Gays should be allowed to marry.

Pertaining to the following points, we can derive that you are in agreement with me: You agree that "For gays not to receive benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage would be archaic and discriminatory." You agree that "Benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage should be available to all couples." You agree that all of the current "marital benefits" currently associated with legal marriage should be given to both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and by not giving such rights and benefits would be discrimination. You agree that the church should not be prohibited from conducting gay marriage services. As I mentioned in my previous round: We should not intervene with the church's own philosophies. If such a service were to occur, it is the church's private matter, which is to be respected. We also agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is bad. However, our reasoning for this differs. You say that the term "marriage" should include both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I say that the term "marriage" should not be given an explicit definition by the government at all, and that the individual church should decide for itself what should be recognized by the church. As mentioned in my previous round, the only part we are in fact debating is what term we should use to describe those governmentally-bestowed benefits. So, in essence, all we have to do is determine which term is most appropriate and applicable for governmental purposes. Again, regardless of which term is used, the governmentally-bestowed benefits remains constant. "You have not explained why religious origins are bad. Many churches and all courtrooms will honor gay marriage." I am not at all saying that religious origins are bad. I am just saying that if it does have religious origins, then it is not the duty of the government to manipulate it. As well, I still stand by what I said in the previous round: With consent of the church or any religious organization, people may still acquire a "marriage" by means of its religious institution definition, in which a service can be provided or whatever the religious organization desires to do, and this ought to cover the theological aspects of a religious marriage. Therefore, with the consent of the church, any gay couple can still be married. However, a governmentally-recognized civil union will ensure the governmentally-bestowed rights and benefits. Additionally, the fact that courtrooms honor gay marriage is great. However, this still does not change its status as a religious term. "As well, our government ought to require employers to recognize civil union status. (Oboeman) - The New Hampshire government requires this however this is not accomplished. And will not be accomplished through anything but marriage." (Policydebategod) + Our state and federal governments should work harder to enforce civil union recognition among employers. (Oboeman) And, like I said in the preceding round: Obviously some decisions are decided at the national level, some at the individual state level. I think that the issue of civil unions ought to be decided at the national level; no state should ignore civil union status, and I think it ought to be federally recognized. If this idea pertaining to civil unions being recognized at the nation level were to be implemented, homosexual couples would no longer be limited as to where they may or may not live while being recognized by the government. Therefore, the benefits would apply everywhere in the nation, so they would not have to settle in any specified area; civil union recognition would be universal throughout the country. (Oboeman) "Perhaps it is best that other citizens come to accept other people's achievements, rather than saying it has no importance. (Oboeman) - Duh. But we will not get that." (Policydebategod) + If it remains such a problem, then our education system should educate the nation's children about people who choose to live their lives differently from others. This will yield a greater tolerance for gay and lesbian couples. (Oboeman) "Gay marriages can still be recognized, but like all marriages, I think they should just be recognized by the church, assuming the individual church has no objection. (Oboeman) - Then you agree with same sex marriage. All we want is for marriage to be recognized by everybody and for everybody. I don't see why gays are excluded from society like some modern caste system or jim crow." (Policydebategod) + Remember, I am personally not against gay marriages, I just think the individual church should ultimately be in charge of it. (Oboeman) "Next, you state that heterosexual marriages not being recognized would lead to riots in the streets, and could further lead to a civil war. However, anyone who desires to be married and have a marriage service conducted by a religious organization is most welcome to do just that. In fact, most marriages today ARE indeed performed in such a manner. The only difference here is that a couple would need civil union status, regardless of their being heterosexual or homosexual, in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits. (Oboeman) - Most marriages are performed by the church and should be if wanted. That marriage should be marriage instead of civil unions." (Policydebategod) + If my plan were to be implemented by the government, people who wanted to would still be married, by the church. Pretty much, the only difference would be that the government would grant the couple civil union status. Again, any couple can acquire such status in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits. My opponent's P.S. TO VOTERS response is a bit flawed. I am totally for gay rights and for them receiving the same governmental rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. As I said previously, marriage will be just as abundant, but the church would be in charge of it, not the government. The government would give civil union rights and benefits (same rights and benefits currently associated with legal marriage) to all heterosexual and homosexual couples. As well, every couple would receive civil union status, in addition to their choosing of getting married. Again, many churches and religious organizations respect gay marriages at the current. The individual church decides what to recognize as marriage. But there are still governmental-ensured rights and benefits for all. As I stated in a previous round: I do agree, at the time, non-religious people get married on a regular basis. However, I am assuming that you are inferring to the current "legal marriage," which bestows the rudimentary rights and benefits currently associated with the term. However, under my argument, the term would just be altered to a completely non-religious term, so that these non-religious people would still acquire the same benefits and rights. So, ultimately, non-religious people would still be able to receive the same governmental rights and benefits, it just would not officially be called "legal marriage," but instead civil unions. I do think that each individual church and religious institution is a private organization. Therefore, they ought to decide their own principals based upon their own philosophies, not be forced to follow those of the government. Again, most religious institutions recognize gay marriages, which is beneficial. But imposing the government's own arbitrary philosophies upon religious organizations is wrong. I am totally against any form of exclusionism, as it is unethical and wrong. Therefore, I ask that the readers and voters of this debate vote CON. I thank policydebategod for challenging me to this enthralling discussion. The debate was fun. Thank you, Oboeman.