Gay marriage or civil unions? There is no difference

"Reading your arguments, it appears we agree in a lot of ways. " Then it should make it all the more interesting! I thank my worthy opponent one more time for his eloquence and candor, and wish him all the best in future debates. "Marriage should have never been accepted as a legal term, due to its obvious religious connotations. My point is that if we choose to keep marriage as a legal term. " I concur mostly with what you have outlined. It seems that marriage was never intended to be a right delegated by the government. In fact, the government only stepped in to the picture approximately 100 years ago for practical reasons, like, but not limited to, health, legal, and census issues. The problem arose due to things like divorce. Legal issues, like, who retained which piece of property made it so that it was confusing. Or if one spouse died there needed to be legal documentation in existence to corroborate a claim of marriage. Besides that, there is no reason why a state government needs to be in the affairs of average citizens, unless for matters of illegal activity. It seems that it either needs to be delegated by the State or by the Church, but not both. "it would be very difficult for churches to determine the validity of a marriage done by another church. So what's the solution to this circular argument problem you detail? " I would say what I stated above. In previous centuries, depending upon the religion, a priest would consecrate the marriage in holy matrimony while the couple consummated the marriage. Going through the motions was much like it is today, a mere formality and a time to rejoice for a couple pledging themselves to one another. However, one cannot overlook the importance of the legal issues surrounding it, and indeed this has been a beneficial aspect of secularized marriage. 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. "The problem here is that most of the examples you give above are illegal not because of their immorality, per se, but because they violate other laws that do not relate to marriage. " The moral question is embedded within any law, so that is an aside issue it seems to me. However, the violation of it is exactly what makes it illegal to wed people outside of these codes. If homosexual marriage becomes legally recognized, then what would morally prohibit paedophiles, 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. For instance, many paedophile movements try to piggyback off of the success of the homosexual community. They make the same emotive arguments, and under the innocuous guise of "love" and "tolerance," groups like NAMbLA seek the same results the homosexual community now enjoys. How then can you ensure that in 15 years we aren't debating about whether or not fathers should be able to marry their daughters, or why marriage should redefined to include Spot, the lovable pet, or why little Timmy shouldn't be able to marry some 45 year old barmaid? This is why the preservation of marriage, as strictly defined the way it is, is vitally important. But like I said in my previous post, there is no reason why a homosexual couple can't enjoy the same legal protections as their heterosexual counterparts do, if they are two consenting adults. Aren't civil unions a good way to make all parties involved happy? "Bestiality is an animal cruelty charge" Yes, but I could convincingly lobby that I was trying to love the dog, sheep, or whatever. Besides, homosexuality is still an offense punishable by death in some countries. If this is your justification, then you will run in to the risk of emasculating your argument. "Incest does not deal with the illegal, but the unhealthy- incest leads to inbreeding, which leads to the epidemia of genetic flaws and diseases. " 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. "1. ) Marriage is a religious concept that has been defined by the state. " Yes "2. ) Defining marriage this way may be unconstitutional in the first place, because: A. ) It forces a definition of a religious concept on unwilling religious establishments and B. ) If a particular type of Marriage does not break any other law (i. e. not with minors or the non-consenting) then congress has NO constitutional authority to define it as of yet, only "moral authority". " Yes. "The government changes the definition of Marriage to a non-denominational one that includes persons of any gender, race or age (assuming above the age of consent, and not incestuous for health reasons). This makes marriage the same thing as a "civil union". " 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? "Here is the scenario I am dead set against: The government sets up two institutions- "marriage" and "civil union". They both grant the same legal rights to couples- the only legal difference is that one is for gays and one isn't. Churches who wish to "marry" people are forced to follow the government-mandated definition, and if they decide that they are against that definition, they have to settle for the separate, but equal, "civil union". " I'm not really understanding what your objections are to civil unions, though. That is still ambiguous to me. However, I do agree that the government should not be mandating to a religious institution who they should or should not marry. Allow a religion to decide for themselves who they will marry. "The question is, what is the point of setting up two institutions that are exactly the same in all cases EXCEPT that persons of the same gender can only participate in one? " What is the point of calling an apple an apple, and an orange an orange. .. ? Because its not the same thing. They may both be fruit, but there still exist differences. Obviously differences matter a great deal to both hetero and homosexuals. Hell, those differences are the very thing that defines them! So why NOT differentiate between a marriage and a civil union if heterosexuality is differentiated between homosexuality? "separate institutions would NEVER truly be equal in the moral sense, and prejudice and phobia towards the homosexual community would persist and increase. " 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? 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.