Taking your system, I would say that homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals – they can Marry.

So long as they only agree to marry those people you say they may.

Forgive me if I’m not deeply impressed with this argument. Go back to the argument I made, and try again.

It is typical of the gay rights movement to go for the extreme, and use all sorts of nastiness to get their way. In this case, SSM is the extreme – in fact it is a meaningless term since the SS and the M are incompatible.

Again, you’re making a circular argument, “begging the question”.

In any cse, though, if as you appear to be asserting, the strength of “marriage” as you have it defined comes from its religious or traditional basis, then to the extent it conflicts with the right of two people to freely form a “marriage contract”, I hold it to be unjust, and morally void.

They would do much better seeking various protections that come with marriage, if there are any that cannot be produced simply with contracts.

I agree with you completely; what I want to see is for the right to make such a contract extended to everyone.

As it stands, however, there are a number of things that simply can’t be done by contract, or can only be done by contract at the expense of extensive legal help. For example:

- you can’t, by simple contract, establish an absolute right to visit or be considered “next of kin” in a hospital

- you can’t, by simple contract, establish the right of joint ownership of property, to financial benefits that would be granted automatically by marriage, or to inheritance

On the other hand, you can by contract establish joint ownership with rights of survivorship — but you won’t get the tax protections granted a “spouse”.

You can, by contract, agree to share income and expenses — but you can’t enforce that contract to have both partners covered by health insurance or employment benefits.

You can, by contract, agree to share a retirement fund — but you can’t force the government to pay “survivor benefits” from Social Security.

I have not yet heard why gay “marriage” is important.

See above.

What are the practical benefits of SSM’s and why does it have to be called Marriage?

Again, see above, for at least a partial list.

I’m actually willing to argue that there shouldn’t be a legal entity called “marriage”. (Where’d the capital letter come from, by the way?) But, assuming it granted the same rights and privileges to any “married” couple, I don’t care if you call it Aloysius.