gay marriage

I appreciate my opponent's clear resolution and clear contentions. I wish him luck in this debate. I pose for clarity the following definitions: Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians). Civil Marriage - a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners. Religious Marriage - considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy. ARGUMENT: Now obviously these are two very different things, however they confusingly use the same word "Marriage". There is a religious ceremony, and then there is a legal aspect to marriage. My opponent and I both agree they should remain completely separate. After all, why should religion have a say in the rights and benefits of a partnership? We all share different faiths ideas and opinions (and sometimes no faiths). Furthermore why should government have a say in a religious ceremony? After all it is unconstitutional that a government should make any law respecting that of a religion. Therefore, logically, a civil marriage should be renamed a civil union. A civil union should be available to anyone regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual. A Religious marriage should be called marriage. Marriage is commonly known as a religious ceremony. NEGATION: 1. "not only is not allowing gays a violation of the so proposed ideology of america being equal but it is also preposterous on the idea that if homosexuals also preposterous on the idea that if homosexuals want to be miserable in a marriage then let them "we the people of the united states are endowed with three unalienable rights the right to liberty, freedom, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" does this not imply or state that men can pursue other men or marry other men if this makes them happy and if everyone has these unalienable right's does this not say or imply that we're equal" I negate that legalizing Gay marriage violates the proposed ideology of America being equal. The first amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion". Marriage is a religious institution. As most American's recognize the word marriage as having religious connotations, it thus falls under the realm of the religious institution. Furthermore, our rights are created from the US constitution. However my opponent stated "liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness" which is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which has no bearing on our Constitutional rights. 2. "how can the goverment decide if gay marriage is wrong or right" The government can't decide what is right or wrong. Since marriage is a religious institution, it has no authority to decide whether it should be legalized or illegalized. It is unconstitutional that the government should do anything to illegalize or legalize gay marriage. No religious institution should be forced to marry gays, neither should a religious institution be banned from marrying gays if it deems fit. 3. "It is the burden of the Neg. to prove that gay marriages are wrong and immoral the resolution she not be interpreted on anything and no assumptions should be made as to what the resolution means It is clear and doesn't need explaining." This is incorrect. The burden of proof always lies on the person who made the resolution, and more importantly who is the Pro in the debate. Since my opponent did both the burden of proof is on him to show why the government should make any law respecting religion when it implicitly states in the US constitution that this is not allowed. To conclude: Legally homosexuals partners should have the same rights that heterosexual partners have. However, marriage should be considered a religious institution as it is commonly known as such. Thus, it is unconstitutional for government to make any laws respecting the institution of marriage. The word marriage is commonly recognized by our society as having one with religious connotations, which my opponent also agrees with. Society gives words their meaning. In the past the word faggot was a term known for a bundle of wood, however today, the word faggot is a derogatory term used to insult homosexuals. Thus since society recognizes in large the word marriage as being a word to describe a religious ceremony, it should be considered as such and should not have any government interference. If a particular religion wants to allow homosexuals to participate in a religious ceremony it should be allowed to. If a particular religion wants to prohibit homosexuals from participating in a religious ceremony it should also be allowed to