Marriage should be privatized

Wow, you are so much more articulate than me. haha 1) You attacked my premise that Church and State should be separate. That is the premise of the debate, so it is not debatable. Thus, there is no logical flaw. Let me provide a syllogism: P1: All black things are cats P2: I am black C: Therefore, I am a cat This may not be true, but it is logical based on the premises. Since I initiate the argument, I choose the premise. Perhaps a theocracy has benefits, but that is for another argument. And yes, in a theocracy, I would support State marriaages. Your second argument doesn't apply anymore because I have established that separation of church and state is an undebatable premise for this particular argument. Also, if you examine anthropological history, marriage is a religious institution that has secular symbolic relevance only because of humanity's history rooted in religion. I did not point to tradition as the reason that marriage exists, but as the reason State's have taken a role in marriages. I am saying this is wrong, but I still recognize the origins. You said I am "opposed to changing the institution of marriage such that it becomes a political/social/legal institution as opposed to a stricly religious one." No, that is the status quo, so nothing is changing. Again, I believe that marriage is traditionally religious, but that it is a State-sactioned institution because of the State's tradition of including religious elements in it in the past. 2) I don't know how your child argument is relevant. What is the benefit of marriage to the State then? If a married couple does not have a child, then how do they benefit society? You also mention that it is a symbol of a committed relationship. Well, as anthropology teaches, symbolism are arbitrary, so this same kind of symbolism could be created from a personal contract or an arbitrary religious/secular ceremony devoid of government intervention. Furthermore, with the widespread use of divorce, marriage is not a committment anymore because it can be broken easily, as it has been countless times in modern history. You argue that since the government has a stake in social stability, it should be involved in marriages. Well, since you didn't counter that such a contract could be replicated in a private contract, I assume you don't disagree. Therefore, there should be no difference between a State-issued contract and a personal one. In this case, we must examine the negatives of each scenario. As I argue later, State-issued contracts lead to issues of gay rights, which already presents a negative externality. I also only mentioned this because I wanted to see the other side; I have yet to see evidence that marriage correlates to social stability. And IF the argument is that it creates dependence among individuals, then the government could replicate this dependence relationship through widespread socialist policies (e.g. instead of giving tax-breaks to families so they can live off each other's health insures, just adopt socialized medicine). 3) I may have worded myself incorrectly. I am not saying that committment is impractical, but that marriage as a the only acceptable symbolic method of commitment is. If marriage as a state institution were abolished, then committment would manifest in privatized ways, such as in personal discourses between couples rather than a government paper. Isn't it more ideal to have people legitimize their own committment rather than having the government accept it? The homosexual argument is relevant because the gay-marriage issue creates a social schism, in which the majority subjugates the minority by denying them the same rights. Instead of contending with the hard-right religious conservatives, which I think is impossible because their views are based on irrational emotional faith, they could end the issue by removing marriage altogether. Furthermore, it is contradictory to prevent gays from marriage in a Democratic society. Democratic society's are not purely utilitarian, but they also adhere to democratic principles, such as equality for all. Therefore, it is to the State's interest (their interest in following their democratic principles) to abolish marriage in order to quickly resolve the same-sex marriage issue. I didn't say long-term non-marital relationships are more practical, but more ideal (i.e. more romantic). Again, I'll pose the same question with the change in terms: is it more romantic for a couple to buy a house in a marriage, in which their marriage contact will resolve disputes in a divorce, or is it more romantic to buy a house in a non-married relationship, in which you don't think about future problems and assume you will always be together, so there is no need to make a legal contract? This scenario is only relevant if the couple is this idealistic, for in a non-married relationship, the couple could also use private contracts, which would resolved all the break-up issues you posted. 4) As I said, I didn't say separation of church and state should be valued, but that for this argument, it is the accepted premise. Yet, since arguing is fun and I do believe it should be present, we could have this secondary debate for humor. After reading that argument, I don't think we have the same definition of church and state separation. What you mentioned is separation in my definition since the government is allowing a religious person accomodation, and are not forcing a doctrine onto them.