It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

Ok, I'm just going to start my debate, and hope you all vote on the arguments, not the debaters of these rounds. Thank you. Before I state my arguments, I feel compelled to state a little context over which this debate will be held. I'll start by defining the topic using Merriam Webster: LEGAL: 1: of or relating to law 2 a: deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure b: having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular c: established by law ; especially : statutory 3: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules 4: recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity 5: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members 6: created by the constructions of the law NON-RELIGIOUS: take the following definition and use the opposite 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity 2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances 3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent , zealous HOMOSEXUALS: 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex MARRY: 1 a: to join in marriage according to law or custom b: to give in marriage c: to take as spouse : wed d: to perform the ceremony of marriage for e: to obtain by marriage 2: to unite in close and usually permanent relation intransitive verb 1: to take a spouse : wed 2: combine , unite ï¿½€" marry into : to become a member of by marriage PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER: I'm not going to define this, since I think you all know what I mean. MARRIAGE: 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3: an intimate or close union Let us assume that for this debate, we are talking about people in the United States marrying people in the United States. Contention 1: Homosexual people are equal in every way except that they prefer to love a person of the same gender. There is nothing inherently wrong in who they love. Why should we be allowed to control them. Homosexuals to not protest heterosexual marriages. Why should we protest theirs? Contention 2: Freedom of Expression. When you are marrying someone, you are expressing you love and compassion for them. If you look at the definition of marriage above, only one part of it mentioned people of different genders. However, if you look at the definition, there is a "or." In other words, having 2 people be a different gender is not important. Contention 3: Religion has nothing to do with this debate, so don't bring it up. Also, if my opponent is going to try to argue that marriage is a institution of the church, again, look to the definitions. Contention 4: Having children should not be a requirement for a marriage. Many couples get married and do not have children, even if it is male-female. Even so, homosexual couples can have children if they so wish. Modern technology is such that you do not have to use traditional ways to have children. Contention 5: If the homosexual couples do indeed have children, but cannot marry, what kind of message are you sending the children? If Mommie and Mommie really do love each other, why aren't they married??? You have to see this in the eyes of a child. Do you really think that a child will understand the fact that to government(only a distant thing in their minds) is not letting their parents get married, even though they love each other??? Clearly, there is something wrong with that. I'll stop here and let my opponent answer the arguments above. However, I do not want this debate to turn into a debate about the semantics of the topic. You all know what I am talking about. DON'T TURN THIS INTO A SEMANTICS DEBATE.