Replies

For example, rather than getting married to a woman... why couldn't me and another straight friend have a same-sex marriage just so we c ould save money on our taxes, meanwhile we could still be heterosexual and have relationships with women "no strings attached

If that's what you want, why not? The problem is, IMO, that government has remained involved in marriage, since separating itself from its religious role. The legal document called "marriage" is a financial contract. It is not a vow before God. Given the ease of divorce, it has no guarantee of being a long-term commitment.

Personally, I consider a long-term, committed homosexual relationships -- and I'll also include consensual relationships of more than two adults -- to be more real of a marriage than a heterosexual couple who get married and a divorced after a few years because "it's too much of a struggle" or they "need their space."

In my view, it is the long-term commitment to share a household -- with or without children -- that makes the marriage. Hetero- or homosexual it is, in my view, the same commitment. It's marriage that is easily exited that dilutes marriage.

"long-term commitment to share a household -- with or without children -- that makes the marriage."

Wow! I never realized my college roomates and I were married. As for your complaining about the govt. recognizing marriage, Married couples need less taxes because they have to raise children, or will have to in the near future.

"The legal document called "marriage" is a financial contract. "

Really? Ever heard of children?

If you want to assert that it's just a financial document, then let's agree that same-sex couples are not allowed to have children.

Children are about much more than finances.