Gay marriage

I believe you are misinterpreting my previous arguments about the foundation of marriage, I never mentioned the bible or any books of, not even Leviticus. I was and still am saying that the purpose of marriage, as it was even in ancient Jewish times, is to bind a couple spiritually. My opponent says he does not believe man has spirit, then there would be no need to marry at all, since living together would be satisfactory enough and marriage is an institution of the spirit, not a social status like dating. Since there is no proof against spirit and far more proof of, such as ghosts, spirits, stories, and encounters, then I believe this point leans in my favor. Secondly, my proof for same sex couples marrying for tax cuts is not bigoted like you attacked with. They are not marrying for religious purposes, and living together provides almost the same aspects, just not the binding of a spirit, then the only worldly part remaining are the tax cuts that follow marriage. As you say on your point number four, Saying religion doesn't have a patent over marriage is like saying governments don't have patents over taxes. As the definition states, it is recognized by law, not made or defined. We can agree, I feel that living together can provide them with what they are seeking. As for samesex adoption, it is only illegal in one state, Florida. And a current study is finishing the largest survey of the academics and social interactions of those raised by same sex couples. In short that study is not looking good for those raised in same sex homes. (. http://www.adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org...) Point five seems to be an attack on religion, since priests and ministers would be required to marry the couple if it becomes federal law. And since priests and ministers are parts of the religion that does not recognize gay marriage as being gods will, then it is more than offensive, it is a sheer destruction of the first amendment by making them conform to something that is against their religion. (The Constitution of The United States of America) In regards to your points, it would only be democratic if their were absolutely no person in America that opposes it. If they do, then the constitution serves no person and is destroyed. When that happens we will no longer be a country run off democracy, but one which the happiness of people rules. And everyone knows that money and objects make people happy so there will be an increase in crime. In this beautiful country we have now, all people ARE created equal. They are not created the same though, and this is where the debate has started. Allowing same sex couples to adopt children also hinders democracy. The child will not have a say and, they can not choose a home with both a motherly and fatherly figure. They will be denied the access to one no matter what. And studies are currently coming in against modern trends of the media to be in opposition of allowing this. But since modern media and activists claim that marriage is a right, and that men should be able to marry men and women marry women, then they must provide legiment proof that marriage is a right granted to all citizens. And, if that proof is indeed enough, then all people must have the right to marry whomever, whenever, and whatever they want. Wether that be polygamy, beastiality(which indeed some people are fighting for), or underage marriage. If we were to accept gay marriage, then we would be forced to accept other things which we know are morally wrong, also. This will in turn destroy American values and tradition. Thank you pro for this debate, it has been the first one I've enjoyed and actually taken part in for a while so again thank you. To the audience, I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have.