Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Considering that I've already extended my arguments and my opponent clearly forfeited a round, I'm already winning this debate through the argumentation and conduct point. However, for the sake of providing a response, I will do so accordingly. [PRO Case]Contention 1: My opponent's response to my first contention isn't so much an argument inasmuch as it is a statement that another group of people's rights may be infringed with the passage of gay marriage. My opponent concurs that the denial of gay marriage will create second-class citizens and inhibit the right to marriage, so inevitably, this contention is extended across the flow. As we can agree, denial of gay marriage violates rights. My opponent's only response is that churches would be forced to do gay marriages even though marriages can be held in other locations. This is proven through my opponent's own 60% comment. If 40% of marriages occur outside of churches, it shows that gay marriages have multiple locations where they can be held and won't necessarily have to infringe on the spaces of conservative Christianity. My opponent states that churches could be sued for a gay marriage despite the fact that he provides no cases where a gay couple was able to successfully force a church to give a gay marriage as upheld through a gay marriage law. In my argument, I would state that churches shouldn't be required to hold gay marriages that they don't support, but the fact that there are other locations where marriages can be done show that the rights of Christians and gays can be made equal to some degree. As my opponent clearly agrees, the total denial of gay marriage infringes on rights totally. As the readers can see, the PRO world can better support all rights than the CON world. Contention 2: It's a good thing that my argument is not only that gay marriage can be socially productive, but as I've explained, the acceptance of gay marriage better provides justice for gay couples while still upholding the religious rights of those in opposition of gay marriage. My opponent claims that allowing gays to get married will cause more turmoil and strife. The petty reactions of those opposing the equal rights of gays is not a legitimate reason for the government disapproval of gay marriage. To deny gay rights simply because people don't like it is similar to an ad Populum argument, which is just a fallacy. Furthermore, my opponent proves neither the extremities or the existence of the turmoil and strife. [CON case]Definition: My opponent fails to understand that legalization of gay marriage will require a change in the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in the current federal sense is what we're arguing in this debate, and for my opponent to use the definition in defense of itself is just circular reason. He also is stating that gay marriage should not be legalized because the current law states that marriage is between man and woman, so he's boiling his first reason for not supporting gay marriage to the following: gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because gay marriage is illegal, even though we're questioning whether or not we should change the law. He's also implying that the law is supreme and ultimate by saying that gay marriage is illegal. Laws aren't always just or correct, as Jim Crow laws, slavery, laws against women voting, and others have shown us, and the fact that my opponent concurs that laws against gay marriage violate rights shows that the illegality of gay marriage should be changed. Children and gay couples: First of all, Barack Obama is not a sociologist neither does he specify where this information was attained, so already my opponent's sources are completely skewed. My opponent claims that children will suffer under gay parenting. My evidence says otherwise: "To evaluate that concern, William Meezan and Jonathan Rauch review the growing body of research on how same-sex parenting affects children. After considering the methodological problems inherent in studying small, hard-to-locate populations—problems that have bedeviled this literature—the authors find that the children who have been studied are doing about as well as children normally do. What the research does not yet show is whether the children studied are typical of the general population of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. A second important question is how same-sex marriage might affect children who are already being raised by same-sex couples. Meezan and Rauch observe that marriage confers on children three types of benefits that seem likely to carry over to children in same-sex families. First, marriage may increase children’s material well-being through such benefits as family leave from work and spousal health insurance eligibility. It may also help ensure financial continuity, should a spouse die or be disabled. Second, same-sex marriage may benefit children by increasing the durability and stability of their parents’ relationship. Finally, marriage may bring increased social acceptance of and support for same-sex families, although those benefits might not materialize in communities that meet same-sex marriage with rejection or hostility. " [1] Question to my opponent: If I provide evidence that the quality of parenting by a gay couple has equal ability to produce healthy children as a heterosexual couple, would this drop your second point? [1] "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children," 97