Legallizing Gay Marriage Nationally

1: The ConstitutionPro has misread what Article 4, Section 2 means. It means that all citizen's shall have the privileges of being a citizen. One citizen may not be refused the legal rights (like right to a lawyer) that another has. If The Pro hadn't cherry-picked Article 4, Section 2, you would know this.Article 4, Section 2The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.(1,2,3)This article was cherry-picked by Pro.Pro has made unrelated and fallacious comparisons."What about Atheists? They can marry. Even Hindu can marry!! Yet, you continue to attack strictly gays."Being gay is a Sexuality, not a religion or nationality. Hindu's can't marry if they are gay, nor can atheists. Even gay Christians can't marry.The right to marry isn't granted by race, religion, or language, but by sexuality. The Pro's statement is irrelevant and poorly thought out."And though I do not agree, you could at least go for a law stating that the marriage ceremony is to be respected/seen as Christian,"The problem with getting such a law past is that Gay Rights Advocates wouldn't allow for such a law."As if gay people didn't have enough hate thrown at them everyday by friends, strangers, and family alike, this law has made them feel more like outcasts, unwanted."While this is Appeal to Emotion, I will respond to the second half of the paragraph. Gay People are not being excluded by the Government, because Marriage isn't Government-ran. Government may have laws reguarding it (which is controversial enough,) but the Laws are to only respect the Church's right to govern it's Institution. A religion has full right to exclude people. If I refuse you entrance into my house because you are gay, the Government is not the one excluding you because they say they can't do anything about it.If Marriage is governed by the Church, only the Church may choose who can get married, and the Government making laws regarding it is a violation of Church and State.[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...[3] http://usgovinfo.about.com...[]2: The Civil UnionIf only six states have Civil Unions, why don't you protest for more states to adopt Civil Unions? The reason why only six states have Civil Unions is because Gay people don't want something else... They aim to get their hands on something that doesn't belong to them or the Government.You claim 10 states recognize Gay Marriage, but than I can claim 34 do not recognize any Gay Union. Or that of the 196 nations in the world(4), only 15 recognize Gay Marriage.(5) This means 181 nations do not. The problem is that this is Appeal to the People. If we did accept it, though, you would be far behind.There is nothing wrong with Civil Unions that can't be fixed. They are a government-ran counterpart to Marriage. If only six state accept it, than focus on making Civil Unions more common, instead of intruding on an Institution of the Church.If Civil Unions do not offer the same benefits, than propose giving them the same benefits. Civil Unions exist in text... They are changeable and re-writable. If something is wrong with them, you don't have to violate the Separation of Church and State you spoke so highly of to get what you want. The Pro's argument is basically that because one thing is broken (Civil Unions) that could be easily fixed, we should instead break another (Marriage and Separation of Church and State.)[4] http://geography.about.com...[5] http://www.pewresearch.org...[]3: The Slippery SlopeThere isn't as much difference as you believe. It wasn't but 17 years ago that Gay Marriage was highly opposed by 68% of the public and accepted by only 27% of the public.(6) In 1958, only 4% approved of Gay Marriage, and 94% disapproved. As you open one door, things just kind of become 'okay' to other people who used to oppose it. With the changing opinions of teenagers and their race for complete freedom, marriage with children wouldn't be a far off possibility. What the polls show is that people become very lenient over time, accepting things that was considered a great Evil and highly immoral not but 40-50 years ago.(7)We see this in Gallup Polls that show that acceptance of Polygamy has doubled in the last decade.(8)If we legalize Gay Marriage, why can't we Legalize Polygamy or Bestiality?We can see in the prior poll how this works. Having a baby outside of marriage, or premarital sex were among the greatest sins in the world a century ago. Now they are at 60% and 63% approval, and have been increasing in massive amounts. Divorce, a great evil almost a century ago, is now the most morally acceptable evil on the list, at 68% approval, with an increase of 9% over the past decade.(7) This shows us how people's viewpoints change over time. If you allow Gay Marriage, it's a guarantee that Polygamy (who's approval rating has doubled in 12 years,) will be made legal, as well as Child Marriage and other forms of Marriage we can't conceive ever being legal.(7)It starts with setting a precedent that, if looked back on by the courts, will lead to immoral decisions such as legalization of polygamy. We must be careful what Precedent we set... We are responsible for the future of the nation, and we set the future with our decisions, and a Court Precedent is the greatest influence we have on the future.[6] http://www.gallup.com...[7] http://www.deseretnews.com...[8] http://www.gallup.com...[]To sum it up, the Government may not intrude on the rights of the Church, and have to respect the Church's decisions and who the church feels it should grant Marriage to. Legalizing Gay Marriage is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and the powerful concept of Separation of Church and State, whereas not legalizing Gay Marriage violates nothing in the Constitution.================================================================The Pro has dropped the following:: Marriage is not a Constitutional Right.The Pro has conceded to the following:: Marriage is not Government-Granted.: Marriage is an Institution of the Church.: Separation of Church and State must be followed by the State.I wanted to return to a Prior statement of the Pro's"Laws making it illegal for gays to marry because of religious beliefs are unconstitutional"Since marriage isn't a constitutional right, passing laws respecting the Church is not a violation of the Constitution. Passing a law disrespecting an Institution of the Church is, however, a violation of the Constitution.I pass it back to Pro.