"If you respect the law, you’d agree. If you love children, you’d also agree."

Or a person can both respect the law and love children and disagree with your fragile and profoundly flawed remarks about the law and about marriage.

Indeed, as your remarks have revealed, you respect not the rule of law but the abuse of judicial review in imposing conclusions that are pre-drawn in your favor.

And as your remarks have shown, you are very selective about which children merit the protections that you have favored for some but not all.

You have ascribed ill-motive to people with whom you disagree.

I have pointed to your admitted ignorance of marriage and to your circular thinking. But I would not, and have not, said that you are motivated by less than love for children. I have pointed to your being well-intentioned.

The hyper-personalized insult adds zilch to the substantive disagreement, but it is another tell tale sign of a weak position on your part.

"Gay marriage means marriage between two people of the same gender."

Your response to Marie earlier was an admission that even you believe what you just said is false.

"Has anyone ever married the government? I know of no wedded couple who sought society’s permission or consent to be married."

The government is party to the agreement to marry. You have said that to marry is to consent to the government bennies. Consenting adults could do that in twos as well as in moresomes or onesomes. You haven't explained why this should not be so.

Instead you pose as if things should remain the way things have always been. Again, that contradicts your own stated standards.

A lone individual can enter an agreement with the government for government bennies. You said so.

When a license is issued, and eligibility criteria are enforced, the consenting adults do seek the consent of the government. That's fair when the government acts as proxy for society, as a whole -- rather than as a rubber stamp for identity politics as per the hyped emphasis on the gaycentric version of identity politics which is barey disguised in your comments.

The opinion of that court depended on "same-sex attraction and romance" for which there is no legal requirement -- neither for eligibility nor for ineligibility.

There are other examples but that one is the most blatant.

The Iowa Court opinion displayed circular thinking. You favor that, I know, but the conclusion is not based on reasoning. It is a pre-drawn conclusion. That's an abuse of judicial review.

"you refuse to accept the burden of discrimination against some couples entails if OSM only continues."

That is demonstrably false.

I have repeatedly pointed to the core of marriage upon which eligibility criteria are established.

Some consenting adults are ineligible within the opposite-sex category. The criteria are not arbitrary but are based on legitimate concerns about uniting the sexes and uniting motherhood and fatherhood. Combined, these concerns are at the core of marriage and so eligibility criteria will vary based on a society's adaptation to what marriage actually is. See the universal features.

The purpose of law is to dsicriminate. Sometimes a law might discriminate unjustly; but elibigibility criteria will always discriminate, even when it does this justly.

You have feigned interest in this, I think, when you said that some consenting adults are ineligible and that this is "fine" in your opinion. I've asked why you think that is "fine". Your response is amounts to a shrugged I-don't-know.

You said that I "refuse to acknowledge the burden on the children of SS couples"

False, again, as per my remarks about the provision for designated beneficiaries for families -- especially those with children -- who are outside the bounds of marriage. These families are defined by gayness but by needs that are experienced due to certain vulnerabilities; and these vulnerabilities arise because of the lack, or a defficiency, in sex integration and responsible procreation. Regardless of the burden incurred on society, and on these families, their arrangements remain nonmarital -- not due to unjust discrimination nor due to disregard; but rather due to just discrimination, based on what marriage actually is, and due to a steady and compassionate regard for the needs of such familes.

You said: "We should be encouraging parents of either sexual orientation to marry, and solidify their long-term commitment."

There is no sexual orientation criterion in the marriage law and none in the marital presumption of paternity. Most of the children, by far, living in same-sex households got there by marigrating with one or the other parent whose previously procreative relationship (i.e. typically marriage) entailed the presumption of paternity. Mom or dad might not be resident, but the nonresident parent's parental status remains intact -- because of the opposite-sex nature of human procreation.

Something your viewpoint would trivialize, even for these children you pose as if your flattening of marriage, and uniformed dismissal of the presumption of paternity, would serve children better than not.

Yes, I use my judgement when assessing the actual facts of marriage and the actual lines of argument used by SSMers such as yourself. Circular thinking is, in my judgement, not good enough.

When I pointed out that SSM argumentation relies on tradition you clapped your hands with glee and said that this must mean that marriage has changed. You missed two points.

1. The core meaning of marriage -- as identified by the universal features of this social institutio -- is not a tradition. Traditions of marriage are variables, as has been explained to you in other parts of our extended discussions.

2. Your arugmentation depends on the tradition of romance but SSM argumentation has repeated derided tradition as insufficient for the basis of a law. Your own rhetoric in your comments invoked this rule that tradition is changeable and thus insufficient basis for marriage law.

Taken together, your circular thinking has been dashed on the rocks of your own stated standards.

Just because SSM has no core meaning, you have chosen to play the very weak hand that would render marriage itself meaningless both at law and culturally.

Your cards are on the table for all to see.

There is a marriage culture, as per Marie's description of her concerns when she spoke of her sympathy (and more, her support) for "intimate" partners. You brushed that aside. This confirms, again, that your remarks would trivialzie the influence on the marrige culture of your proposed legal reform.

