Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals.

To rebut: Pro is arguing that religion provides a better grounding for morality specifically through the lens of gay marriage. He points out that "Forty years ago, you would barely find someone who believed in gay marriage as being right". He says that like it is a good thing; I do not believe it was, and there are religious groups who agree. Since "religion" as a whole does not agree with Pro (nor could it, as it encompasses a huge swath of opinions), is Pro arguing that religion is a better grounding, or that his religion is a better grounding? And upon what grounds? Pro claims that "religions will always have a set line that shouldn't be crossed". I've already shown how that isn't the case; the examples I gave of religious groups that now accept gay marriage clearly changed their minds on the matter. Thus, religion is just as capable of having "movable morals". I remind Pro of the sheer number of laws in the Bible that call for the death penalty. Is he advocating as much for the death penalty to those who pick up sticks on the sabbath? Or a betrothed woman who doesn't shout loud enough when she's being raped? And even taken at face value, morals having no basis in rationality or possibility of change only make sense if you accept premises of religion that not everyone accepts, such as the moral perfection of the lawgiver. If that isn't presumed, then what you potentially have are WRONG moral prescripts that are unchangeable. Is it Pro's position better to have wrong morals so long as they don't change? Pro goes on to say that the bible speaks against homosexuality. He gives no grounds why that's a good thing, instead appealing to a "slippery slope" when he asks us to "imagine what will be allowed by society movable morality [sic] in the next few decades. " Pro has not established why an "immovable morality" is inherently better than a movable one. I would argue that, indeed, it is not. Arguments about the "immovable morality" of the bible were used to justify slavery, until society's "movable morals" let us see how wrong it was. Pro closes with two false equivalencies: "Religions= non movable lines of morality that shouldn't be crossed. Right is right and wrong is wrong. " As previously noted, I have showed this as both not inherently true, and not necessarily a good thing even if it is. "Secular= movable lines of morality. Right is right and wrong can also be right. This leaves no room for wrong. " This is a straw man argument. Secular morality is not inherently nihilistic. Secular morality requires the application of reason to moral arguments. Morality that never changes is only good if you already presuppose that it is perfect. Absent that presupposition, you run the risk of enshrining wrong morals forever, if you accept Pro's already-shown-to-be-fallacious argument that religious morality never changes. Pro has given no reason for us to think that gay marriage is wrong, or that homosexuality is immoral, but he claims that society's acceptance of those things makes his view of religion better, because it hasn't changed. The same argument could be applied to slavery, to the murder of those of other faiths, and to acceptance of rape (as long as you try to marry the victim). This is not intended as an attack on the bible, per se, but rather to point out that Pro's view on the immobility of morality is dramatically flawed. Morality should be based on reason, and when society realizes it has made a mistake, it is reason which should allow us to realize and fix it. I look forward to my opponent's response.