There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Thank you for your rebuttals! Here are my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments.First, my opponent says that homosexuals deserve the same rights as straight people, but that they draw the line at marriage. My opponent contradicts themself in one sentence. As I explained in my arguments, liberty is an unalienable right, like The Declaration of Independence states. [1] In fact, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained it like this when gay marriage was finally legalized in the U.S:"The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right." [2]Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [3]Under The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution gay marriage is a right, yet my opponent says that they disagree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.Next, my opponent says that marriage was created by God and that only He can change the definition."God created marriage? What god would that be? It wouldn't’t take more than five minutes to research the history of marriage, which goes back to prerecorded history. Evidence indicates that as long as 20,000 years ago the concept of monogamy, a precursor to formal marriage, was formed."The ancient Hebrews did not have a religious ceremony to bond couples; it was strictly a secular/societal/tribal convention for continuity of the tribal unit. So too was marriage among the American Indians, early Egyptians, ancient Greeks and Romans. Indeed virtually every ancient, pre-Jewish/Christian society had some form of marriage…all of which was a contract for societal, financial, or political reasons." [4]But doesn't The Bible say that the world is only 6,000 years old? [5] Well, there's evidence to go against that too, according to famous scientist Bill Nye."It’s just unreasonable. How can you have all these things we observe in nature and then conclude that the Earth is somehow 6,000 years old? Billions of people in the world are devoutly religious, and they’re apparently enriched by the communities that they belong to through their religions. But the Earth is not 6,000 years old. And there’s a deep irony that [creationists] exploit or take advantage of all that science brings them – Facebook, cellphones, the food system that we have here in the United States, which is extraordinarily safe – but then promote the idea that the way we came to have all this is somehow wrong." [6]Nye has talked about this on multiple occasions, like in a YouTube video for Big Think [7] and in his book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creationism. [8]With this evidence in mind, then we can conclude that God didn't create marriage.For their last argument, my opponent says that studies have concluded that men and women complement each other and that they're designed to relate to each other. Unfortunately, my opponent failed to cite any source for this claim, making this a bare assertion. Despite this, I'll but to refute it anyway.So because gay couples "don't complement each other" they shouldn't be allowed to marry? In my eyes that makes literally no sense. Not everyone is built the same way, nor does every person act to their "gender roles".To continue, my opponent states that even though a couple may be infertile, there's still a chance of having a child. This is contradictory.Infertile - (of a person, animal, or plant) unable to reproduce. [9]Let me repeat; if you're infertile, you have no chance of having a child. It's impossible. It's exactly the same way for a gay couple.To continue, my opponent then says that in a same-sex relationship, they usually see one person as being the "man" and the other person as the "woman". Again, this is sterotyping a man as being dominant and a woman as submissie when it could very well be the opposite. Gender roles aren't black and white."I can’t count the times I’ve been asked this question when people want to know about my sexual life. Really, what they should be asking is, 'Who takes control?' They’re confusing sex (our biological label) with sexual behavior because clearly, in a sexual relationship between two women, there is no man." [10]With an estimated 1,000,000 same-sex couples in the U.S alone, [11] not every single one of them is part of a sterotypical "man-woman" scenario. Again, I remember my opponent saying "I see in a lot of same sex couples that there is always one that acts more masculine and the other more feminine."Let's picture it this way: a lot of woman I've met wear dresses, so that obviously means that all women wear dresses too, right? No! This is just a generalization of what hypothetical me thinks women are like.Though I'm unable to do a defense of the length of this debate, I'd like to point out that my opponent dropped my arguments on separation of church and state, adoption increase, and economic benefit. Keep that in mind when voting either Pro or Con. Thank you for the debate. Citations[1]http://www.archives.gov... [2]http://www.slate.com...[3]https://www.google.com...[4]http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com...[5]http://www.creationtips.com...[6]http://www.usnews.com...[7][8]http://www.amazon.com...[9]https://www.google.com...[10]https://www.queerty.com...[11]http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...