Same Sex Marriage should be legal, because religious observance and parenthood are optional.

It is very civil, well written, and intelligent. This is something that is not typically found in discussions around these often very touchy topics. To continue in my rebuttal, I will address some segments of my opponents rebuttal. This is not done to attempt to overlook any of his points, nor to twist his words, simply selecting what I feel was the "point" of each paragraph. If anyone feels my assessment is incorrect or inappropriate, please leave a comment to that effect. "The law could not force churches to recognize interracial, interdenominational, interfaith, or same-sex marriages because they are protected by the First Amendment. However, the clergy cannot dictate which citizens can engage in the current system of Civil Matrimony, without consistently applicable secular arguments. " While I find the information provided here to be generally correct, it is not the clergy specifically of any church or religious organization that would dictate the permission or lack of permission. The citizen members of all churches have an equal voice in the form of their vote. While it is within each members power to make their own choice, many will follow the tenants of their faith on the subject. "It is worth stating that these groups have not expressed the same passionate interest in enacting laws to reflect many other provisions for marriage dictated by their respective faiths, such as a law to prevent divorce, or laws to prevent marriages of people with different religions. " While this statement is accurate, it should also be noted that by and large most religions follow a generally similar ideology and process when it comes to the topic of marriage. In this respect the denominational differences from one to the other are not so far removed as to make one take ideological exception to the processes of another. "Religious communities should address the issue of same-sex marriage much in the same way that they address dietary laws across religious lines. " Addressing in this method blurs the lines of both law and faith. The issue of same-sex marriage, is one of secular law, not spiritual law. While many people draw on their faith to make their decision in regard to their opinion on law, they do not by and large utilize it to coerce other faiths to do things their way. With certain exceptions, mostly of a cultural nature, the vast majority of faiths do not utilize law, be it their own or their nations, to subvert the operations of other faiths. " "According to Hebrew dietary laws (Kashrut), and Muslim dietary laws (Halal), people are not to consume pork. These groups are able to practice their faith without enacting laws to prevent other people from eating pork, nor do they require laws to practice their own faith. Citizens of the United States who do not follow these dietary laws need not abstain from eating pork to 'respect the beliefs' of the practitioners. Likewise, same-sex couples do not need to abstain from legal marriage to show 'respect' for religions that do not condone same-sex marriage or relationships. As my opponent offers no support of using religion to justify laws against same-sex marriage, I have nothing more to explain on this point in the current debate. " Laws are created by the influence of the people. I do not believe for a minute that a majority of some of the more radical denominations of faiths would hold back in creating laws that forced others into accepting their practices. It is the majority who prevent this from happening. Early tribes were typically governed by a spiritual leader, or by one who deferred to a spiritual leader. This was long before there were nations and laws created by them. As these tribes became nations, they brought with them their beliefs, and those beliefs would help mold them into their laws. Historically, laws and cultures change when the belief of the majority changes and thereby influences. This is reflected by both the enactment and later repeals in the United States of the Sodomy Laws, which I'm sure many would agree is a milestone in the journey of legalizing unions of same gender couples. "I will accept the suggested solution offered by my opponent, to effectively absolve the government from the use of the term 'marriage', however, such an act would effectively legalize same-sex marriage across the United States. I am not sure if that is the intended effect that my opponent was trying to establish, but if all parties that enter into a Civil Union (to be the universal replacement term for Civil Marriage) are free to call their union a 'marriage', then all same-sex couples that obtain Civil Unions (alongside all mixed-sex couples) would be able to refer to their union as a 'marriage'. The provision for reclassifying marriage as a religious institution would only complicate matters, as marriage in and of itself is not a religious institution. Although many religions have ceremonies and rules for marriage, there is no central religion to which the term would be given, and the non-religious cannot be prevented from enjoying the use of the term 'marriage', especially by any act of congress under the current Constitution (USA). " The individual terms that people use in day to day conversation to describe things is not always the same as what is the "proper" terminology. This does not however reduce or remove the technical aspect of what is procedurally correct. "In conclusion, I understand the desire to 'protect' what a group finds to be sacred, but the concept of marriage does not belong to any particular religion, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. If groups wish to effectively ban same-sex couples from getting married, they need only provide universal, consistently applicable, and secular justifications to establish permanent laws on the issue, where the arguments will be able to stand on their own merits, rather than the popularity of the view, or conviction of those who hold them. Citizens should not be expected to follow arbitrarily selected tenets of the faiths of others as a sign of respect to that religion. " At current groups need not do anything to prevent same gender couples from getting married. In addition, they need only provide justification if they wish to sway the opinion of another person. While I agree that people should not be forced to follow the faith doctrine of others, they are bound as citizens to follow the laws of the land that they are citizens of. It is by this measure that I state that if same gender marriages SHOULD be allowed, then by the will of the majority of the people they WILL. As it currently stands, this is not the case. I look forward to our third round.