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

I shall simply post a conclusion, as per arrangements. As it is a conclusion, it'll be pretty short.I set out, in this debate, to refute a syllogism inherent in my opponent's argument. The inherent syllogism was this:P1 - If gay marriage is banned, then we should have civil unions. P2 - Gay marriage is bannedC1 - Therefore we should have civil unions.As a counterplan, I presented my own.P1 - If gay marriage is banned, we should have SSM legalised rather than have civil unionsP2 - Gay marriage is bannedC1 - Therefore, we should [change the law and] have SSM legalised.This syllogism is about modernising and fixing the law. Civil Unions, which are marriages of a same-sex couple with less rights than a marriage cannot be coupled with a normal marriage: it's legalising marriage whilst criminalising marriage. Thus, we have a dichotomy: SSM, or civil unions. I have given 3 reasons why SSM should be legalised: it is democratic, it promotes rights, and it is promoted by an inverse slippery slope.DemocraticFirstly, in a modern democratic society, such as America. My opponent cites evidence that is meaningless to the debate to promote their cause, such as the religion of people in America. Unfortunately, my opponent seems not to realise that the majority of people still want SSM. Saying it does not fit in with religious belief is untrue, as I provided many religious groups, including many Christian ones, which promote SSM. This case survives scrutiny, and alone demands legalisation of SSM. There has been no reason to suggest that we should not listen to democracy: our society is based on it, after all. The majority of modern countries are democratic, and would do well to put in place the democratic consensus. ReligionMy opponent cites Bible verses at me to state the law. The irony is, the Bible says we should kill the homosexual demographic. My opponent has contradicted her own case, and any promotion of civil unions would contradict this. If we accept this argument, we cannot have civil unions. If we accept my argument, we have SSM instead. Any addressal of this point, through necessary, would be a new argument. Further, a debate in theology is pointless. So I shall revert to my previous point: Catholics, Protestants, Evangelists, Orthodoxists, and many many other churches all want SSM. It is a shame that my opponent has to attempt a new theological argument in the final round. And regarding my opponent's final paragraph before the final final statement, he states that he provided proof showing that the voters are against SSM, and SSM would be legal if more people who were for SSM voted. I see this purely as an inescapable turn: that because the majority still want SSM legalised, then it should be. What this means is solely that the non-voters need to vote, be loud, and start making noise. Sitting back is what the problem is. However, now, especially after recent events regarding SSM such as Obama's promoting of SSM combined with California's turn, would be where the voters are now the most active, and votes on the issue would make massive reforms.To conclude, I have provided strong reasons why SSM should be in place instead of Civil Unions. Civil Unions are marriages which grant only partial rights to married couples. I am promoting a full recognition and rights for those who are married. This is a reasonable request, and should be in place over civil unions. Thank you.