Gay Marriage should never be accepted legally in the U.S.

It's irrelevant what the dictionary definitions are. The truth is that many, like myself don't care whether two of the same sex can get married, while many others are vehemently opposed to it. The fact is that some people attach a religious connotation to marriage, and thusly they oppose the right for gays and others to be married. For them, it is a moral issue (though I for one find such a thing immoral), and it would be hard to convince these people otherwise. The solution is obviously for the government to stop recognizing the term "marriage". If someone seeks to be married at their church or other place of religious worship, they may go ahead and do so. However, the government would recognize civil unions. All current marriages would then be recognized by the government as civil unions. What this ultimately means is that the religious can have their definition of marriage without infringing upon the rights of gays and those of other sexualities. Line-by-Line (Sort of) ------------------- You claim that the definition of marriage has changed numerous times. First, you claim that early on, men controlled the entire family in marriage. However, you should recognize that this has nothing to do with legal definitions, but rather just shows that the structure of family life has changed. On your second claim, you say that marriage was denied to Africans based on the definition of marriage. However, we must look at the root of both situations. Africans were seen by the majority of whites as lesser if even human (in the past of course), as well as generally treated like property. Africans were treated this way because of their cultural/physical differences with Europeans. There were many other factors, however, you will see that religion was not a primary factor. Although some religious verses were used to justify slavery, they were hardly the root of oppression. Even after many Africans converted to Christianity, they were treated the same (very badly). These problems took centuries to solve. On the other hand, our current situation is deeply rooted in religion. Gays are not seen as property, nor are they seen as inferior. Gays are recognized as human beings. So why is it that some people don't want them to be able to marry? Because some people feel their religion does not allow it. Religion is something people are stubborn about, and something people will not bend on. The truth is that this is a prejudice that at best would take many more years than slavery to remove. Because the situations are entirely different, a parallel is not valid. Finally, my opponent commits a fallacy in their last paragraph. They assume that I am discriminating against homosexuals, which makes it clear that they have either not read my arguments, or misunderstood them. Civil unions provide equal rights for all, and are much less contested then "gay marriage". Conclusion ---------------- Civil unions provide perfect legal rights for all, even those that are not gay/straight. Not only is my proposal more expansive, but it is much less likely to meet resistance. My opponent is yet to list any potential negative aspects of my proposal, while I have shown that his proposal is less universal and more likely to be rejected in real life. With my proposal, the religious can have their definition of "marriage", and persons not under this definition still have their rights because of civil unions. There is absolutely no reason not to prefer my proposal over my opponent's.