Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Bibliofagus]

First of all: Thank you for your answer Lek.

Then how can it not be the governments business defining what marriage is?
Do you propose that decisions about taxes should be made elsewhere? And if so where??

Well, the whole idea of giving a married person a tax advantage over a single person seems unfair to me. Why because you're married should you have a tax advantage?

I mostly agree with this.

When the government started doing this people had to start getting a legal document issued by the government, stating that they married. Before that people didn't need to have the government sanction their marriage. My wife and I are not married because the government says so, but because we committed ourselves and our lives to each other.

I've never considered this, but I guess a case can be made for the argument that religious marriage outdates state marriage. Or for the idea that monogamous relationships predate marriage.

On the other hand theft and ownership outdate criminal law as well. In this context the question would be: Do I own my stuff because the government says so, or because that's the reality of the situation?

My answer is: both. Laws on ownership serve to settle disputes. As they do in marriage.

I envision replacing the government's version of marriage with a civil union. If two individuals want to share their lives and resources and have children they can establish a legal contract which formalizes the agreement and protects the children and each other. This contract would be recognized by the government and, if they want to apply certain tax advantages, they would be based on that contract.

So... Basically you are saying that the government shouldn't use the word marriage anymore in laws or something?

Let's say I would want quick results on equal legal rights for gay people (which I do), I think renaming legal marriage would actually help laws helping gays get the same rights get through easier. So I'm all for that. There's a problem however. There are more issues than legal issues.

If the individuals don't want to be married, they don't have to.

In this context you should say: If the individuals don't want to have a marriage sanctioned by some institution they care about, they don't have to.

And I agree.

But there is a problem. You seem to want to take the power to sanction a 'marriage' away from the government.

This takes away the possibility for secular people to have an 'official' 'marriage'. I'm a secular person. I'm married to my wife. Marry is the word I've used all my life. It's the word I like to use to describe my relationship to my wife. I don't want an arrangement called anything else. I don't want to go to church to earn the 'right' to call my relationship a marriage. And I want the government to act accordingly.

It's not the role of the government to determine whether or not they are married.

Nope. People choose to marry themselves. It's up to the government to sanction it to whomever legally applies for recognition.

As a witness to my faith, I want to clarify that I don't believe in homosexual sexual relations, in any case, or heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage.

It's not the role of Lek to determine whether or not people are married. Neither is it the church's role.
I think the government is best suited. You can't tell a church they have to marry everyone who is legally elegible, but you can tell that to a government.

I do acknowledge that I live in a world where everybody doesn't share my beliefs and we all should be treated equally and fairly under the law and by each other..

I'm all for that as well.