Gay marriage or civil unions? There is no difference

For my final rebuttal… "But if people really believe in the Separation of Church and State, then they are going to have to give this institution back to religion as a religious ceremony. But if they do this, they run the risk of many churches and synagogues not honoring homosexual marriage on the basis of biblical principle." Yes. But which is more of a church-and-state violation, making it illegal for churches to "marry" homosexuals, or allowing them to decide their own definition of a "religious marriage" and letting "legal marriage" be as secular as a civil union? " If homosexual marriage becomes legally recognized, then what would morally prohibit pedophiles, zoophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous to marry? If you change the definition of marriage, then there is no justification for not allowing anything under the sun to follow suit." Ok, so you agree with me that marriage is a basic right that should really be secular and open to everyone, but say that morally it must be limited so that these immoral unions do not occur. Truth is, however, that if marriage is entirely secular (a civil union) there is no problem with allowing anyone consenting to marry anyone else. In France, for example, it is possible (and, I am told, rather widespread) for siblings or other relatives living together to get a completely non-romantic civil union for the monetary and legal benefits. These marriages are only illegal if you define marriage as the churches do, and agree that it requires consummation. Consummation is what makes a marriage between a man and his daughter incest and rape, and what makes human-animal marriage cruelty to animals. Without sex, and without all the morals and cultural traditions associated with traditional marriage, there is nothing wrong with any of these unions. "This is why the preservation of marriage, as strictly defined the way it is, is vitally important... Aren't civil unions a good way to make all parties involved happy?" Yes, they are, just as allowing blacks to ride buses and eat at lunch counters was a good way to make blacks happy, assuming there wasn't a separate, better area for whites only. There is absolutely no legal reason to have religious marriage and secular civil union exist as two separate institutions- we must have one all encompassing standard, or none at all, but all citizens (or pairs of citizens) must be treated equally under the law regardless of gender. "Yes, but I could convincingly lobby that I was trying to love the dog, sheep, or whatever. " Yea, try convincingly lobbying that in court when facing an animal cruelty charge. Have fun in prison! "This is not why incest is illegal. Smoking is unhealthy and leads to diseases too, but it is not outlawed. The reason why incest is illegal is because in our minds it is an aberration of nature. Many people feel the same about homosexuality." My point was not that this is the only reason that we don't allow incest… my point is that there is a valid non-moral, non-religious argument for banning incest. We don't ban cigarettes, but we do ban many other substances for health reasons, as well as certain dangerous activities like speeding that endanger the life of the defendant and the lives of society. No such argument exists against homosexuality. "Why do homosexuals get to infringe upon the rights of a religion founded long before they were born, and to disrespect its congregation who honor marriage under the pretenses their God defined it as? Why not just have a civil union and be done with it?" Homosexuals existed at the time of Jesus, and likely long before that. Homosexual activities were even accepted in Greek and Roman society. Homosexuality has even been observed in gorillas and chimpanzees, so it is likely that it was practiced even by humanities earliest ancestors. In addition, with the scenario I propose, the concept of "marriage" will be made AN ENTIRELY SECULAR LEGAL TERM. Churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages, but the government will be forced to accept the ones that churches do perform. And yes, many churches of different faiths do embrace gay marriage, so a couple would most likely not be "disrespecting its congregation". None of this should affect U.S. policy, anyway. "Allow a religion to decide for themselves who they will marry." Exactly. The government has the authority, and possibly the duty to REGULATE marriage and divorce. However, they have no authority to DEFINE it, as that should be up to the individual churches. Telling a church who it CANNOT marry is just as bad as forcing it to perform a marriage it considers immoral, and just as much in violation of the establishment clause. I am not against civil unions. I just believe that constitutionally, the legal term "Marriage" should be the same thing as what you call a civil union- two people living as a unit. Leave it up to churches to decide which ceremonies to perform. "So why NOT differentiate between a marriage and a civil union if heterosexuality is differentiated between homosexuality?" Because the government has no reason to discriminate between the two. In fact, they are bound by the constitution not to. There are major differences between blacks and whites, Jews and Catholics, and men and women as well. Yet, all are equal under the eyes of the law, and thus there is no reason to make a distinction. Equality is the status quo. Saying that a male-male couple is entitled to fewer rights than a male-female couple would be an exception to the rule, so provide me a good, secular, non-moral reason for that and I'll consider it. "Homosexuality is stigmatized on the merits of its questionable morality, just like any other sexual sin is. Is there any reason why a consenting 18 year old can't sleep with his 42 year old stepmother? They aren't related. They aren't underage. They obviously both consent. Do you have any justification using a purely secular argument why they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want?" No. And this is why it is perfectly legal for a consenting 18 year old to sleep with his 42 year old stepmother. Some churches may consider it a "sexual sin". But churches don't make the laws. "Some things we just know in our heart is wrong. Most people feel that way about homosexual marriage, regardless of the society. The negative feelings about homosexual marriage pervades across centuries, religions, cultures, and countries. This is not a concoction of American right-wing Christians. It would be well with us to remember that, and then to come to some sort of resolution so that all parties are happy. Preserving marriage and instituting civil unions would fix this problem." Take that paragraph. Replace homosexual with interracial. Reread it, then reread the last 2 paragraphs of my opening argument. I don't "know in my heart" that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, I don' t "know" anything in my heart. It's a muscle that pumps oxygenated blood throughout my body. So get real. Your morals are not genetic, they are not granted to you by god at birth. They are a function of your lifestyle and upbringing, and especially your religion, assuming religion is important to you. They are not shared by everyone else, and they are not superior to the morals of others. I truly believe that homosexuality is inevitable for some people, and that if there is a god, he/she/it wouldn't consider it a sin. However, I am also smart enough to realize that my morals are not shared by everyone. So let churches decide who to marry for themselves, as long as the marriage isn't illegal in some other way. We have no reason to have religious marriage and secular civil union as different, state recognized concepts. As long as we let church and state remain separate, and there is no reason to separate marriage and civil union. Con, consider your "unassailable logic" assailed ; )