What are the views on the legalization of gay marriage?

Only God determines the legitimacy of a marriage

Question: What are the views on the legalization of gay marriage?
Position‹4 of 4: It is an irrelevant debate
Argument: Only God determines the legitimacy of a marriage

It is not the role of the state to determine who we can and cannot marry.

The argument

According to the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament created by God himself to allow the physical and spiritual union of one man and one woman for the sacred purpose of procreating and raising children. There is no other reason to be married and, therefore, no other form of a partnership shall be recognized as a marriage. The state has allowances that grant them the ability to call certain unions a marriage in the eyes of the law. Despite this Earthly fact, a marriage in the eyes of the law does not prove it's legitimacy. Only a marriage recognized by God is a true marriage. So the debate between whether or not a marriage between same-sex couples is irrelevant. God does not recognize the marriage, therefore it is not so.

Premises

[P1]Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God for the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. [P2] Only a union recognized by God constitutes a legitimate marriage, regardless of what civil law declares. [P3] Since God does not recognize same-sex unions as marriages, no legal ruling can make them so. [C] Therefore, the debate over legalizing gay marriage is irrelevant, because legitimacy is determined by God alone.

Counter-arguments

The state has always been involved in marriage. As far back as ancient Rome, marriage was a legal matter under the remit of imperial law. It is an entirely legal construct. Socially we do not need to publicly declare our commitment to another person. It is implied in our decision to spend all our time with them, share responsibilities, and share our living quarters.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The sacramental definition is a doctrinal claim internal to one tradition, not a shared starting point. Marriage has been a legal institution regulated by civil authority since at least Roman imperial law, and Christian bodies themselves disagree about what marriage is for. [Rejecting P2] The premise concedes that the state can and does confer marital status in law. Since the debate is precisely about that legal status — who may inherit, visit a hospital bed, adopt, or file jointly — saying it is not the real thing does not remove the question. [Rejecting P3] This asserts access to God's judgment on the matter rather than establishing it. It is offered as a fact about the world when it is a statement of one tradition's teaching, and traditions that read the same scriptures reach different conclusions. [Rejecting C] Irrelevance does not follow. The premises concern theological legitimacy while the legalisation question is about civil recognition, so at most they show that a legal ruling would not settle the theological point — which no one advancing the legal case claims it would.