Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

(For clarity, SSM is same sex marriage, and R[x] means R followed by a number, meaning Round, then the number of the round. e.g. R1 = Round One) My opponent seems to have constructed her argument in a way which makes it seem that I am against civil unions as I am against unions of the same sex. I'd like to clarify: I am constructing a counterplan argument here. A counterplan argument is, for those who do not know, an argument where I propose a better solution to the problem my opponent is discussing. The problem The reason my opponent wants civil unions, as outlined in the first round, is twofold. The first is that: "most if not all religions are against gay people, and or gay marriages. Since allowing this would contradict religious and traditional beliefs" (R1)-- this can be summarised that religious people would get angry at the legalisation of gay marriage. The second is that: "Gays need to have equal rights" (R2). This is simple. I maintain that we should legalise Same Sex Marriage. The reason is simple: the first problem is an inexistent or irrelevant one, and the second is solved better (in impact calculus) through Gay marriage. Thus, SSM is the best solution. To summarise so far, SSM is the best solution, better than civil unions. Thus, the resolution would be negated. The primary reason why we should ignore the religious aspect is because marriage is not religious. The moment marriage becomes possible for non-Christians, or the irreligious, marriage stops having a religious aspect. Further, the moment marriage starts being done outside of the church, such as by the government, then it stops being a religious institution. It’s history, granted, is a religious one, but that does not mean that it is currently religious. When the irreligious get married in irreligious backdrops, calling marriage religious is irrational. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy."[1] Further, saying it will annoy religious people, I am forced to respond with “So What?” Not carpooling annoys environmentalists, abortion annoys pro-lifers and jews annoy Nazis. It’s the way the democratic world works. A pressure group forms, it makes its case, a counter-group forms, and they make their case. The public then decide. And what has the public decided? As visible from the graph, the public in general are now in favour of SSM. Thus, it should be democratically legalised. I also want to bring in the socially libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation I posted before by Olson, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. No body has the power to state whether one should be allowed to be married, nor is a lesser alternative promote this. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J.S.Mill:"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression... Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling..."[2]In other words, we must have the state protect our ability to do as we wish, and stop social tyranny. We cannot have a system where systems "could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation". We have a moral imperative give people the choice to be able to choose to act as they wish, and not force our will on others. This means giving them SSM if wanted.