Marriage should be privatized

1) The reason that I said separation of church and state is an undebatable premise is because arguing it would detract from the subject of this debate. I understand that the premise might be wrong, but that is a debate for another day. Maybe I should have worded my argument as "assuming premise X is right, then conclusion Y is right. However, if premise X is wrong, I concede my argument." 2) I never said marriage should be a religious institution; I only said that the origin of marriage is in religion. I said: "his same kind of symbolism could be created from a personal contract or an arbitrary religious/secular ceremony devoid of government intervention." My use of the word "secular" shows that I extend marriage to non-religious purposes. I am not arguing that marriage should be privatized because because it is a religious institutions; secular and legal institution is not synonymous with government institution. 3) Ahhh, I understand the confusion now. Ok, I think ideally that the State's definition of marriage should diverge from say a Christian's definition. So a real life application of this idealism would be: A gay couple gets married, but a Christian says, "oh well under my definition of marriage, their State marriage isn't a real marriage. Therefore, I don't really care if they get "married."" However, as contemporary events show, this is not the case. Christians still equate State marriages with religious marriages. In order to break this arbitrary connection, the State should either rename their sactioned-marriages to some other term, or abolish marriage altogether. The reason that abolishing marriage is preferable to changing the name is that the State doesn't benefit from issuing marriages (which I've argued for in other parts of my argument). 4) Yes, I agree that child-rearing is in the interest of the State. However, the State doesn't require a couple to have children before they get benefits. Wouldn't it be better if the State only assisted both married couples and non-married couples who have children, since they actually contribute to society in a familial way? 5) Your first position seems to be based on preference. You say the argument is about what should be, not what could be. Well, I think marriage SHOULD function without government intervention. You argue that the government has a stake in marriages. Well, my #4 disproves that. Then you mention social stability; what evidence is there that married couples provide social stability as opposed to non-married couples? Next you say that I said that divorce shows that marriage is not a symbol of commitment. I didn't say divorce makes it not a symbol, but that divorce shows that marriage isn't really a commitment. Symbolically, it is, but the reality shows that it is not, so why allow people to continue living this false hope? 6) Again, where is the evidence that marriage creates social stability. Furthermore, the government could signal their interest in other, more efficient ways. For example, instead of granting tax-breaks to married couples, which might or might not be used to help that family raise children, the government could just grant tax-breaks to mothers. Or the government could employ progressive tax policies or provide socialized medicine. 7) You essentially argue that government sanctioned-marriages are socialist policies, so if I want socialist policies, I should advocate marriage. I don't see the connection in this argument; marriage isn't a socialist policy...Tax-benefits for marriage help a great deal of people who aren't having kids, and thus not contributing to society. On the other hand, things like socialized medicine would help all sick people. 8) You claim that that: "Privatizing marriage is the equivalent of imposing a legal disability on everyone, as it prevents people from accessing the legal benefits that make marriage a valuable institution in the first place." This statement is false because of two things: a) since you say that the legal benefits is what makes marriage valuable in the first place, then you are stripping marriage of any romantic symbolism, for the intent of marraige becomes practical, not ideal. Thus, State-marriages are bad since it eliminates romanticism. b) Marriage isn't valuable because of legal benefits; marriage existed long before the State was involved. 9) Well, if the State didn't issue marriages, then what would gays be fighting for? Conservatives will argue against religious same-sex marraiges, but gays never demanded this in the first place; also religion doesn't conform to the same rules as democracy, but follow religious texts that can't be deviated from. 10) You are right; I misspoke. What I mean to say is that religious conservatives are more likely to resort to what anthropologist call "secondary elaboration," in which once their worldview is shown to be false, they rationalize it to make it true. This is opposed to those who follow science, where once a science discovery disproves another one, they follow the new study (of course there are exceptions). And let it be noted that I'm not saying one approach or the other is better. 11) I disagree; I think marriage represents a spiritual connection between two individuals that should be devoid of practical rewards. That is, marriage is a unity of two elements of the whole: the male and the female. I feel like our differences here can't be debated. This may also be the root of our disagreement. 12) Oh, well I guess i defined separation of church and state as what you called the accomodation approach. Because in the example you showed me, I think the Supreme Court was wrong in that it prohibited a religious law, thus showing that they are involved in religion. I agree with your accomodation thing, though I simply call that approach seperation of church and state.