It should be legal for NON-religious homosexuals to marry another person of the same gender.

Okay, the basic argument line has been this: GBretz: Marriage is a religious institution. Cindela: No, it is a legal institution. GBretz: If you want only a legal recognition of your marriage, why not civil unions? Cindela: Civil Unions create a "separate but equal" situation, and history shows this to be impossible. Now, I rebut that last response earlier saying you cannot compare the homosexual marriage debate question to the civil rights movement of the Ffrican-Americans, and I said my reasons why. Cindela said, "Are you suggesting that it is the African Americans' fault that they were discriminated and considered inferior?" This is NOT what I was saying, if it was, I would've said so. What I did say was, "The reason "separate but equal" didn't work was because the African-Americans were in very small minority and did not know how to stand up for their rights for a long time. However, homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers are not in a very small minority and they certainly know how to stand for their rights. Civil Unions can be changed to provide all the same rights as a marriage would. If they are given the same economic and civil liberties through civil unions, why do they wish to have marriage on top of that?" This means that African-Americans were less in number and uneducated for a long time after they were granted freedom, so they were unable to stand for their rights. I don't know where you got the idea I was blaming the African-Americans for their plight. You stressed the importance of the fact "separate but equal" never works. Your proof is the historical record. But you cannot compare the plight of the African-American people to the "plight" of the gay people. In the words of Rev. Jesse Jackson, "The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." The point is, marriage is not a "right" described in the Constitution. It is not something that needs to be defined in the Constitution either. Gays are not in an unfair plight that goes against their rights as described by the Constitution. All men were created equal, all men have the undeniable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But that has little or nothing to do with the homosexual marriage debate, since marriage is NOT an undeniable right upheld in the Constitution. You said couples can be married through city hall. I grant you that, however, marriage done only through city hall is the equivalent to a civil union, except of course, civil union don't grant the same rights as marriage. You said this many times, and I offered you a solution to it many times, and you say "separate but equal" doesn't work. I say it can and will, and that your references to the racial civil rights movement is flawed and does not relate. We seem to be arguing in a circle. So I'll take us out of this loop. The differing point between the rights granted through marriage and the rights granted through civil unions is that civil unions give all the rights at the state level, but do not have the authority to grant the rights at a federal level. However, many of these rights concern children and tax benefits for them and such. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce without their child being considered adopted (even test tube babies)these rights wouldn't even apply to them anyway. As for the rights that do concern homosexuals, like social security and other social services, there is nothing preventing the gay rights activists from pursuing these liberties to be allowed in civil unions. You concluded: "Why should the majority be able to tell the minority what to do? What gave the majority the ability to take away rights from the minority?" I'll tell you what did, its called democracy. The will of the majority over the will of the minority, that's what democracy is all about. Its to prevent a small group of people from controlling the government for their own special interests. Obviously the minority should not be discriminated against, but gays are not being discriminated against. They already have civil unions, and can work to make them better, and they will NOT have an inferior system, despite the cries of, "Separate but equal never works!" And you know what? It does go against my religion, but not once did I use that as an argument against the granting of legal rights to homosexuals in this debate. (Which is what you said this was all about, "I am arguing that gay people should LEGALLY be allowed to marry. Keyword: legally.") My religion should not interfere in someone else's personal life. I also believe their personal views on life shouldn't be forced upon me and my religion. Homosexuals have the right to civil unions and they have the right to improve those civil unions to the point equality with marriage. Why redefine marriage for the rest of us? I leave you with that, and thank you for the debate. I would also like to ask the voters to vote on the debate itself and not on their personal views on the matter. Read thoroughly and carefully before casting your vote.