That is an unserious attitude toward marriage as a social institution -- one foundatinal to civilization and one that is the most pro-child we have.

The state doesn’t get to question opposite-sex couples what their motivations are, leading to, say, someone marrying a friend so he doesn’t get deported.

Actually, Jeff's statement is very wrong. marriage fraud is actively investigated in immigration cases.

And Jon, perhaps you can tell me how this logic from Jeffrey was "lucid"? If not lucid, how was it even reasonable?

Adultery and divorce are the ultimate abuses of marriage, and nobody wants to outlaw them.

Well, I hate to be the one to wake Jeffrey up to this fact in all his lucidness, but if he wants same-sex couples to be able to abuse marriage like others abuse it with divorce and adultery, he's barking up the wrong tree.

Adultery is definitely not recognized as a valid marriage.

Divorce, is doubly so.

And, on the b-side of that song we note that recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman does not make same-sex relationships illegal. Nor does it make recognizing same-sex relationships illegal.

So with all that wrong in his argument, what did you find in it that was lucid?

"Me and a lot of people are unfamiliar with that concept [the marital presumption of paternity]. Whatever it is, I don’t know of anyone who got married in order to achieve or honor it."

What you don't know is irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. It is relevant your remarks in which you have repeatedly waved a dismissive hand at that of which you now readily concede you are ignorant.

This is a glaring admission on your part, given it has been explained multiple times in different ways -- including at your own request for an explanation.

Blind leading the blind, no?

Tell me, give me one point that you think that Jeff said that was lucid. Just one. Because I haven't found one yet. Maybe, however, you can present them more logically?

Thanks,

That Jon has patted you on the back, again, means he hopes your bluff with succeed.

Your response to Marie, who is sympathetic to "intimate, same-sex partners " confirms that your argumentation is about your fear of being anything but indiscriminate.

But for marital status to be sustainable, it must be distinctive. And that requires discrimination -- as in distinguishing one thing from the rest.

Since you have not undertaken the task of distinguishing marriage from the rest, and have not undertaken the task of distinguishing SSM from the rest, you would ighten your burden, as a proponent of a legal reform, and abandon even the concerns of a someone who would distinguish "intimate" relationshp types from the less meaningful type of parnership that you would embed in the law and -- despite your indifference -- also in the marriage culture.

I think you're right in your observations. And remember, abuses of marriage take many forms. It's appalling to me how Rush Limbaugh abuses marriage with his propensity for divorce. He either doesn't take marriage seriously, or is seriously deficient in conducting a marriage. Adultery and divorce are the ultimate abuses of marriage, and nobody wants to outlaw them. It strikes me as odd how same-sex couples wanting to marry seems to "threaten" marriage in some peoples' eyes, yet adultery and divorce get a pass.

Let me ask you: what reasons would two heterosexual buddies have for wanting to get married? In the interest of avoiding discrimination, I'm happy to let any two non-related consenting adults marry. The state doesn't get to question opposite-sex couples what their motivations are, leading to, say, someone marrying a friend so he doesn't get deported. Therefore, same-sex couples shouldn't be questioned either. This could result in two same-sex buddies getting married. But we currently permit opposite-sex buddies to marry, for whatever purpose So nothing really changes.

Should they? That's where I start to wonder. Did the state have that kind of union in mind when it offered protections and benefits for people who married?

I agree that intimate, same-sex partners should be able to marry. But I'm not so sure marriage was intended to be used as a mere business arrangement between any two consenting adults?

There's a motive for states to encourage marriage between intimate couples, in that it creates more stable parenting environments, reduces promiscuity (and thus unwanted pregnancies), etc.

But to just open up marriage to anyone who wants to reap the financial and legal benefits of it... I'm not so sure that's what the states had in mind. What motive is there for the state to bond two friends or business partners together?

“You have now established that you have no substantive answer to the question about that to which people commit.”

I’m sorry you wrestle with the concept of commitment. It means an intent for long-term involvement. I sympathize with your spouse.

“You have established that you are not familiar with the societal and the legal significance of the marital presumption paternity.”

Me and a lot of people are unfamiliar with that concept. Whatever it is, I don’t know of anyone who got married in order to achieve or honor it.

“You have misconstrued the provision for responsible procreation for some theoretical mandate for the government to force married people to procreate. You’ve continue with this line even after being corrected repeatedly.”

Well, since there’s no connection legally between marriage and procreation, it’s tough to understand how a subset of procreation, “responsible procreation,” can be related to marriage. It fails the logic test.

“You have conceded that you don’t care about the marriage culture. The influence on the culture of the marriage law, in your view, is trivial.”

I don’t think my view of the influence of marriage on culture is relevant to whether SSM should be legal or not. In terms of culture, though, SSM is just part of our culture’s rethinking of gender requirements: women got the right to vote; men can become nurses, fathers can not work and stay at home with the kids, women can play college sports, etc. The country began down the path of de-gendering institutions well before SSM showed up. And probably these other efforts at uncoupling gender distinctions from institutions had to happen, and lay the groundwork, for general public acceptance of SSM.

“Your comments illustrate that you have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.”

