The argument seems to often be framed in a way that implies one is suggesting gay marriage *instead of* heterosexual marriage. If there is social value in committed, stable relationships then it would seem society could only benefit from expanding this to individuals who would otherwise be legally excluded.

Of course there is social value in the institution of marriage - and that strengthens the argument for broadening the base. This is in no way about changing the structure of current marriages. It is about not interfering with the freedom of other people to seek happiness in a way that works for them.

And no matter how much circumlocution is employed, the argument against always come down to "Ick" or "God's gonna be pissed"


> If it is a contract for partnership, common-property and mutual responsibility, and legal drama upon dissolution, there really doesn't seem to be any logical impediment to gay marriage.
>
>If that's all it is then the same cynic might point out that there's no justification for special legal status at all. So remove it from the rule books. Let it revert to a cultural/religious behavior with long-established cultural norms. Then everybody can make whatever sort of common property contract they please and nobody can think they're missing out- any more than they might think they're missing out on hip-hop because it doesn't appeal to them either.
>
>Alternatively, could there be more to it than the simple civil contractual basis you describe?