No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

ETA: You can't refuse to acknowledge one side of an argument just because you don't agree with it imo. It is a part of the argument/social discourse and therefore cannot simply be set aside as it forms a part of how society views the issue.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.

Not in my theology, it doesn't. And I'm real mod.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.[/quote]

In the Constitution of the United States, there's a separation of Church and State (work with me, okay, Radar? TW?).

Marriage, as seen by law, is a *contract*. Its a business deal, pure and simple. Otherwise, when the marriage fails, there'd be no need to divide the property and income into the future and such.

My point is this: Marriage is a contract that is only currently available to heterosexuals. Why? Don't just tell me " 'cause that's how it is".

Tell me *why*...seriously, why?

And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.

ok then. The reason is that too many people sit around complaining about it and not enough actually get up off their butts and do something about it, such as protesting, raising community awareness etc.

On the other hand, 20 or even 15 years ago, gay people had it a lot tougher than they do now. At least they have a reasonable chance of walking down the road without having the crap bashed out of them these days.

Change in this regard - that is changing the social structure of the environment - happens slowly, but at a much faster rate than ever before. Maybe it's still not fast enough, but to use your words, 'that's how it is'.

Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.

Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.

What about civil unions?

That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route, or of course quick weddings before the man went off to war.

Even in many civil ceremonies God still gets a mention.

I still don't see an argument that addresses the ultimate basic notion of marriage as a simple contract.

God in, God out. Marriage before a JOP or a Priest.

*WHY* can't gay people get legally married? Why can straight people do so without question?

"That's just the way it is" does *not* answer my query. I want to hear opinions as to why it is illegal for gay people to enter into the legally binding state of matrimony.

Because it's not socially acceptable. That's about the only reason.

When it is socially acceptable to be gay, then I'm sure marriage will be legal.

There is no other reason.

And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.

Perhaps it depends on the accepted definition of marriage?

That's true HM. Of course it's also true that often times the family is driven by their religion when they make these sorts of 'judgements'.

I think Els has been pretty clear on how he defines marriage. It's a simple contract.

How do you define marriage Classic?

For the sake of the argument here is one definition:

My point is not to disagree with Els, but to say that the argument is more based upon ones accepted definition than anything else.