Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

Note to my opponent: to italicize text, click "Rich Text", which should be just over your text box, where you type, on the left side. It will give options such as italicizing, bolding, and underlining.Thanks. I think my opponent fails to recognize that yes, marriage exists outside of religion. Within your religious beliefs, you can say that marriage is a bond made by God (or however you wish to say it), but that does not mean that all marriages are as such, or, at least, should be treated as such. For example, an atheistic couple can be married by law, but will not be married through a Church (usually). Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the government? Of course. It is legal, regardless of religion. 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-ammendment 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.Marriage in a spiritual/religious sense is irrelevant. I'm arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Key word: legal. Law. Government. Whether or not you consider marriage by law to be 'proper marriage' (i.e. through the Church/under God) is irrelevant also, because I call for the legalization of it, not the acceptance of it under religious organizations. And likewise, I am not arguing that religions must accept homosexual marriage, I am arguing that it makes no sense to recognize by law something which does not and can not exist. 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 occuring strictly between men and women:http://www.webster-dictionary.org...The truth, as your own wikipedia source attests to in its itroductory pargraph, is that the definition of marriage is extremely difficult to pin down. There are any number of dictionaries that attempt to define marriage in either of these two ways and in other ways, and there is by no means any consensus among the general population. It is worth noting that there was no real controversy with the difinition of marriage until Gay rights activists took issue with the definition at the time. It is the first time I am aware of that the definition of an established English word has been attempted to be changed to suit the interests of a particular group. it is bad enough that words like "awesome" and "literally" seem to have gradually lost their meaning over time; now we have individuals intentionally trying to chage the definitions of established words? what's next, the KKK lobbying to define racism as "animosity toward other races except blacks", so that they can truthfullly tell others that they aren't rascist? If a group doesn't like what a word means, they should make up a new word. Some people recognise this, which is why we have civil unions.But ultimately, words still mean something, even if the majority of the population misuses the word. And the only way to determine what the word actually means is to consider what it was intended to mean when it was first formed. It is inconcievable that marriage originally meant anything other than holy matrimony, expecially considering the political and scholarly dominance that the catholic church had at the time modern english was being formed. But you don't need to take my word for it: http://www.etymonline.com...Note that even when the non-theological, figurative definition of marriage formed (probably through linguistic evolution, and so one could argue that even this definition is not valid), it still didn't include anything about homosexual relationships.As to the rest of your argument... ...Almost no state is grey or silver, crippling my opponent's argument. 1. that was not a large chunk of my argument, only a small peice 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 surprizing, 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.If you can provide a similar chart showing the policies of all countries, and by "legalization" you simply mean that governments should stop restricting homosexual marriages, then you still need to provide reasons for why you think this matters at all. How would lifting a restriction on an already impossible action do anyone any good?