Gay Marriage

While I object to gay marriage morally, this debate is more about the legality. This debate is about what is commonly referred to as "legalizing gay marriage". I add quotes because I don't think this most accurately describes the debate at hand. No one (at least that I have met) is proposing that we should make gay marriage illegal. In fact, at least in recent history, gay marriage has not been illegal. The question we must ask is not, "should gay marriage be legal or allowed?". The question should be, "should gay marriage be federally encouraged or promoted by the government?". The government can either prohibit, allow, or promote an activity. I firmly believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and out of our lives, so it should only allow gay marriage, not promote it. In other words, homosexuals should be able to have relationships and call themselves married, but this should not be recognized by the government. In order to show that it should be promoted, It seems two premises must be established: 1) Gay marriage ought to be promoted. 2) The government would do a good job at promoting gay marriage. Regarding traditional marriage, it certainly ought to be promoted because it is one of the greatest predictors of societal success. This helps everyone, so it should be encouraged. It also does that without immoral consequences. However, since government recognized traditional marriage, divorce rates have skyrocketed. Government cannot competently support traditional marriage, so it too should be allowed and not promoted. Just get government out of our lives in terms of marriage. Regarding gay marriage, I believe it fails both parts. It is both immoral and does not lead to a prosperous society, so it ought not be promoted. I also, believe the government would do a terrible job at doing so if given a chance. Because of this, gay marriage in particular ought not be recognized by the state. I also think there is something else that must be addressed regarding this subject. That is the concept of church and state. This statement is not actually a part of our legal system, and the term never meant separating the influence of the church on the state, but the reverse. In law, the government is not allowed to promote or establish any form of religion. Promoting, allowing, or prohibiting gay marriage would not establish or promote any particular religion. A simple proof of this is that Christianity and Islam both deny the legitimacy of gay marriage. If this were put into law, which religion exactly would the government be promoting or establishing? Neither one. It is also important to note that morality can be enforced legally. Murder is made illegal because it is immoral. Speeding is illegal because it is immoral. Generally, the rule of thumb for law is that immoral practices should be prohibited if they affect others, immoral practices that do not affect others and amoral practices should be allowed, and moral practices should be promoted. Gay marriage may have societal implications, but it does not directly affect other people, so I see no reason to ban it. On the other hand, it is immoral, so it should not be promoted. I get my morality from the Bible. I do not want to enforce my Bible into law, I want to put my morality into law. Therefore, the Bible is relevant to the question of morality, thus to the question of law. However, this is not an issue of separation of church and state, but an issue of the morality or ethics of that which we are promoting. This is my stance on the issue. If you disagree with my point of view and would like to have a reasonable discussion, that would be welcomed. I made a few claims this round that I will support next round when I begin my arguments.