[Dilly]

Did I miss anything?

You missed plenty.

First, there are many, many legal benefits of marriage that cannot be had by drawing up the contracts you suggest. Spouses inherit the other's property tax-free, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. Spouses get social security survivor beneifts when one dies, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. A spouse can sue a third party for the wrongful death of the other spouse, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. I could go on, but you get the idea.

And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?

[ohioman]

I am so sickened by your endless fag-friendly posts. For all of our sakes, go to DU or get the hell back in your closet.

[azhenfud]

"And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?"

Because they CHOOSE to be perverts.

[FBFranco]

And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?

And also, what about the person who is in love with his/her animal and practices bestiality? Surely they deserve the same consideration as a same-sex perverted couple.

Both classes of perverts are equal.

[RicocheT]

You ignore the social importance of marriage between a man and a woman. Only conventional families and the children they raise insure the long term survival of society.

Sex partners do not equate with heterosexual marriage. Real marriage is a long-term private and social compact of family raising, not just sex. Because of the social benefits, Society has recognized it and granted marriage special status.

Families with children pass on society's good values to their children, defer immediate gratification to store up wealth for their children and stay together for love of the spouse and the protection of their children.

Society benefits by stable families as they, not the state assume the burden of child raising. Society benefits by families' long-term wealth building as there is more wealth for investing in businesses and social infrastructure.

Homosexual and casual sex alliances do not generate wealth building as they live for today, not tomorrow. Children of casual sex do not have two parents to guide and protect them. Most single mothers try hard to raise their children, but only with sacrifice and extra efforts. Look at the wealth statistics for single moms, they don't have the second income source two parent families do.

[First Amendment]

And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?

Because two people of the same sex have never, in the history of civilized societies, ever been able to marry. You can take your argument and use it to cover a man marrying his mother, or his father, or daughter, or two brothers, or a gang of friends, etc.

The end of the argument is that there is an absolute unchangeable standard of wrong and right, and homosexuals and their supporters don't like that and want to shove their moral relativism down our throats. I personally have had enough and am going to fight it with every ounce of my being for the rest of my life.