There is a baseline assumption to all of the same-sex marriage argument that I am not sure I agree with. In particular, everyone talks of the “Right” to marry, when in fact people are asking for the “Benefits” of marriage. These benefits, as Chris and RAH, point out tend to focus on property and the use of such to provide for the children of the resulting marriage.
To play Devil’s Advocate, I am not positive that it is not within society’s power to deny the property benefits given that no children can possibly be conceived. As a general principle I do not believe that people have a general right to marry… in fact, we are rife with laws that prevent marriage based on age, mental state (the ability to consent), relationship of the two people (marriage between cousins and even siblings is allowed, albeit frowned upon, in many European countries). So clearly marriage is not an absolute Right. And given that it is not an absolute Right, why wouldn’t a society convey a benefit when it cannot possibly receive a benefit in return… in this case, new citizens to continue the society?
I know this is a hot political topic, so while people might find the idea unpalatable… is the logic incorrect?
