In response to:

Redefining Marriage Raises Concerns For Children and Society

Paulus Textor Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 8:55 AM
What are the essential elements of what we call "marriage"? 1) Mutual agreement to provide for the upbringing of any children created by the union. 2) Mutual agreement to sexual exclusivity. 3) Mutual pooling of earnings to provide for a household. 4) Presumed rights of inheritance (which can be overridden by separate, mutual consent). 5) Presumed power of attorney if one spouse becomes injured, disabled, or sick. Gay people can have all the above, except number 1. If a gay couple wants to agree to points 2,3,4, and 5, they have every right to do so. They can CALL it marriage, or civil union, or XYZ. No one is harmed.
Science Avenger Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 4:17 PM
What in the world makes you think sexual exclusivity is an essential element of a marriage. Adultury is so common it would be reasonable to consider it the norm in our society, and much of it is with consent. You might get away with "mutaully agreed upon sexual boundaires", but even that is questionable. You people really need to time warp back to modern reality from this Leave it to Beaver fantasy world you seem to inhabit.
David3036 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 3:04 PM
There are no documents that will grant all the rights of marriage. The Social Security Administration will inot accept anything other than marriage, nor will Immigration, the IRS or any other federal program. The Defense Dept. is debating the issue, but so far a same-sex spouse of a soldier does not receive the free healthcare or other benefits.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:50 AM
Some same-sex couples (namely lesbian couples) do have children that are created via in vitro fertilization or sometimes through a doner. And it may be possible one day for two women to have their genetic material successfully fused in an embryo so that it is biologically their child. So 1 may be possible one day, at least for women.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 8:57 AM
If you call a rose a daffodil, what have you got? Well, you've still got a rose. Your calling it a daffodil does not make it so.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:51 AM
But same sex couples that get married are still treated differently under the law

No matter how you claim they are not, they are.
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:07 AM
Perhaps they're not completely married Tinsldr2, do Lester and Chester
reside in a nation where the federal government recognizes odd pairings?
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:11 AM
Because they ARE different.
du2 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 1:46 PM
You've still got beautiful flowers. You've still got flowers that can make whoever happy that likes them. They both exist in the world as a normal part of it's diversity. And neither flower hurts by their mutual existence. You can have ss marriage, and os marriage, you can have parent couples and non parent couples. All can coexist a none are lesser or more than what the COUPLE does for each other. The gov't can't validate the QUALITY anyway.
Born in the USA! Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:45 PM
If you call bigotry supporting traditional marriage, what do you got? Well, you still got bigotry not improving marriage or even helping to maintain marriages bw a man and a woman.
du2 Wrote: Feb 15, 2013 12:26 AM
No, bigotry is assuming that gay people will damage society or children or the value of marriage by marrying each other. Bigotry is making the gov't discriminate in ways that's not legal now, like tyranny by majority over the minority of gay people. Bigotry is using defamation that says gay people are perverted and intend harm, to discriminate. And all of that, doesn't protect OR support traditional marriage. It only supports bigotry.

NOTE: This is the sixth and final column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The fifth column is available here.

Much of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage asks about societal harms. Many advocates of the change quickly dismiss the question and insist that a redefinition of marriage won’t hurt anyone. But that conclusion proceeds from a misperception about what marriage is—a failure to grasp marriage’s role as a public institution that shapes our thoughts and actions.

Marriage is not merely a legal arrangement that bestows various benefits and...