Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

At this point I will summarize this debate and produce a final refutation at the same time.At the beggining of this debate con produced a stance in this debate witch is as follows, " I hope to show how civil unions would be worse in comparison to marriage in a modern society." Con has failed to promote his stance because he hasn't successfully proven why civil unions would be worse than marriage in a modern society. Now I am completely aware that neither of us debaters said whom has the burden of proof but while debating one must prove his side of the debate regardless. So with that being said con hasn't proven his case whatsoever and has completely gone somewhere else with his case and has constructed his argument in a way to turn his case into arguing mainly same sex marriage. witch does not support his stance for this debate.My stance is this,. Gay people should have the option of a new civil union to be introduced to more states and to be legal in more places than just the very tiny few it is in America. As you see I bolded options because that word is the most important part of this debate. Speaking in terms of equality if homosexuals are being denied marriage and civil unions then they have no options. How are they to pursue pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Witch is synonymous with my first contention being, "1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Witch my opponent agrees upon because he never refuted this point. In debating my philosophy is silence equals concurrence.Moving on my opponent offers a counterplan in witch is platform is, " Thus, SSM is the best solution. To summarise so far, SSM is the best solution, better than civil unions. Thus, the resolution would be negated." There is A major problem with his counter plan. It fails because As we know same sex marriage isnt legal federally so obviously all gay people cant take advantage of this option to make it fair. This problem is the reason im having this debate as we can see to not contradict principles of equality all people including gays should have the major option of civil unions. Since gay people cant marry they need to have another option for the sake of fairness. That option is civil unions. My second contention witch con also failed to refute explains my logic on this matter in further detail, "2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied. "Religion and traditionCons counter plan also fails for these additional reason. Majority of people oppose same sex marriages because of traditional values based on religion and traditional beliefs where people use the gay marriage isnt natural argument. Or they use the bible or other religion as their defense. These two are the major arguments against same sex marriage. One is because of religion and the other is because of traditional values. I don't agree with those but it cannot be ignored that the majority that denies same sex marriages deny it for these major reasons. It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs. Witch is why marriage wont be approved on a federal level unless we eliminate that kind of thinking. As we can see the conditions for cons counter plan most likely wont happen. IF it does happen it might take years. There's no way that the conditions will be met by tomorrow so are gays to just sit idle and be denied their constitutional rights? to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? NO civil unions is the awnser.Here are some statement from the last round from con "we live in democracies, where the majority should set the laws. Whether the religious mind is an irrelevancy: the only important part of this issue is the part regarding the majority, not the majority of the religious. "First not all countries are democracies. Second lets look at America con fails to realize that majority of Americans are religious witch makes them very relevant in voting for laws when they vote seeing as majority always wins in votes. Here's what the data says...."76.5% of American adults are Christian , 14.1 are nonreligious" [1] These people are voting and have negative views toward gay marriage and civil unions as we can see they are a major contributor to the non legalization of same sex marriage and civil unions."Many religious groups find that SSM is not just compatible but promoted in their faith. “Some examples of [Christian] organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church,"...etcTheir faith is based on what? The bible and hers what it says, Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."[2] as we can see those people are contradicting there own beliefs. They also don't count because con cannot prove that these people are voting in elections. While I can prove those whom are not contradicting there own religious beliefs are indeed voting.[3] "Also, my opponent’s second paragraph on “Religion and Tradition” is nonsensical, either for self-contradiction, non-adherence to the facts, or sentences not making coherent sense. For example, my opponent says “It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs”, meaning (I think) that the majority of Americans are against SSM. Not only does this artificially and unjustifiably narrows the scope of debate, but is categorically false: as shown in the previous round, the majority of Americans are in favour of SSM."Here's what happened since con is confused. He showed that majority of Americans are starting to favor same sex marriage. I responded and showed proof that although his poll says that. Those who are voting say other wise. Its not the polls that lead to making laws its the votes. It doesnt matter what non voters think in legal matters.final statementAs we see civil unions need to be a major option for gays. Con never defeated any of my contentions and actually seemed to promote then in his last post. I have proven religion and traditional values to be a major issue in this matter. I have also successfully proven cons counterplan will not work. Con has also failed to prove his posisition of this debate witch was to show how civil unions are worse than gay marriage. I believe a pro vote is a very justified response to this debate.Sources[1]....http://www.religioustolerance.org...[2].....http://www.biblegateway.com...[3].....http://pewresearch.org...