You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece

For the sake of easier debate, I will number my arguments. Good luck. 1. "The explicit "legalization" of such a joint institution would have the effect of establishing some "Christian Church" as having a veto on state approval of contracts not necessarily involving said "Christian Church", despite it's dictate to approve gays. I.e., it would establish some "Christian Church" (or some bastardized version thereof) as the state religion, and also require "consent" from that church from gay marriage"." ___A. "The explicit legalization of such a joint would have the effect of establishing some "Christian Church" as having a veto on state approval of contracts not necessarily involving said "Christian Church" The explicit legalization of gay marriage would not require, support, or suggest a state operated / approved church, but rather redefine marriage as a legal contract, and move the religious aspect of marriage from "mandatory" to "optional" ____B. "...or some bastardized version thereof..." Definition: Bastard - 1. a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child. 2. slang - a viscious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) (note - this definition is not stipulated and therefore is arguable) Violation: Third stipulation; slanderous argument yields emotional appeal. ____C. The passage of a law establishing a "state religion" is "respecting an establish of religion" as dictated by the first amendment and would thus legally have to be rejected by the US Congress. 2. "This would lead indubitably to discrimination against non-Christians, or at the very least require them to sit through a Christian ceremony to achieve some legal status, thus requiring them to sanction those beliefs." ____A. This argument depends entirely on the argument addressed in argument 1A. If it is not applicable then neither is this. ____B. I would also like to point out the fact that by this argument my opponent has conceded that discrimination against non-Christians is fundamentally negative. 3. "Tossing the term marriage to the side in order to establish "civil unions" as the sole governmental involvement in that domain is no great problem. So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution (i.e. Marriage license requests of the Catholic Church can be denied by the Catholic Church, fulfilling the slice's requirement, but it cannot deny requests made of, say, a Synagogue, since it has no part in fulfilling those requests), that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion." ____A. "Tossing the term marriage to the side in order to establish "civil unions" as the sole governmental involvement in that domain is no great problem." "Tossing the term marriage to the side" causes a definite distinction between Christians and Non Christians and, by extension, gays and straights, which will invariably lead to the discrimination that my opponent has so honestly labeled as inherently wrong, and that will also worsen the inherent situation in which discrimination against gays is not only socially accepted, but the popular opinion. My plan, to put the religious part of marriage in a "separate package," prevents this from occurring and will help to ease the popular discrimination against gays by not labeling "religious marriage" and "non-religious marrage" separately. ____B. "So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution ... that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion." __________1. "So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution" In my plan, this condition will be applicable. __________2. "...that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion." Again, my plan dictates no state establishment of religion because such an establishment is unethical, unnecessary, and illegal. 4. My plan is superior to that of my opponent for several reasons. The first is that my opponent's plan establishes a finite and definite distinction between the the joining of a religious couple and the joining of a nonreligious couple, and, by extension, a gay couple, whereas my plan will create no distinction and therefore prevent discrimination against non-Christians and alleviate discrimination against gays. The second is that the establishment of procedures to provide civil union licenses, etc. will require a massive investment by the government both in human resources and with the growing $1.3 trillion that has been, and is being, created by the Bush Administration the government is in no state to invest in something that harmful and menial. While other reasons that my plan is superior exist, these two are the prime examples and the only ones that I will enter into the debate at the present time.