Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

"Marriage does not exist outside of religion, which is the point I've been trying to get across during this whole debate. Marriage is a religious word, originally meaning "the act of holy matrimony." There is a reason we make a distinction between Civil Unions and marriage, and notice that you said homosexual marriage should be legalized everywhere. If your resolution had been: "Homosexual Civil Unions should be legalized everywhere", I'd be all for it.If a heterosexual couple gets "married" through the courts, then they are not really married; such a marriage is invalid. (unless the case is made, as it often is, that God marries non-religious couples when they get "married" in court.) When I say that the courts don't have the power to marry individuals, I don't mean it in a The-government-doesn't-have-the-power-to-curb-free-speech-because-of-the-first-amendment kind of way, I mean it in a the-government-doesn't-have-the-power-to-reverse-gravity kind of way. It was a grave mistake for the government to get involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form, as in doing so it claimed authority over a matter that is purely spiritual in nature."Religion DOES exist outside of marriage. Your own sources, as well as my own, have confirmed that:"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." "People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious."http://en.wikipedia.org..."The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union..."http://www.webster-dictionary.org..."... according to the laws or customs of the place."http://www.webster-dictionary.org...It's clear that marriage is ABSOLUTELY NOT an exclusively religious occurrence. "If a heterosexual couple gets "married" through the courts, then they are not really married; such a marriage is invalid." I have just proven that marriage is exists outside of religion and "God", and one could even go so far as to say marriage is primarily legal, at least nowadays, and so it is ABSOLUTELY valid, and so it is the courts decision as to whether or not homosexual marriage is allowed. I have also proven in past rounds that most courts in the U.S. do not simply ignore same-sex marriage, but outright bans it. I'm arguing that they should not, and my opponent has failed to efficiently argue that they should. "Ultimately, this boils down to the definition of marriage. And before you find some dictionary that defines marriage as between two people of the same gender, Here is a source that defines marriage as occurring strictly between men and women:http://www.webster-dictionary.org...;You used this source in order to suggest that marriage is exclusively religious, if the entirety of your text is examined - yet, instead, you have used to strongly suggest that it is not, which I have shown already in this argument. "1. that was not a large chunk of my argument, only a small peace of it, and so it was in no way crippling.2. By "state" I meant "country." You did say everywhere in your resolution.3. Such laws are redundant, but I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, considering all the many redundant and useless government policies. All these states are doing is banning something that is already impossible for any human being to do."It was the epitome of all of your argumentation. You have been attempting to convince me and the readers that marriage is not something that state laws can illegalize - it's religious, so they receive no say, which is why my argument is supposedly redundant. I have shown this false, as the majority of U.S. states specifically abolish same-sex marriage. "All these states are doing is banning something that is already impossible for any human being to do." By this, I expect you are trying to reinforce your idea that gay marriage is a contradiction. As I feel I have sufficiently eliminated your other arguments, and that the only other reason you may think it "impossible" is that you have found a definition that states that marriage is between a man and a woman, I see that this line is essentially saying: "The government should not legalize same-sex marriage because marriage is not currently usually between two people of the same sex". That is a nonsense argument, and I dismiss it as such.