You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece

"The explicit legalization of gay marriage would not require, support, or suggest a state operated / approved church, but rather redefine marriage as a legal contract, and move the religious aspect of marriage from "mandatory" to "optional" " " Gay Marriage - the legal and religious binding of two persons legally registered as of the same gender as recognized by the US government and the Christian Church." This is your definition, stipulated specifically for the purpose of the debate. It does not say "and/or" religous, it says AND religous debate. Ergo, nope, try again. This of course constitutes addressing most of your argument. "Definition: Bastard - 1. a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child. 2. slang - a viscious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person. (http://dictionary.reference.com......)" " The definition intended is another given in your source: "6. spurious; not genuine; false: The architecture was bastard Gothic. " Since, of course, a Christian Church coopted by the law into recognizing gay marriage would not likely be a "Christian Church," for Christianity hath the requirement to render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's... church recognition of marriage is not Caesar's. This was not intended for emotional purposes, merely to point out the contradiction involve in this conception of a "Christian Church" recognizing gay marriage just because the state told it to. "I would also like to point out the fact that by this argument my opponent has conceded that discrimination against non-Christians is fundamentally negative." That STATE discrimination against non-Christians is. Churches remain valid in discriminating against nonmembers. " "Tossing the term marriage to the side" causes a definite distinction between Christians and Non Christians" No, it removes the distinction "marriage" from the legal vocabulary, replacing it with civil union. The only distinction will be among the various people using the term marriage outside a legal context, who will distinguish between those who are and are not of religions they approve of in their dealings with them, as they have every right to. ". My plan, to put the religious part of marriage in a "separate package,"" Violates stipulated definition :D. " In my plan, this condition will be applicable." Not according to the definition given. "The first is that my opponent's plan establishes a finite and definite distinction between the the joining of a religious couple and the joining of a nonreligious couple" No it does not, at least not by the relevant definition of establish: i.e. state establishment of religion. It was stipulated only that my plan would constitute the creation of a civil union system legally parallel to where the marriage system now. You forget the consistent implication that my plan also entails removal of the legal term "marriage," leaving that term to private citizens in their religous (or other) dealings. This does not contradict the stipulation for my position, indeed, the opposite would contradict it unless one were to grant Catholicism a legal monopoly, which I have not argued for. "The second is that the establishment of procedures to provide civil union licenses, etc. will require a massive investment by the government both in human resources and with the growing $1.3 trillion that has been, and is being, created by the Bush Administration the government is in no state to invest in something that harmful and menial." It takes rather minimal resources to create a computer program that replaces all instances of the term "Marriage" with "civil union" in the electronic versions of government records, and pass a few new laws to clarify everything. Given the regular reprinting of government documents, the issue should be taken care of within a few years, all requiring minimal effort and a few postings of government notices here and there, just like we do all the darn time. The government is used to changing the rules, it's one of the few things bureaucracies are good at processing.