People should be allowed to marry people of the same sex.

Speaking of which, you're very welcome, TheOpinionist. I believe that both of us have made good points, and both of us have made them civilly. It was very interesting to debate a topic about which I feel strongly with someone who disagrees, because now that I have done so, my mind is more open than it was before. I still contend that marriage is not inherently religious. While the Bible, the holy book of a major religion, has played a part in defining marriage, there is no proof that marriage was founded on it. Numerous cultures have defined marriage in history: the Israelites, the ancient Greeks, and the ancient Romans, to name some. (Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...) The Israelites, who believed in the Old Testament of the Bible, were polygynous, meaning that they saw it as acceptable for men to have more than one wife. I am not arguing for polygyny, nor am I arguing against it. (I will argue in favour of legal polygamy later to prove a point, but not yet. ) I am just stating what the Israelites saw as acceptable. The ancient Greeks defined marriage as a consenting relationship between 1 man and 1 woman. It was typical for men to marry in their 20s, and it was typical for women to marry as teenagers. As for the ancient Romans, they had numerous forms of marriage. One of these kinds of marriage was called conventio in manum, which was seen as traditional. This involved a marriage ceremony, which always had to have witnesses. If a conventio in manum marriage were to be dissolved, then a ceremony would also be necessary. The husband would always have authority over the wife in this kind of marriage. In sine manu marriage, another kind of marriage that the ancient Romans had, the wife's father would always have authority over the wife. Girls could have sine manu marriages when they were as young as 12 years old. (Source for all of these things: . https://en.wikipedia.org...) What's my point? My point is that, even if marriage was founded as being religious, no one can deny that it has changed throughout time. I argue that it's illogical to say that marriage must be religious because that's how it started. No sane person would argue, for example, that a wife must always be under the authority of her husband or her father just because that's how the Romans did it. So why should we argue that marriage must be between 1 man and 1 woman just because that's what the Bible says? My opponent compares saying that the religiosity of marriage varies for everyone since not everyone is a Catholic to saying that the religiosity of baptism varies. However, I argue that this is different. Baptism was started as being religious and remains so to this day, as it is a Christian sacrament (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). Marriage, however, might not have been started that way. Even if it was, I don't think that that matters, as I have already explained. My opponent says that the state should stay away from the institution of marriage, and my opponent also says that I have not proven marriage to be secular. While marriage is not always secular, it can be and sometimes is. I argue that religious marriages and secular marriages are equally valid. My opponent says that, since church and state are separate, the state must stay out of marriage. However, marriage is not necessarily part of the church, which I have already explained. I've said before that the state should stay out of the church, as my opponent has acknowledged, and I still think that. I believe that churches (and mosques, and synagogues, etc. ) should have the legal right not to let same-sex couples marry in their buildings. Places of worship are private, so the government (that is, the state) should have no place in determining which marriages should be allowed there (that is, the church). However, the government denying public and legal marriage of same-sex couples is not keeping church and state separate, but rather mixing them. My opponent has pointed out that I have not debunked all of his contentions, so I will debunk them one by one, in order. My opponent has pointed out that I have failed to provide evidence against Contention 1. His Contention 1 is that, since marriage is considered to be one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, the state cannot make laws about marriage, since the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the United States prohibits the government from preferring non-religion over religion. However, as I have already explained, marriage is not necessarily religious, so the government cannot base their laws about marriage on any religion. My opponent's Contention 2 is that bestiality and polygamy both have very strong followings, and if marriage is legally redefined in order to include same-sex couples (which it already has been in the United States), then marriage will be up for debate later. My opponent seems to be implying that legal same-sex marriage paves the way for legal bestiality and legal polygamy. However, here's a point of my own about same-sex marriage that I have not yet made: adults of the same sex or gender can consent to being in a relationship together, but an animal cannot consent to being in a relationship with a human. That is why same-sex marriage is different than bestiality, and why I approve of same-sex marriage but not bestiality. As for polygamy, I don't have a problem with it. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, then why not? My opponent seems to be implying that polygamy is wrong and shouldn't be legal. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it shouldn't be legal. Making same-sex marriage legal has not led to polygamy being legal. To prove this, look at . https://en.wikipedia.org... and . https://en.wikipedia.org.... Polygamy tends to not be legal in countries outside of Africa and Asia, and it's even illegal in most of the latter. (Note that I say "tends to": The United Kingdom, for example, is a European country, and it grants its citizens who have gotten married polygamously in foreign countries some benefits payments, although it doesn't perform polygamous marriages. I would't count polygamy as being totally illegal in the United Kingdom for this reason, although I recognize that some might disagree, which I understand. ) However, countries in these continents tend to have the strictest laws against same-sex marriage and homosexual behaviour. Meanwhile, North America, South America, Australia, and Europe are usually the most lenient about same-sex marriage and homosexual behaviour, despite not allowing polygamy. So, same-sex marriage has not led to legal polygamy, even though my opponent seems to think that it might. There is no causation between same-sex marriage being legal and polygamy being legal, as I have demonstrated. While polygamy is illegal in much of Asia, and Asia doesn't have many countries where same-sex marriage is allowed (Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...), the majority of the other places on Earth show that there is no positive causation between legal same-sex marriage and legal polygamy. The countries outside of Asia outweigh the countries in Asia, because there are many more of the former than there are of the latter. My opponent's Contention 3 is that we should have civil unions for same-sex couples, rather than calling it marriage. However, I disagree. Consider a hypothetical situation where same-sex couples followed a religion that said that it was OK for same-sex couples to marry but not for opposite-sex couples to marry, and they proposed that opposite-sex couples be in legal "civil unions". There would be outrage from opposite-sex couples, and quite rightly. My opponent also says that marriage is a religious sacrament, and I have already said why I disagree with that. My opponent's Contention 4 is that marriage is a religious contract. However, as I have stated before, marriage isn't always religious, which I have already explained. My opponent says that I have failed to explain why legalizing same-sex marriage would help the situation that my opponent has described in Contentions 5 and 6, i. e. that there is a double standard that some Christian bakers aren't allowed to not cater gay weddings but other people can refuse to make certain cakes that go against their personal beliefs. I have already stated that I, too, disagree with this double standard. However, while legalizing same-sex marriage would not help the situation, it wouldn't harm it, either. People who change their minds from being against same-sex marriage to being for it because of some government's ruling wouldn't suddenly start oppressing Christians. If they would oppress Christians because of their views on same-sex marriage, then they would be doing that whether same-sex marriage would be legal or not. And as I have stated before, just because some people do immoral acts in the name of their beliefs does not mean that their beliefs are wrong. And now, for some arguments of my own in favour of same-sex marriage. The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and rightly so. The United States can't base its laws on religion, because we have separation of church and state. The state can't forbid churches from not letting same-sex couples get married there, and the church can't forbid the state from not recognizing legal same-sex marriages. Also, if consenting adults want to get married, then it won't hurt anyone, so therefore, it should be legal. Thank you, Con, for debating this topic with me. It was a great experience. Vote fairly and with consideration of everything, no matter who you vote for.