Marriage should be privatized

I will argue that marriage should not be privatized. My opponent argues for a "Democratic State that values separation of church and state," but I disagree with this premise and will argue in favor of a state in which religious practices are valued and accomodated by the law. Before addressing the issue of church/state, I will briefly respond to my opponent's arguments. My opponent's arguments1) My opponent's first argument is that, because marriage was a religious institution, marriage should not be a political institution. This argument is flawed for three reasons. First, my opponent's argument depends on the premise that church and state should be completely separate (I will address this later). Second, my opponent's argument is a circular argument. It begins with the assumption that marriage is a religious institution, and then argues that because it is a religious institution, it should remain a religious institution. I see no reason to not allow a religious institution to become a political one if it also fulfills a political or legal role. Third, my opponent points to "tradition" and "history" as reasons that marriage is religious, but "tradition" is the very term my opponent is contesting. As such, not only is my opponent's argument circular, it is contradictory: if my opponent is contesting tradition, there is no reason that my opponent should be opposed to changing the institution of marriage such that it becomes a political/social/legal institution as opposed to a stricly religious one. My opponent argues marriage is religious because of tradition, and then in the next breath, argues against "tradition. "2) My opponent argues that society does not benefit from "government-sanctioned marriages as opposed to private marriages. " This argument fails because my opponent's position is incoherent and rests on faulty logic. My opponent says the only benefit of marriage is that it helps couples who are raising kids. This is not true - but even if it were, this is enough of a benefit for it to be in the government's interest. The government has a vested interest in child-rearing (that is why it requires public education), and to ensure that children are raised properly, it does everything it can to ensure children will be raised well. It cannot force people to raise children, but it can provide a framework that grants benefits to those who do decide to have children. My opponent argues that if this were the case, marriage should only be given to those "committed to having kids. " This is false - marriage, as I suggested, is more than simply about child-rearing - it is about signaling a committed relationship to the community, as well as creating the proper frame for having children. It is a preliminary step, but once people take that step, we cannot force them to have children. My opponent states that the other benefit of government-sanctioned marriage is social stability. I agree, marriage creates social stability and therefore should be government-sanctioned. My opponent argues the social stability engendered by marriage can be replicated by a private contract, but this misses the point: the government has an interest in social stability, and therefore, there is no reason for the government not to sanction marriage. In fact, because the government has an interest in social stability, the government has an interest in marriage. As such, it is imperative that the government sanction marriage because it is a government interest.3) My opponent's third argument is a pragmatic argument: things would be better off if marriage would be privatized. Or so it is argued. I disagree. My opponent claims that privatizing marriage would "reduce marriage as a symbol of commitment," but why should we want to reduce the government-sanctioning of committed relationships? Commitment is a positive social value that encourages social stability (as my opponent admits) as well as encouraging healthy families and healthy child-rearing. There is no reason that the government should not encourage committed relationships as the proper way relationships should work. My opponent argues that privatizing marriage would reduce the tension between the state and homosexuals. I don't see how that is relevant to this debate, as the interests of a minority are not necessarily the interests of the state. The state makes decisions based on the values of the majority. My opponent argues that long-term relationships without marriage are more practical? I'm not sure how this point is relevant, as the discussion of this debate is whether marriage should be privatized or not. The question is not whether marriage should be illegal (as is implied by my opponent's argument that long-term relationships without marriage are more practical). Actually, my opponent's argument supports the Con position, as my opponent's argument implies marriage should not be legal. As to the issue of whether long-term relationships without marriage are more practical, they certainly are not. Long-term relationships in which property is shared work fine (not better than marriage), but what happens if the relationship ends (as often happens)? How is the property split up? What about alimony? What about children, who are left with the mother and with no support from the father? These things happen all the time. Marriage, as a legal contract, helps alleviate these problems. Thus, state-sanctioned marriage is more practical. Against the separation of church and stateOne thing is clear: my opponent's arguments depend on the premise that the separation of church and state should be valued by a democratic state. I disagree. I believe a democratic state should not value the absolute separation of church and state. My argument rests on two premises: first, that religious truths are possibly true; and second, that a serious religious believer takes their belief seriously. The implication here is that, when the religious belief of a true believer conflicts with the law, the religious believer should be accomodated (there are exceptions, but the principle is a general rule of accomodation). The reason for this is relatively clear: if a religious believer is forced to choose between a religious truth that they truly believe and an arbitrary political order embodied by the law, what is the religious believer going to do? Given the fact that a democratic state recognizes that religious truths are possibly true, it would force a true believer (someone who believes their religious truths) to act against the state. The option is accomodation or civil disobedience. There is no reason to force a religious believer to disobey the law. Most of the time, these are good people, outstanding moral citizens of the state, but their belief sometimes conflicts with the state's interest. Their beliefs should be accomodatd to avoid unnecessary civil disobedience. The issue here is pragmatic. If the state mandates public education, and it is against someone's religious beliefs to be publicly educated, their beliefs should be accomodated. Hence, the principle of pragmatic accomodation should be preferred to the principle of absolute separation. SummaryAll of my opponent's argument depend (as my opponent notes) on the principle that there should be a separation between church and state. I have argued that the principle of accomodation should be preferred to the principle of separation, and therefore, that my opponent's arguments are flawed. Aside from the issue of separation/accomodation, I have also pointed out flaws in my opponents arguments (circularity and incoherence) that undermine his or her case. There are good reasons for the state to sanction marriage (child-rearing, signal of commitment, social stability). My opponent notes them. Government-sanctioned marriage is thus in the state's interest, and is is more pragmatic. The resolution is negated.