Comment: I am not sorry for the length of this comment

(See in situ)

I am not sorry for the length of this comment

My argument for same sex marriage.
Legal marriage, as defined by the state is a contract between two consenting adults and the government for the purpose of extending legal and financial rights between two consenting adult persons not related by blood. The government can not discriminate in contracts based on the sex of an individual. It is for this reasoning that I believe two persons of the same sex will be allowed to marry via the supreme court decision.
Popular arguments against:
Religious; we have a freedom of expression in this country. Not everyone is the same religion, so laws, while originally crafted regarding a particular religious ceremony, will and can be changed to reflect a view consistent with non-prejudicial law. Religious marriage and legal marriage are two distinct bindings that do not need to coincide. A person can be married by the state without ever going into a church, just as two people could be married before god without ever filing with the state. This argument holds no legal standing.
Financial; the argument here states that it would create an unfair burden on companies and tax payers to pay for the benefits of same sex marriage. This is a false argument since single persons and homosexuals are paying for the marriages of men to women. There is no legal basis that should give one class of citizens the benefit over another class. Furthermore allowing same sex marriage may even end up costing the tax payer less. It is evident that marriages provide financial structure allowing couples to lean on each other for support, rather than government in cases of divorce.
Slippery Slope; many argue that if we allow same sex marriage that polygamy or beastiality marriages will follow. The legal precedent that will allow for same sex marriage is TWO consenting ADULT humans. There is no precedent that would lend itself to the validity of a marriage between man and sheep, lamp, child, or soccer team. This argument holds no standing.
Procreation; there is an argument that says marriage is between a man and a woman because they can create life. If the sole purpose of marriage was to create life, then elderly or infertile couples would be denied the right to marry. Furthermore, married couples with adult children whom they are no longer raising would be forced to divorce and would no longer be entitled to the benefits of marriage. This argument holds no standing.
I challenge anyone against same sex marriage to provide a logical and legal reason, without use of the above arguments, to tell me why same sex marriage should remain illegal.
I have been posting this argument for years and I have never once gotten a reply that did not invoke one of the aforementioned arguments.