Resolved: Gay marriage would weaken the insitutuion of marriage

Note that my opponent has continuously strayed from the format I have set up with numbered and lettered points. This makes it easier to respond to each contention. In structuring my round like this, I can make it obvious to the audience which points Pro has dropped and/or conceded.C1 - A) Pro's source again compares homosexual relationships to MARRIAGES. They are not synonomous. I've explained why repeatedly. C1 - B) Pro says "Last I checked, marriage is supposed to be monomous." This fails to address my point that the concept of marriage changes and evolves over time as a society, and most definitely between individuals. C1 - C) Pro conceded (ignored) the fact that his statistics were flawed, and that heterosexuals cheat a great deal of times in their marriages. He also has failed to explain why gay people cheating on each other would mean heterosexual couples would likely start cheating on each other, inhibiting the concept of marriage... or that marriage requires monogamy to begin with (again, he ignored my points about polyamorous and/or polygamous relationships).C1 - D) Pro never answered my point. He said I contradicted myself which is blatantly not true. I gave a source proving that lesbians are statistically likely to stay in long-lasting and monogamous relationships, thereby strengthening Pro's proposition of what marriage ought to be (and they are gay). C1 - E) Pro hasn't explained why the "recent" propositions of marriage (though widely disputed, abused and ignored) ought to be strictly enforced. If the concept of marriage changes and evolves over time - which he admits - then why not continue to evolve? Pro never answered.C1 - F) Pro dropped the point that there is no contradiction in terms between marriage and gay marriage. C1 - G) Pro dropped my point that there is no right or wrong way for a couple to behave sexually. He repeats that monogamy is the right way; I've already negated that standard as being necessary for everyone. C1 - H) I said that Pro must prove that the behavior of people within gay relationships will affect how other people behave in their marriages. He completely failed to address this point throughout the debate. I then said he must explain why monogamy should be mandatory. Pro wrote, "It is universally accepted that marriages should be monogomous." That is entirely false. See: Mormons and polygamous marriage; polyamorous relationships; etc. He failed to provide an explanation. C2) Pro says, "if gays where allowed to marry then it would compound their dovorce rates into the overall number. It's not that hard to understand." Pro hasn't made the correlation as to how a higher divorce rate weakens the institution of marriage in general. Obviously with a 60% heterosexual divorce rate, we still acknowledge that marriages can be meaningful even if/though many couples divorce. C3) Pro said he would prove that self-esteem "doesn't exist" which he absolutely did not attempt to prove (for obvious reasons... i.e., he's ridiculously wrong). He proved my case with his own links and sources that the backlash from society is what makes gay people commit suicide at a higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts, and ignored my contention that treating gays equally - starting by recognizing gay marriage - would probably greatly reduce that figure. He said "Straights don't have support groups yet don't commit suicide, so that point is faulty." Uh, quite obviously "straights" don't need support groups because they are the majority, standard and are not singled out, abused, harassed and even killed for their sexuality like gay people are. They don't need support groups. Pro's logic is completely off. C4) Pro dropped my points (I don't have enough time to type them all out again, unfortunately). Please extend.C5) I'll just copy and paste my point since Pro never refuted it. Pro says some doctor proves that gay marriage increases out of wedlock births because allowing gay marriage changes the social outlook. First of all, plenty of people have divorced parents who are not married, so this is irrelevant. Second, Pro's source never proved that at all. Instead, it suggests that these births increased by 10% in the 10 year period between 1990 and 2000. However, out of wedlock births have increased EVERYWHERE even in placed where gay marriage wasn't legalized. Therefore, the link between the two has not been proven whatsoever... Now Pro says C6) Extend my point about divorce rates not necessarily affecting the validity or meaning of marriage. This is evidenced by the fact that divorce is legal and therefore a viable option. Most heterosexuals get divorced already. C7) Pro completely dropped his contention on religion and rightfully so. C8) I invited Pro to detail the benefits of marriage, and said I will explain exactly how and why homosexuals can experience the same benefits. He never specified anything thus we should assume he acknowledges that gay couples can experience the same benefits as straight people from marriage. There is nothing inherent about one's sexuality that would prevent them from receiving the same benefits from being in a special union: happiness, commitment, stability, love, more resources, etc. == Sources and Conclusion == I've proven that most of Pro's sources were bogus and biased. He sourced a legitimate anti-gay hate group. After bashing Conservapedia and the FRC, he sourced a church which is completely biased and non-credible (http://www.fachurch.org...), and other religious and anti-gay groups... My conclusion is the same: Pro has not established what marriage is supposed to be and its alleged benefits, or how gay marriage would negatively impact the institution. Instead he just includes anti-gay statistics in an attempt to depict gays as delinquents and unstable. He has not met his burden.