The oldest reference to marriage stems (I believe) from religion, in the Old Testament.

And it is interpreted differently between different religions (as to how many times you can get married, other details, etc)

Being such that we are supposed to have separation of church and state, the only thing our government should recognize is a civil union. Even between a man and a woman. Different religions can call it what they want. The government only recognizes a union between whatever two legally aged human parties are present as a contractual and financial agreement.

I'm Catholic, but I still think it's right not to judge and let others do as they please. If two people really love each other, and they are homosexual, they can have a civil union and the church to which they belong can call it marriage (if it wants to). Same with my relationship with a woman, the government only sees a civil union and my church can call it a marriage.

So has spousal abuse. Not everything that is old or established is good. Tradition can be a tool of oppression just as easily as it can be the agent of communal history-making.

Actually during the days of Republican Rome homosexuality was heavily stigmatised. Consider the lengths Julius Caesar went to to avoid and counteract the lifelong slur that he obtained a naval fleet from Bithnia through seducing its king.

Military records suggest it was particularly unwelcome in the legions - Gaius Marius notably pardoned a soldier who killed Marius' own relative for making an unwanted advance.

Things are much different today.

Why haven't we embraced the traditional Chinese model then? It lasted much longer than our own. Or that of the Australian aborigines. As I said before, tradition isn't necessarily wisdom.

This is the foundation of your argument, the assumption by which your "logic" stands or falls. So let's attack it.

This precept exist only to the extent that you believe that long-held traditions are a priori correct. Or that long-held traditions are something that should have more weight than other ideas that don't happen to be long-held traditions.

I don't. I choose not to accept that just because something has been done in the past means that we should continue to do so without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I believe that we should impose our values on ourselves as a society, and when those values change, we should change what we impose on ourselves.

If we believe in equal protection, then we should have equal protection. We (the United States) didn't value that not-so-long ago, when the "separate-but-equal" doctrine was allowed free reign. We decided, as a nation, that this was unacceptable, that separate is a priori not equal, and that we wanted all people to be equal under the law.

Therefore, so long as the law says anything about marriage, all people living under that law should be judged equally. Changing Constitutions to define this term in such a narrow fashion is the modern-day equivalent of the 3/5ths compromise that allowed slave states to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of getting legislators, but who could not cast even 3/5ths of a vote. Equal protection is a virtue, and we either hold to it always in all cases or we don't.

If you want marriage to be "protected," then stop the government from legislating it. If marriage is a religous construct, then deal with it in terms of religion and keep it there. Don't ask the government to give out licenses for it, don't ask the government to provide said couples tax breaks, or even joint filings, etc.

Because once they do that, they have to do it for everyone, equally. Otherwise, we are not who we say we are.

Good point. But like it or not, Latin wasn't the first language created. The latin term "marriage" was derived to describe something that had happened before latin was even invented. And where did that practice come from? That's the problem. You can't start defining it at the point where latin evolved the word, because arabic, for example, wasn't derived from latin!

You are misunderstanding me...you are right, a civil union is NOT a marriage. But, under my suggestion, the government only recognizes things that we now commonly refer to as "marriage" as a civil union (basically the same thing, but with the focus on the legal, contractual, and financial implications). Churches only apply the word marriage.

Let me make a crappy analogy. I buy a beer from the store. My buddy believes that the beer is holy and calls it a religious artifact. Fine with me, it's still just a beer to me but he can call it what he wants and treat it like whatever he wants, as long as he isn't infringing on my beer or other people's beers without their consent.

And yes, churches DO redefine marriage...if you notice, Catholic churches are not so keen on divorce, and if you have a divorce they will refuse to recognize your second marriage (unless you get it annulled). This is because of their definition of marriage as a once in a lifetime thing. The law recongizes your second marriage, however, and you can call your marriage a marriage without anyone but the Catholic church saying otherwise.

That's the problem. The definition of marriage (which you have not given me a clear, defined, cut source of both it's origin, precursors, and practice...don't worry, you won't find that! That's the problem!) has been at the wrong end of a game of grab-ass with religion for a long time. Both you and I know this is true. If it weren't so, this wouldn't be an issue.

Just because someone is different doesn't mean you need to alienate them. If I saw a gay couple that wanted to be married, that is fine with me -- I would invite them to my church and share my faith with them. It is their decision to make, and I am not the judge. I can disagree with their decision (I don't), but I can't personally see anything wrong with two people, who are truly in love (and who may not be able to help their emotions, although the choice vs nature debate gets ugly) getting married. That's another argument, however.

Debate is fun though, hope you did well in your mock debate.

I think your main weakness is that you can't define marriage entirely, and especially not with a simple latin root. Usually, at the start of Lincoln Douglas debate, you begin by offering a few definitions, with sources. Not so hard when you are talking about things like "nuclear deterrence", "national security", etc, but it's not so easy when it involves things like "marriage", "human life", etc.

 @ FN77:

Churches, like everyone else misuse "marriage". It's etymology, etc. is unimportant: It's popular misusage is. Churches/Temples/Misgads, etc. can only lay claim to the term "Holy Matrimony" since the ceremony is performed by an official of that organization and both people accept that religions rules as the basis for their contractual expectations.

Marriage/Civil Union should be identical, and if the Constitution were followed without prejudice, would be. I don't care about the "traditions" and "origins" of the word. There is no obligation to follow the past like sheep because of the etymology of the word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can understand how a black person might feel in seeing the flag of the now defunct Confederacy displayed in or part of the state flag where he/she lives, despite the claims that "It's our heritage" or "It's tradition" or "It's history". Clearly, to this person it's hateful/prejudice.

How is it that educated people cannot see that they are essentially doing the same thing to other people because of a part of those lives that does not touch nor affect their own? Because of tradition, history and heritage, religion?

Again I say equal rights for all. Get a grip and a life.

Marriage = Civil Union  if equal rights (and not the religious) and the Constitution are to be the criteria.

all I can say JB is that you are way off base

then why was Sparta mandating men to have heterosexual realtions for procreation (the men prefered the men )

if this is so, how is it that two states that recognize civil unions just shot down marriage bills?

it worked for the high schoolers but you've made a good point and I do belive that is the crux of the arguement.  the whole point of my position was to try to take it to any other arena than the religious one.  There must be a discussion that can be had about this issue, since it does effect all of our lives that is not muddled by our different takes on spirituality.  It was interesting for me and since my listeners were christian school students I wanted them to think outside of the box.  I actually posed as a Professor of Ancient History and Linguistics who was openly gay.  I answered their questions as one who differenciated between civil union and marriage as a point of linguistics and favored civil union(which was equal to marriage) for myself and my partner.

There's no "duking it out;" you lost. You lost the moment you stated your position. So long as equal protection is a virtue that this country holds dear, your limited definition of marriage is as much against that equal protection as Jim Crow laws were.

You either believe in an America where laws should be applied equally or you don't. It's that simple. And if you don't, I'd like to see how you would say that America deserves any moral high-ground against oppressive regimes?

Too many people who think like you.

Sparta's population also had no quams regarding homosexual relationships between adults, which is what I was referring to.  Your connection to any other type of sexual behavior was neither suggested nor intended by me.  Further, if you are connecting gay and pedophile, I believe your perspective is much different than mine and frankly I find the suggestion sickeningly bigoted.

JOA