In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

Paulus Textor Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:19 PM
The main elements of what we call "marriage" are: 1) commitment to a long-term, mutually-supportive relationship; 2) mutual ownership of property; 3) mutual care for any children of the marriage; 4) rights of inheritance of property; 5) power of attorney for medical decisions. There are other minor issues, mostly involving inheritance rights to unconstitutional government programs (SS leading the list). In a free society that recognizes the right of contract, any adults should be able to agree to the above elements (in fact, they could right now; it's difficult to see how such a contract could be voided). Whether you choose to name such a contract "marriage", "civil union", or some other term is inconsequential.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:50 PM
marriages are SOCIETY's business. it's a societal construct.
since society delegates power to it's government,it rightfully becomes government's concern and area of authority.
Moonbat Exterminator Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:37 PM
From a legal standpoint, marriage is not required to accomplish any of those.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:37 PM
And yet, the legal requirements of marriage are that both parties be of the opposite sex, unmarried, appropriate age, non-consanguine, and offer consent.

If you want to make a legally enforceable contract regarding joint property ownership, childcare, inheritance and power of attorney, anyone is free to do so, but they cannot legally call such a contract "marriage" unless it meets all the above requirements, as has been defined by the law, tradition and society throughout most of history.

Marriage is open to everyone regardless of sexual preference -homosexuals simply choose to not get married, while demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to suit their sexual behaviors- that is why they do not receive the legal benefits.
Doug3370 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:32 PM
So long as there are laws concerning marriage, the name by which such a contract goes matters. Married pairs are exempt from having to testify against one another. Social Security, operating under the societal assumption that in a marriage there are generally children and that one spouse has foregone some earnings so as to spend time raising those children, gives spousal benefits.

The forces behind the push for gay marriage seem to have the upper hand. Damage control is indicated. Can we perhaps get those leading the charge to parse their demands in such a way that polygamy doesn't come walking through the door too once they bust it down? Some advocates of gay marriage may intend simply the general ruin of society, but others may not.
Troglodite Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:23 PM
In response, see my comments of 12:04.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:23 PM
Unless, of course, you want to send the police in to arrest anyone who calls their contract by a term you don't like.
Troglodite Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 12:29 PM
Let us think this through. Maurice and Bruce draw up and sign a contract promising, among other things, to give each other oral and anal sex. The contract contains a clause stating that either party may opt out, but only if that party pays the other party $50,000. After a few years, Maurice decides that he wants to give up on homosexuality and walks out. Bruce sues him in court for $50,000. As a member of the jury, do you find for Bruce or Maurice?

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...