The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

Okaaay. .. my opponent continues to assert that my definitions are biased and unworthy, without proof. I have proven that marraige has it's roots in religion and he refuses to contend that point, so I can only assume that he accepts it. In a convential marraige, they are married by, often, a preacher. He reads from the Bible. He mentions God. How can my opponent assert that marraige has no roots in religion? He cannot. A document does not testify to the will of God. His Bible, however, does. The preacher reads from this and joins them in union. My opponent says my Unconstitutionality argument is invalid. I state: "The bindings of matromony are held, rightly, by the states, empowered by the Consitution. " To have the marraige of homosexuals legalized without the empowerment of the states themselves and federally mandated by the government of the nation would conflict with our Constitution. Unless my opponent can disprove that, the point stands unnegated. My opponent says: ". .. things that are legal throughout the nation that the state's do NOT have control over such as tobacco for example. " Tobacco is a product of companies. In the constitution, we are given the right to own businesess without government interfearance. "Also, legalizing gay marriage everywhere is not tyrannical. In fact its more tyrannical for the government to call it illegal because that's the government taking control of our personal lives. " Legalizing gay marraige IS boarder-line tyranny, if the states do not want to, which some do not. Therefore, that is tyrannical and unconstitutional. Also, the state government does not "take control over our personal lives", for if you are not currently married, then there is nothing to take control of. However, there is something to prevent. Legally, they can, and do, do this. My opponent says (on the matter of my source) ". .. he is correct but at the same time you have to realize that times have changed and while the elderly feels that homosexuals are an abomination, people of this decade do not. " Oh, but about half of the people of the decade disagree with it too. So, it isn't as 'trendy' as the picture is painted. On this entire paragraph: "He claims that "Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God" and while that may be true, I ask you this, who cares? What we have to realize here is that not everyone believes in God. If they do, that's great, that's another debate. So if my opponent truly wishes not to debate God's existence, let us shy away from the Christianity references. Thank you. " The reason why I bring this up, as I've said before, is because marraige has it's hold in religion. The reason why I wouldn't debate the existance of god, is because that is opinion, but the fact that He is used in marraiges is, indeed, fact. "Well, as I have proven, marriage does not always have to do with God. " Ahhhh! !! That is what I've been waiting to hear from you, and a very valid point! However, I have prepared for this. If you look at my first, brief arguement, I said : (As stated above, to be joined in matrimony, they must have the blessing of God, and since this country is, for the most part, Christain, I will use this religion to form my basis. ) Since this country's marraiges are mostly in the Christain format, I would contend this. There are some, but to Christianity this is a minorty plea, cases where God is not invloved. Even without Christianity, it is stated in most other major religions, which most often a marraige is based upon, that homosexuality is a "sin", or whatever their religious term may be. "Politics and the law have everything to do with marriage, hints the fact that it is illegal while it should be legal. Once again, that's GREAT that God doesn't approve of gay marriage, there's a lot that "God" doesn't approve of, yet it's still legal. " My opponent seems not to believe that Christain marraiges, which I still maintain, is the convential and popular method of marraige. In this, the act of marraige ITSELF cannot be completed if not blessed by God, and marraige must be unequivically fufilled to be vaild. Therefore, there is no complete marraige, there can be no law to legalize the marrige if the act cannot take place. "I'm by no means convicting you for you're beliefs. I'm saying that while you may think it's 'wrong,' that does NOT give anyone the right to tell anyone, gay or not, that they cannot marry whomever they want. " HOWEVER, my dear friend, you stated, and I quote: ""People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs. " I must say, that I know several people that it makes them physically sick at the sight of two men (or women) kissing each other. Literally, I have seen my best friend throw up on the floor (funny though! ). You said: "People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs. " The homosexual belief is that it's alright. The heterosexual beleif is that it's not. By your arguements, you would force the puking of my best friend, thus making him suffer (I can't stop laughing! ). "My point was and is that God and religion does NOT matter in this debate. " In marraige, as I've proven, it does. That's like saying wheat has nothing to do with a delicious ham sandwhich. If there is no wheat, there is no bread to tie the delcious ham and lettuce sandwhich together. You just have ham and lettuce. (PS: 1 bread is God, 1 bread is is government legalization/approval, the ham is the man, the entire sandwhich is a successful marraige, and the lettuce is the woman. If you have only 1 slice of bread, it is not a delicious ham and lettuce sandwhich, and the sandwhich is not whole; it topples and falls since it is incomplete. )