I normally would agree with your interpretation, but the fact remains that the gay rights activists are not merely content with the privacy of their bedrooms, but are intent on FORCING everyone to ACCEPT their personal choice as morally right (either through the schools by indoctrinating young children, or by lewd acts in public?

In particular this paragraph:

Any intimate relations between two consenting adults that are biologically incapable of producing offspring is just sex. And in America over the last fifty years liberals have worked hard to eliminate any justification for the involvement of the government in any form of regulation of sex occurring between two consenting adults.

So you’re stating here that all those folks who want government “out of the bedroom”, and who complain about Republican morality police etc,, ad naseum are the ones who are being inconsistent when they advocate for gay marriage, because they are arguing for greater government involvement in regulating sexual behavior.

What this does is to expose, as Xasteius mentions above, that the real goal of most of those pushing for gay marriage is not about reducing government involvement in intimate relationships, but rather using government to enforce approval of same-sex relationships as equivalent to (or for some, even superior to) opposite-sex relationships and to proscribe those who object to such equivalency.

That is, to use government to impose their version of social morality.

Or as the poster says, “it’s not Fascism when we do it”.

Perhaps I’m slow, please bear with me. I don’t think I understand the connection you are making between having children and marriage. Marriage confers all sorts of legal rights unrelated to having children, such as community property, division of your property upon death, rights of visitation in the hospital, etc. How is marriage solely a contract between two people and the government to protect the rights of 3rd parties, if the marriage produces no children?

It is a good question and no, you are not slow. Marriage extends certain rights and obligations. Often it is the obligations that young people over look. The question is if marriage extends rights, exactly why does it do that. First off, community property is not a marriage right, exclusively. I know nothing about you, not your sex or anything else, but I can tell you right now we could form a legally binding agreement creating a partnership between you and I that would be recognized by the government and we could own community property. Upon the death of either of us the partnership would be dissolved, and property would be distributed according to the contract. If you wanted your share to be left to someone you would have to place that in a will. If you wanted it to be given to the surviving partner, survivor ownership would be a valid contract stipulation. The government is fully prepared to settle any disputes arising at the time the contract is terminated. They do not need advance notice. The contract could be terminated not only by the death of one partner, but also by the choice by one or both of us to simply end the agreement, if such a termination clause was included in the contract. So, there is nothing here that requires the government to approve, or even be informed of this in advance and a marriage license is secured in advance. In any case the government does not have to have the right of advance approval, which is implied in marriage by the requirement to secure a license.

As for the right to visit in the hospital, that is something that can be structured. A valid agreement might need to be augmented by additional documents such as powers of attorney, living and final wills designating each other the custodian, executor and beneficiary. I have found that being married doesn’t absolutely allow access, nor does being a parent, but that being financially responsible carries a significant weight. So in actuality proper planning provides this “benefit” which is not actually a “right of marriage” and does not actually have to be recognized by a hospital.

What is common in all these things is that if you or I die, or if we decide to exercise our contractual right to terminate the contract the assets are divided among us and all rights under the contract would terminate.

But if we had a child, that changes the arrangement. At the point a child is born to one of us, that child has a claim on all our assets, present and future that supersedes any clauses to the contrary in the contract (assuming one of us was female and one male and that the child was the product of our interpersonal relations). To exercise those rights the child or his or her representative may have to bring suit in a court of law to prove their claim.

Because of this, governing bodies have developed a concept of law that permits a two people of opposite sex to acknowledge in advance the right of any offspring of their relationship and their right to claim on their assets jointly and severally even if the parties terminate the relationship.
The term we use to describe this unique contractual arrangement is marriage. And marriage is an acknowledgement before a court of law that the parties accept this condition of their relationship, then it is right that the government be involved at the formation of the contract.

So, basically unless there are children all the “rights” of marriage are simple legal agreements that exist in any agreement and begin and end with the period of time that the agreement between the parties is in force.