You might prefer this one Foxy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKYE4xtJ09A

Josephus,

Ben Shapiro’s argument in that video you linked to was dumb. He relies on the standard libertarian line (at least the standard line for those libertarians who want to oppose same-sex marriage and still feel like libertarians) about the only reason for the government being “in the marriage business” is because they have an interest in the next generation.

However, marriage also provides equitable access to rights, and the certainty of those rights, for couples who may not be able to afford expensive court cases or legal fees. Yes, de facto couples have some of those rights too, but they can be subject to the whim of a judge's discretion where they would not be if the couple were married.

The "marriage equality" claim is not borne out by the decisions of the highest human rights authorities in the international order. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have held that there is no inequality where a state retains the traditional definition of marriage. In so ruling, these bodies have actually affirmed the inherent equality of all persons.

A Homosexual person can still marry a person of the opposite gender; they are not denied marriage. Sex with a person of the same gender is not marriage. Many whose preference is for relationship with the same gender marry persons of the opposite gender and have children. There is no discrimination against them they are socially equal. The relationship of marriage is primarily about children, as many who fall pregnant decide to marry to be in the interest of the child.

There is inequality in the rights of the child if the child is denied access to their biological parents. Surrogacy and IVF on a single parent demonstrates inequality for the child. It denies the right of the child, for the selfish parent.

Currently those that uphold traditional heterosexual relationships as marriage are being suppressed by less than 2% of the population to accept that homosexual marriage is equal. When the SSM law is established this point of view is denied as a criminal offense. Freedom of expression is denied, their freedom to express ideas is curtailed. That is why court cases in every country where SSM is legalised is destroying businesses, criminalising good families and removing gender identity.

The irrationality that somehow same sex relationships
are not equal to heterosexual relationships and are
disgusting - suggests
this is unreliable as a source of moral insight.

There may be good arguments against gay marriage but the
fact that some people find such acts to be disgusting
should carry no weight.

Straw man, Foxy - nobody much is saying that. How one has sex, and the nature of marriage, are two separate issues.

If anything, surely we must be asking ourselves these days, what is the purpose or need for marriage ? Back in the days when sex may have meant, to young woman, a likely pregnancy, the midnight flit of the bloke, no single mother's benefits, no effective birth control, shame and destitution - sex was a very, very big deal for the woman, potentially life-changing, and marriage sort of 'captured' the bloke and - in front of the world - required him to undertake that he wouldn't shoot through, that he would work and look after any kids that came along, at least until his wife was able to go back to work.

Not much of that is as relevant any more. So - being perhaps more Marxist (or Engelsian) than Gramscian - why have marriage at all ? People now can happily and securely live together with being married, with no particular social stigma.

Yes, yes, the notion of homosexual marriage certainly pokes a stick up the arses of many conservatives (yuck, yuck ! bastards !) but apart from that, why marriage ?

Joe

'However, marriage also provides equitable access to rights..'

What about the right of singles NOT to be obliged to subsidise the 'love' choices of others?

In public employment and this would include politicians, the broad 'married'/'partnered' status attracts very generous conditions that are not available to singles. Those entitlements have to be paid for.

Where it matters, for example in the cost of shelter, singles are very disadvantaged. For instance, the couple can share a rent of $440 for a two b/r unit, but the single alone must pay close to that for a 1 b/r.

SSM is just thousands more getting 'married'/'partner' benefits that single workers have to indirectly subsidise through taxes and remuneration agreements.

Many years ago when women were in effect excluded from the workforce on marriage (which was nigh inescapable) there may have been some excuse, but not now.