we know heterosexuality is natural because that is how reproduction takes place yeah, but what determines if something is natural or not is not if it is biologically beneficial, but if it occurs in nature, and homosexuality does indeed occur in nature. So you have said that whether Christians believe it is wrong or not does not matter in a secular country, good, we are getting somewhere. That John Adams quote does not mean nothing. What is the document that the foundation of the U.S is primarily based on... The Constitution. How many times does the Constitution say God... 0. Bible... 0 Jesus... 0 Christianity... 0 Judaism... 0 Islam... 0 Karan... 0 Allah... 0 Religion maybe... 1, specifically to say that one shall never be established. Yeah pretty clearly the country was not made on the foundation that laws are based on religious views. So no, the laws were not based on Biblical principles or else we simply would have had a theocracy, if they were based on Biblical principles men who shave their beards would have to be stoned to death. "Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not cut your hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... Look man this is like the word of God right here if we have Biblical principles then we need to make this a law and soon, but we do not, because it is a secular country. Your next argument that Christians are offended, yes they may be but why does that mean they are allowed to take away the right of a homo to get married? It does not, because it is a secular country. If they are allowed to are Christians really having a right taken away, I mean they are still allowed to be anti gay, so what right are they really having taken away? None. Lets look at some more polls- poll done my CBS News done from 10/21-10/25 of 1,289 adults across the U.S has an overall of 56% SUPPORTING HOMO MARRIAGE, 34% OPPOSED, AND 10% UNDECIDED. Qunnipac University September 17-21 2015 polling 1,574 voters nationwide has 55% SUPPORTING HOMO MARRIAGE, 38% OPPOSED, AND 7% UNDECIDED. Pew Research Center done July 14-20 2015 2,002 adults surveyed nationwide has 54% SUPPORT HOMO MARRIAGE, 39% AGAINST, AND 7% UNSURE. Yeah most people have come around, and the majority of polls reflect that people do support homo marriage. Also you do not have a size for your poll it may have been a very small number. You can find all these polls and more of them here: http://www.pollingreport.com... You call my statement about polygamy and attack but it is just something that happens in the Bible which you do use for evidence at multiple points, it is far from a personal attack. Well no what I am saying is that if you say that homo marriage should not be allowed because of the Bible then you should also want polygamy around if that is what you base your beliefs on solely. Yes Jesus did create new laws, however in Christianity polygamy was still thing, that shows a couple things. If you render my comment about polygamy wrong then you have to also render out anything else in the Old Testament which would destroy the foundation for Christianity. Also it kind of shows that the Bible was a product of its time as well but that is besides the point. My point still stands, if you say laws should be based off the Bible you have to include all of them, polygamy is in the Bible, because the Old Testament is part of the Bible. Okay if we base laws off the New testament then we would have a theocracy, because even Jesus says that non-Christians do not get to go to heaven, AND he says that rich people will not either because they already had their paradise on Earth, so we would essentially have a mix of communism and theocracy. Yeah that does not really make sense, so its not that easy. I can cite verses at your request. Okay biological benefit, okay based on your opinions on alcohol if you want after this we could have a debate on that but because of your opinions on that lets ignore it. I also cited more examples, refer to the last round, and you say they are not the same because they do not take away peoples rights, correct. But you say homo marriage does. Tell me what right Christians are having taken away from by allowing homo marriage? You have failed to do that, you have not a single example of how homo MARRIAGE infringes on the rights of religious people. (Again the rights of private business owners is a completely different issue.) Okay yes the Constitution does not mention marriage AT ALL including hetero marriage, so if your argument here is that anything the Constitution does not mention is wrong, well then that includes all marriage, since it never mentions marriage at all. However what do we learn from this, we learn that at the time of the Constitutions writing marriage just was not an issue, but from its contents we know the first amendment was mostly about protection against tyranny, including religious tyranny, so whether the Constitution DIRECTLY mentions marriage or not does not matter. What is important is that the Constitution highlighted essentially that religious matters are separate from laws (I have examples at your request), and so the religious argument does not work against this. That is where your point here falls apart. Again the Constitution does not mention marriage at all, if you use it to say why homo marriage should be illegal then you have to apply that to hetero marriage as well. On your second rebuttal here all you say is that homos do not have a right to get married, but I already refuted your reasons for this at multiple points, and you say nothing new or provide any examples of how other peoples rights will be taken away so this point is completely useless for you. Okay here it is, its the paradox, yes U.S laws do not tolerate terrorism or murder or such. Why? Because all those things you mention are forms of intolerance, U.S laws are made to tolerate everything except intolerance, if you tolerate intolerance then that brings you anarchy where you could literally do anything you wish, look homo marriage is not intolerant, because it does not take anyone's rights away, unless you could tell us how. You have failed to do that though. Tell us why they are unjust in a secular country, that, you have not done yet, so on that front you have no evidence at all right now. Saying they cannot be married is intolerant of them, allowing them to is not, since no ones rights are being taken in that case. Sure I will debate wish you about Christianity after, but for right now, saying it is true, holds no grounds yet since you have not proved it. Yes no one follows it, however in a hypothetical U.S where it did and had 1,000,000 followers, would you support outlawing hetero marriage. If you say no, you are in fact conceding that religious views can not impact law. Okay tell us why tolerance of homos is always irrational, because I do not know why. The problem with the flower shop is that he is not marrying them, this issue is about the rights of private business owners WHO SELL ITEMS, again different from marriage. Its not that they cannot have anti gay beliefs, its that they have to keep business separate, marriage is a separate issue, so this is different. You ask a question at the end, I will answer, in the end, who private business owners decide who to sell to is different from allowing any homos to marry, that's it, different issue, different laws, the topic is marriage the rights of private business owners is separate from that. Im out of characters, ill respond to the rest in part 4