The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

My opponent attempts to assert that 'God and religion have nothing to do with marraige.' According to my definitions, unless you can discredit them as biased, stand that the forming of marraige, in it's entirety, is held by these two definitions: 1) Marriage- Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and legal union of individuals 2) Matrimony- A sacrament in which woman and man enter a life-long union., receiving the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows. My opponent states that "I would also like to state that there weren't any specific states given intentionally. This is because this debate is simply stating that we, as a country should have legal rights to wed whomever we choose anywhere and not just in certain states." However, if this were to happen, it would contradict our Constitution, thus having to reform it almost entirely anew. This is why...The bindings of matromony are held, rightly, by the states, empowered by the Consitution. To issue a federal mandate on homosexual marriage would not only boarder tyrannical, but it would defy our Constitution, which is what has been in existance for as long as America itself. My opponent says: "My opponent has given his definitions based on a heterosexual prospective." This is not true. These definitons were retrieved from Google, and I did not alter it's definitions in any way. Also, he says: "This resolution clearly states that the topic is marriage among the HOMOSEXUALS which blows those definitions out of the water." We haven't always been the open minded country we are now. My previous site states that less than 21 percent of elderly people agree with gay marraige. If you go farther back, that will decline sharply. Until fairly recently, THERE WERE NO MARRIAGES OF HOMOSEXUALS!!!! Since I am using Christian marriages, as general marriages are conducted, I will use Christain views. Allow me to direct you to this exerpt. "Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God, one that should not be taken for granted. They variously regard it as a sacrament, a contract, a sacred institution, or a covenant.[66] From the very beginning of the Christian Church, marriage law and theology have been a major matter.[67] The foundation of the Western tradition of Christian marriages have been the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.[37] Christians often marry for religious reasons ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one,"[Gen. 2:24] [68] to obeying Canon Law stating marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament.[69] Divorce is not encouraged. Most Protestant churches allow people to marry again after a divorce.[70}" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Marriage has always held it's roots in spirituality, thus sustance of religion, and in today's case, Christianity. Therefore, marriage DOES include religion, and in that religion, it is "an abomination" to approve of homosexuality. Moreso, Christain views, from the source, have been that God bless the sanctity of marraige. God cannot and will not do so if that marriage is an abomination before His eyes. My opponent states: "My opponent also claims that he will not debate the fact of God's existence, however, if he is going to bring up arguments such as God he must be prepared to defend the fact that not everyone believes the same way religiously. Also, I would like to say that if we are arguing the Bible then while it says that homosexuals are an abomination, it also clearly states throughout the Bible that God Loves Everyone" In marriage, religion, as I've proven, is spiritually and religiously involved. Politics do not involve themselves with the conductings of marriage or personal belief of the God it includes, they just recognize the couple as conjoined. Also, it states that "God loves everyone", but God provides no haven for sinners unless they "repent" their sins, something that this act does not do; he doesn't approve the marraige. =My opponents contentions= THE GOVERNMENT AND RELIGON ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS (The result of antidisestablismentarionism) "At no time did I claim that the government and religious groups had to be in agreence." No, which I stated above that they do not have to agree, they just formally recognize the couple. If the act of marraige can't be fufilled, then the governmental view is a farce and void anyways. "People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs." If my opponent does not approve of the conviction of others beliefs, why does he convict me that when I belive legalizing gay marraige is wrong? That is hypocritical and self-contradicting. "It is very possible that the government can legalize marriage among homosexuals without having the full support from all religious groups. We must keep in mind that it is impossible to please every religious group out there with the same laws and regulations." Like you said, "At no time did I claim that the government and religious groups had to be in agreence." So the support of religious groups doesn't matter. Besides, our government doesn't interfear with religion. So, what is your point?