Gays should be allowed to marry.

Hi again, fellow debater. Alright, to start things off, let me alter some of your initial arguments, so they would be compatible to mine. For gays not to receive benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage would be archaic and discriminatory. Benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage should be available to all couples. Denying civil unions to any couple desiring to acquire one is a form of discrimination. I am advocating that no marriage be federally recognized by the state. Instead, while keeping all the marital benefits currently provided by the government, we should JUST switch the terminology used: instead of "marriage," we use "civil union" (Or, like I said in my preceding post, any other term deemed adequate.) I am getting the impression that you believe both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples should receive the same "marital benefits," so we are obviously in agreement on that. Which means that the only point of the debate in which we differ is the term used to describe those governmentally-bestowed benefits. So, in essence, all we have to do is determine which term is most appropriate and applicable for governmental purposes. Just for clarification, I do believe that the Defense of Marriage Act is unreasonable and ridiculous; like I said earlier, government should totally withdraw from manipulating the term "marriage." The government should not tell the church what is and what is not "marriage." I do agree, at the time, non-religious people get married on a regular basis. However, I am assuming that you are inferring to the current "legal marriage," which bestows the rudimentary rights and benefits currently associated with the term. However, under my argument, the term would just be altered to a completely non-religious term, so that these non-religious people would still acquire the same benefits and rights. So, ultimately, non-religious people would still be able to receive the same governmental rights and benefits, it just would not officially be called "legal marriage." With consent of the church or any religious organization, people may still acquire a "marriage" by means of its religious institution definition, in which a service can be provided or whatever the religious organization desires to do, and this ought to cover the theological aspects of a religious marriage. As well, we should not prohibit the church from conducting gay marriage services. As, based on my argument, marriage is indeed a religious institution, we should not intervene with the church's own philosophies. If such a service were to occur, it is the church's private matter, which is to be respected. When you say that marriage is not a religious institution, you gave your reasoning for that claim as being that non-religious people get married on a regular basis. So overall, while this is obviously true, you are inferring to the legal definition of the term marriage. And you already are already aware that I want that term, "legal marriage," to be eliminated, and instead use a less religious term to substitute the word marriage in the public sphere. Alright, now I understand that you may consider myself an idealist here, but on the topic of civil unions: obviously some decisions are decided at the national level, some at the individual state level. But I think that the issue of civil unions ought to be decided at the national level; no state should ignore civil union status, and I think it ought to be federally recognized. If this idea pertaining to civil unions being recognized at the nation level were to be implemented, homosexual couples would no longer be limited as to where they may or may not live while being recognized by the government. Therefore, the benefits would apply everywhere in the nation, so they would not have to settle in any specified area; civil union recognition would be universal throughout the country. Regarding your statements issued condemning civil unions: If ordinary citizens were to not recognize civil unions for gays, who says they would recognize gay marriage?? There is no difference between the two; they just have different terms to describe them. As well, if I may inquire, how does civilian recognition affect anything?? The couple receiving the civil union would still receive the same benefits and rights provided by the government. Perhaps it is best that other citizens come to accept other people's achievements, rather than saying it has no importance. I do agree with you in regards that most people may respect the institution of marriage more, and it may inherently seem more impressive. However, that does not change its status as a religious term; just because it may be respected and admired more, it still has religious origins. As well, our government ought to require employers to recognize civil union status. Gay marriages can still be recognized, but like all marriages, I think they should just be recognized by the church, assuming the individual church has no objection. Next, you state that heterosexual marriages not being recognized would lead to riots in the streets, and could further lead to a civil war. However, anyone who desires to be married and have a marriage service conducted by a religious organization is most welcome to do just that. In fact, most marriages today ARE indeed performed in such a manner. The only difference here is that a couple would need civil union status, regardless of their being heterosexual or homosexual, in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits. Again, I look forward for your rebuttal in which I await to further rebut against :P P.S. TO VOTERS Remember that for voting con, it does not mean you are against gay rights, but just for the separation of church and state (Here meaning altering the term "marriage" to fit a better non-religious term when used for governmental purposes). Gays and lesbians will still receive the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.