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

>>Actually, marriage IS an institution of the Church. By "Church," I mean the religious institutions performing the marriages, not necessarily only Christians. Other religions besides Christianity frown upon homosexual marriages as well. Also, some atheists have been turned away by some churches due to their lack of belief. If they can find a preacher that agrees to do their marriage, then they can be married, no problem. However, homosexuality is expressly condemned in the religions writings like the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Koran to name a few. In the eyes of most religious persons, marriages are degraded by allowing those obviously against the teachings of their faith and unwilling to change to participate in the same religious marriage ceremony as those of the faith. Let me say this again. In the United States of America, it is not required to have a marriage through the Christian Church, or any religious institution. You can get married through the state. You just have to go to City Hall and register you and your partner as a married couple, and you are a married couple. I personaly know people who have gotten married without going through the Church (ie. my parents). Therefore, this point is irrelevant. This debate is about whether or not it should be legal to marry someone of the same gender, not if all the relgious institutions should accept gay marriage. I am not saying that. If there was any confusion, let me clear it up; I am arguing that gay people should LEGALLY be allowed to marry. Keyword: legally. >>I challenge you to find a legitimate religion that would happily marry a homosexual couple. Again, look at my previous statement. >>Marriages are religious. Are you saying that if you do not have a religion, you cannot marry? I refuse to believe this. Again, I personally know people who do not have a religion and have married. >>They are designed to be a covenant between partner and partner to declare before their religious deity that they are forever one. If the government is a religious diety, then I would agree with you. However, the government is NOT a religious diety, nor can it establish a certain diety to be the national diety of the USA. You can go to City Hall and tell them you are married to another person, and they will record it and you are married in the eyes of the state. You do not have to ask a priest to marry you. >>Civil Unions are contracts made with the state to ensure the same economic and civil rights as those with marriage. Civil unions do not give the same civil and economical rights as those with marriage. They may be similar in some aspects, but they do not give the same rights as a marriage does. >>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. Are you suggesting that it is the African Americans' fault that they were discriminated and considered inferior? >>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? Again, you are making a 'separate but equal' argument. Is there a reason they should not wish to be able to have marriage? Why do they have to have a civil union? Civil unions were created to give gay people the same rights as married people. However, history has shown us that separate can never be equal. Civil unions will never be the same as marriages. >>As for my last point about homosexual couples contributing less, I concede that it is possible for them to reproduce with the help of technology. Thank you >>Because marriage is not controlled by the government, and many religious institutions do not wish to perform homosexual marriages. Again, you can walk into City Hall, and tell them you are married to a certain person, and City Hall records that you are now married. You do not have to ask the Church whether or not you can be married. >>It also can't force you to accept homosexuality. I am not saying that the government has to force everyone in the USA to accept gay people. I agree, there are a lot of people out there who do not like gay marriage. However, why should the people who do not like gay marriage be allowed to say that there can be no gay marriage? >>You cannot stop religious institutions from condemning homosexuality as a sin and withholding their ceremonies, Yes, but you do not have to go through a religious institution to get married, so this point is irrelevent. City Hall! >>government does not have the right to interfere as long as no laws are broken. Actually, you are wrong. The government was created to ensure that everyone had the same rights and liberties, and if one division of the people do not have a certain right, it should be the government's duty to give it to them. All men were created equal. They all have certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. If one group of people do not have the right to marry, and they do not have the same liberties as everyone else, shouldn't we give it to them? >>Homosexuals have the right to a state-recognized civil union that should grant them the same rights marriages between heterosexuals do. Again, civil unions do not always grant the same rights as marriages. >> I ask you, why do Non-religious homosexuals wish to be married by a religious institution if they have the same rights as the heterosexual couples? You do not have to be married by a religious institution for you to be married. You can get married through the state. Also, CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS AS A MARRIAGE. >>Why not just change civil unions to be equal to marriages in all legal matters? BECAUSE SEPARATE CAN NEVER BE EQUAL. You are a high school student, and I am sure that you have heard this phrase. You must also know, being a high school students, that it is true. If you do not know this phrase, please look it up. I shall conclude my argument with this: if the gay person wishes to be married through the state, and is a non-religious person, why can't they do so? The obvious answer would be that it is illegal. However, we must ask ourselves, why is it illegal? Because the majority of the USA does not want gay marriage. 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? My opponent might argue that it goes against their religion, and therefore they are against it. However, if the gay person is non-religious, why should someone else's religion affect their personal life? I leave you with this, and thank you for the debate.