Legalization of gay marriage

I see no reason why my opponent would receive negative points for conduct in this debate, he was very cordial. I have to conclude my opponent and I are currently at an intellectual impass. My guess is he has been brought up with a worldview with subjective morality at it's core, but he has not been exposed to worldviews with objective morality at their core in a way that has forced him to compare his ideas with theirs on a very deep level. This is understandable since his worldview is so prevalent in many parts of this country, and many people don't seem to associate with those of differing opinions. It is not off topic to argue about the nature of morality in this debate. Whether or not it is right to legalize gay marriage is a moral decision. So if the decision is based on morals, the nature of morals must be understood. My opponent believes morals shift with time and society's opinion. If then, as my opponent says, slavery was moral while it was popular, were the first unpopular abolitionists immoral since they were in the minority? If abolition became popular despite it's immorality, what can we say about it's supporters? Harriet Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglas are villains? What about the moment that must have occurred when society was exactly 50/50 split? Was it a non-moral issue, like what flavor of ice cream to buy? Was it in quantum flux (both right and wrong at the same time)? My opponent appears to not yet grasp the weight of my question, or the basis of my objection to gay marriage. I appeal to objective morality that most of the founders did. There is right and wrong decided by nature's God, that is immutable despite popular opinion and ignorance. He does seem to understand that according to the Bible, homosexuality and a host of other equal sins, are immoral. He even contrarily appeals to some form of objective morality, in saying that society's opinion should be changed on the subject of gay marriage. But how can an appeal to what SHOULD be done be made when he takes the position that whatever society DOES do is right, because it is done by popular consent? There is no SHOULD. All that is done is OK. Any change to popular opinion is wrong. What rights can be guaranteed under this new subjective morality? Since our old rights were determined by a unchanging factor (Bible), how can my opponent say we even have civil rights if he's determining rights from an unstable factor (public opinion)? My point stands that with new moral codes come new rights and new restrictions. You are allowed to marry people of the same gender, but what about property rights? Rights against unlawful search? Slander and Libel? Murder? The old morality was pretty clear cut, but this new morality is undefined and uncertain until we wake up to the popular cause of the day. If the people can be swayed a particular way, new freedoms can be added, and old ones taken away with an enthusiastic shout from a podium, or whispered admonition from a grade-school teacher. There are no protections for our civil rights as a whole with subjective morality. They are perpetually uncertain and wax and wane with the frequency and fickleness of a popularity contest. With the rejection of the old morality, all our current civil rights are in question.