Sure I have. Since married couples enjoy specific rights and obligations, they differ from non-married couples. OSM and SSM couples enjoy the same rights. So, SSM is distinguished for the “nonmarriage category.”

“Yet you seek a special status based on the small subset that you define by homosexuality — a criterion that makes no appearance in the laws for SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted. And you do not propose such a requirement in your arguments.”

Nope, no special status for anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. That’s the whole point. Let’s stop treating opposite-sex couples as a special combination for the purposes of marriage. They are not considered special for other purposes.

“Your refuse to carry the burden that your proposed reform entails.”

And you refuse to accept the burden of discrimination against some couples entails if OSM only continues. You refuse to acknowledge the burden on the children of SS couples who wonder why their parents aren’t married, like the parents of their friends. Opponents of SSM appear unconcerned with the jeopardy to children that unmarried parents create. We should be encouraging parents of either sexual orientation to marry, and solidify their long-term commitment.

“See your lack of a substantive answer for the question about commiment. Marriage may be something to which people commit. But what is marriage, in your view? Silence on this only concedes that your view is ill-formed and superficial.”

That you don’t like my answers doesn’t make my view ill-informed and superficial. But perhaps your judgmental nature makes it harder for you to understand and accept same-sex marriage.

“The Iowa Court opinion is not well-reasoned. Your summary reveals that you got the gist of the opinion. And still you return to it even thought it contradicts your own stated standards. Thus, it is the conclusion, not the reasoning, that you favor.”

I like both its reasoning and its conclusion.

“Maybe you deny it, but your words reveal the leaps of faith of a gay activist. Yours is a sectarian view of society and of the marriage issue. And it is this which you seek to impose on our pluralistic and very open society.”

I deny any leaps of faith. I am not a gay activist. I favor a non-sectarian view of society and the marriage issue. I want to impose non-discriminatory access to marriage on society. This permits individuals to choose the marriage arrangement that suits their personal and/or faith needs.

“You said: “A contract requires at least two parties.” Is not the government a party to the contract? Yes, of course. And the consent of society, via the authority delegated to government, is what consenting adults seek when they show up for a license to marry.”

Has anyone ever married the government? I know of no wedded couple who sought society’s permission or consent to be married. A prospective groom might ask for his bride’s father’s permission but that’s a social or cultural ritual. The father can say “no” and the couple can still get married. Society might get fed up with Rush Limbaugh’s unfortunate pattern of marriage and divorce but it’s pretty helpless to stop his behavior.

“Gay marriage isn’t an oxymoron.” You have not explained how it is “gay” much less how it is marriage. Of course, you have denied a gay identity filter and so your are left with holding the truth that this phrase is an oxymoron. It also is an absurdity in the immediate sense that you would even bother to claim it is marriage when you haven’t distinguished marriage from the vast range of nonmarital arrangements and types of relationships. The lack of a gay requirement compounds the absurdity of the phrase as per our defense of it.”

Gay marriage means marriage between two people of the same gender. There’s nothing oxymoronic about it. Maybe you’re more comfortable with the term “same-sex marriage.” A couple is married when the state says they are. Not you or I. You may have an opinion about the quality of a couple’s marriage but can’t have an opinion about the legality of the marriage.

“Your viewpoint actually amounts to an argument against marital status — the flattening of marriage to the extent that it becomes indistinguishable from all other kinds of arrangements and types of relationships.”

No, I’m really in favor of marriage, especially if kids are being raised by a couple. I think it’s great when two people are so committed to each other that they want to create a legal bond. Although I don’t disdain couples who choose not to marry. Everyone has his or her own reasons for getting married, or not getting married.

“You may be well-intentioned, and I take your intentions at face value, but the huge holes in your descriptions of marriage, the law, and the culture make everything you’ve said in favor of SSM very, very, very suspect.”

I think there’s a pretty solid, hole-free argument in favor of SSM. If you respect the law, you’d agree. If you love children, you’d also agree.

“Nothing holds your argument together except gay identity politics being asserted as a trump card against all dissent and opposition. Your disgreement with marriage is not really about marriage, afterall. Whether or not you are gay yourself, whether or not you comprehend the holes in your viewpoint, is irrelevant at this point. Your remarks here have revealed these flaws in SSM arugmentation. You have faithfully repeated the pro-SSM themes and for that readers can be thankful.”

I’m not really sure what “gay identity politics” are but I’m more concerned with discrimination based on gender. If two heterosexual males want to get married, I think they should be able to. They’re not gay and yet I think they should (and do, in 5 states) have the right to marry. I’m not “disagreeing” with marriage, whatever that might mean. I’m objecting to the state issuing marriage licenses to one kind of couple, while excluding another kind of couple. If human adults form couples, and find it advantageous to create a legal bond between them, why should some couples have the right and not others, based on gender? Gender considerations didn’t stop the couples from forming in the first place.

I’m as confident that our discussion has revealed the flaws in OSM “argumentation.” I hope lots and lots of people read this discussion. If I have faithfully repeated pro-SSM themes, well, that tells me I must be on the right track in terms of logic and law. I’m happy to have others agree with me!