Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all of the USA.

>>Society accepts gays, just not the defilement of a sacred union such as marriage. I believe that this is the core of your first paragraph. Why is it that we can marry someone else of a different gender but not someone of the same gender? You seem to be going back to the Bible constantly. What I am asking here is: why should 80% of people be allowed to tell gay people who they can and can not marry? What gives them the right to do so? You still have not answered this argument. My rebuttal to your second argument: Again, why should the majority be allowed to tell the minority what to do? What gave them the power to do so? Why is that just because 80% of people believe something, everyone has to follow what they believe? >>b. This leads back to my second argument. Although there is no national religion, 80% of America follows the Bible and thus would agree that a marriage is between a man and a woman. c. Because we have established that 80% of Americans are Christian, we can infer that American society is Christian and religion plays a key role in this debate. First of all, I only have one argument, and you still have not answered it. Just clarifying, my first argument is easiest put into a quetions: Why shouldn't gay people, who are just the same as you and me, be allowed to marry another person of the same gender? Isn't the only reason because they are gay and people don't like it? Why should other people tell a gay person who they can marry? Now to my rebuttal. You keep reffering to the Bible. However, jsut because 80% of society is Christian, that does not mean that that 80% can tell the other 20% what to do. Since when was the majorities opinion given the power to tell other people what to do? There are 300 million people in the USA. That means that there are 240 million Christians. At the same time, there are 60 million people who are not Christian. You are suggesting that because the 240 million Christians want to ban gay marriages, the 60 million non-Christians' opinion does not matter. 60 million people. That is the population of California twice over. Also, you cannot infer that all of society is Christian. There are 60 million people out in the USA who may not believe in the same ideals as Christians. And no, religion should not have a key role in this debate. Chances are, most gay people are not Christian, seeing how much Christianity goes against gay mariage. The 240 million Christians in the USA should not have a say in gay people's life. >>5. If you agree that a civil union is basically a marriage, then what is the problem with it. On the other side, if a civil union is called a gay marriage, then the entire principles presented in the Bible would be meaningless and the sacred union of marriage would be defiled. 80% of people's religion would be affected for only 20% of the people, when, as you said it, a civil union would be just as fine and nothing concerning religion would be affected. Furthermore, gays still shouldn't be shunned from society. Once again, as you said it, they will still have the same rights, just under a different name. As a heterosexual, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union if gays outnumbered heterosexual people. Again, you are saying that because people are gay, they should not be able to marry, but they are allowed to do something that is more or less the same thing: civil unions. You said that the principles in the Bible would be defiled. Is it not possible for people to respect each other's decisions or lifestyles?? We don't shun people who are Jewish because they are Jewish and the minority, right? We don't shun people who are Asians because they are the minority, right? Why should we shun gays, just because they are gay? Why should we not allow them to marry? Aside from the religious reasons, which I have proven differently, my opponent has not grought forth a single argument aside from "Most people don't want it, so we shouldn't have it." He has not said anything about why gay people should not deserve the right to marry. He has said, however, that he agrees with me when I say that civil unions and marriages are conceptually the same thing. Therefore, why can't we give gay people the right to marry? So far, the only argument my opponent has said is that they are gay, and Christianity says that they cannot marry. What if the gay person is not Christian? What if they do not follow a religion? Shouldn't respect that and let them marry who they want to marry? My opponent has even gone so far to agree with me that "what a person does in the privacy of their own home is their own business." The only thing gay people have in difference with us is what they do in the privacy in their own home. Because I have successfully refuted all of my opponents arguments and have shown that there is no reason not to give the gay people the right to marry, I win this debate. Thank you