Gays should be allowed to marry.

I apologize for calling you a guy, saying "him, his" etc.. is just a habit But honestly, this debate would be much more enjoyable for us and the readers if you were not constantly sarcastic and rude. I would also like to ask that you do not spam that the voters vote pro on the bottom of every round. Due to the restriction on characters, i will point out the meaning of each of he arguments rather than stating the whole quote. With exceptions. Now for your "Hello? Look up the definition of gay. OH, wait I already did" I know the definition of gay but thank you. But you simply did not specify how gays should be able to marry other gays in the title. If you had, it would be much more clear. Because I could simply win this debate by stating that gays can in fact marry, but because i know what you meant i will act as thought that is what you said. "And the government cannot change the meaning of marriage because of the Tenth Amendment,which clearly gives states and/or the people the power...not the government so that makes your Second argument null." First of all, yes the tenth amendment does prohibit the change, that is another reason why it should not be allowed. And second yes it does give the people the power, that is what a democracy means, you just contradicted yourself saying that we do not live in a democracy and now your saying we do. I ask that my opponent does a little research and knows what she is talking about before stating things she does not know. I clearly do not need to, but i will point out that does not make my second argument null. ____________________________________________ "I contradicted myself now saying that people should be able to do what they want." " we live in a DIRECT REPUBLIC not a democracy.." I did not contradict myself. I said the people have the power and that is how our laws are made, thus over half the population is against it, therefore we have the law that will not change. I did not say that everyone has the right to do what they want. Please if your going to quote and argue my points, argue them correctly and do not put words in my debate so to speak. And we live in a "Constitution-based federal republic; with strong democratic tradition" actually. -www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html do your research. _________________________________________________ "there would be no law requiring any church to marry any couple they do not with too, they can already refuse any couple they wish. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted." Just because there are select and few individual pastors that would want to do so, does not mean that it is not true, a majority are against it. You are simply confusing law with pastors and priests ability to choose whether or not to marry other races etc.. They are still legal, just because some will refuse does not make it illegal. But your point, that does not mean that it should be legal just because the pastors have the choice, it is the will of the people, not just the pastors, as i have stated. ____________________________________________________ I will not argue the same quote but i wanted to argue a part of it separately. "Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted." Your right it would not, but i did not argue that, that was not one of my points, you are the one that brought that up, not me. And i also did not say that freedom of religion would be contracted, Again please stop putting words in my mouth/debate. _________________________________________________ "THE AMERICAN BIBLE HAS NO STANDING WHATSOEVER IN AMERICAN LAW" Why should Catholics & Christians be considered above all religions? It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. " "Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - " "One does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well." Your right, it does not. That is why we should not allow the government to alter marriage, because it should not be in their power to do so. I did not say that Catholics and Christians should be above all religions, the state cannot alter other religions as well. Freedom of religion is irrelevant to this debate. Separation of church and state only suggests that we keep marriage between a man and a woman due to the fact that separation of church and state prohibits them from mandating one another, and since it is a religious ceremony, government should have no say. Please provide sufficient proof that it goes against ever grain of the first amendment, and please also provide sufficient proof that if one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion. If you knew what freedom of religion was, then you would know it means you have the right to practice any religion you wish, and nobody is trying to force our doctrines on anyone else, you are simply confusing a religious ceremony, with one that is not, but marriage is a religious ceremony. ________________________________________________ Now, since my opponent has not put forth any new arguments, i will continue to argue hers from round two. "1) My first argument is that 'marriage is NOT an institution between a man and a woman.' I will prove this throughout this argument. First off we have to look at what marriage means to people." First of yes, as of since it was created until even now marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. The fact that some homosexuals want to get married does not alter institution of it. In order to prove what it does institute, marriage we actually technically do not need to look at what it means to people, that does not change it. "2)My second argument is that 'Gay relationships are NOT immoral.'" Since we cannot actually prove whether it is immoral or not, since it is to some people and it is not to other people, instead i will just prove its irrelevance. Whether or not it is, that does not mean that it should be allowed. My opponent is simply confusing government and religion, saying that government should be able to regulate religion but religion should not be able to effect government, please explain on how this is right. ____________________________________________________________________________________ My arguments: By my opponents arguments, it is apparent that she thinks that pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, polygamy should be legal as well. She has conceded that this is a democracy, but provided no sufficient proof as of why we should go against the majority of the population and change the law. Gays should not need a piece of paper saying married to prove and know their live for one another. There are non religious civil unions for gays and lesbians so that they get the same benefits. A man and a man is not marriage regardless of what the government or pro gays say. same sex marriage is not a fundamental right Homosexuality is still a suspect class, therefore we should not change the law for something we are not for certain of.