Who does homosexuality hurt?

[Aliantha]

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.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You can't have the argument without including God into 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.

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?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

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.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

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.

[Elspode]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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,
...

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

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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