Gay marrige

Okay lets look at my adversaries argument. She states that denying gay marriage is to take away someones rights. This could be construed that way, but it is not the case. For me to address this we will need to look at what the institution of marriage is and where it came from.Marriage in itself is based on and originated from church doctrine. I will admit it crosses state levels in some regards, but this is completely obvious by the qualifications to be ordained to marry someone. Most states normally require an ordained member of the church to perform a ceremony. Some states do not require a member of the church, and this has been changing over the years, but I would venture to say around 90 percent of the people who perform marriage ceremonies are some type of Christians or have an religious affiliation with the church. You can look through this link at how many states call it "clergy" or "church"http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...When we acknowledge that marriage is a religious institution, we then must look at what rights are we denying someone if we were to deny them the right to be married. If you were to deny someone the right to be married, you would be denying them benefits that married couples receive from jobs and tax benefits, such as insurance, healthcare, and tax returns. This would be a major issue if it were the case. That is the entire reason a civil union was set in place. It is a way for homosexuals to receive the same benefits as regular heterosexual couples who are married without actually infringing upon the sanctity of the church. Bear in mind civil unions are still a work in progress and vary from state to state, but I think the most viable argument would be to improve on civil unions and have them offered on a federal level. This would shut the religious people up, and allow them to keep the ideology behind marriage and the church. If we can also acknowledge that marriage is a church institution, claiming anyone has the right to be married within it is a fallacy. It would be the equivalent of offering free health care to illegal immigrants who live in the USA. Now my adversary claims one thing within the premise of her argument(A1) People are judging homosexuals and this is wrong. Everyone deserves the right to be happy. This is a valid statement but we must look at it from a literal standpoint. Just because religious people disagree with how someone chooses to live their lives, does not necessarily make it wrong. If we were to knock on their door and force gay marriage to happen in churches that did not want it, that would be the same thing as what Christians do to most of us atheist and non believers. Essentially slamming the word of God down our throat, when we have no desire to hear it. Everyone has a predisposition of certain people in some way. I don't think a majority of religious people in the USA hate gay couples, they just disagree with the idea of them being married and don't understand it. This is not out of hate but born from a lack of understanding and because of their worldview. While this is admirable is not a valid reason to legalize gay marriage by itself. As i have shown, by legalizing civil unions on a federal level we could avoid huge conflicts with the church. It would allow them to keep the institution that they claim is their own, and it would offer homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals once we regulate and improve upon it. Where as my opponent is very kind with her thoughts, words, and desire for civil equality she has presented no reason for me to believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Thank you