"You are talking about protections for childlren. Yet your remarks exclude all but that tiny subset

Calling nonmarriage marriage does nothing for children in families where there is need for protections"

-----
I would beg to differ that marriage "does nothing" for these children..as many others have stated that marriage increases the chances a couple will stay together if they are raising children. So it does do "something"...what degree that "something" is remains to be seen.

Going with your "circles" analogy..I think the point is, that allowing marriage equality would "do something" for that small subset of children..and the point is, it does not do anything to hurt or harm all of the other circles. They are completely and totally unrelated, so they are unaffected (their parents are still legally married, living together, raising kids)--nothing changes in the dynamics of any of the other circles...., while that small circle is only benefitted. Not allowing marriage equality, only harms that small circle, and keeps them a voiceless minority. It's typical anti-marriage equality scare tactics to say that helping that small circle will somehow destroy all of the other circles via some crazy ripple-effect. But I assure you, after marriage equality passed in Massachussetts, all of the other heterosexual married parents woke up the next day, took their kids to school, and continued on with their lives as normal...their "circle" was not damaged.

"… Do you think the children who live predominately in households with same-sex parents need to be put back in foster care or orphanges? Do you think two dads are worse than having zero dads?"

Asking for your personal opinion here. Not a statistic. Just a personal belief of what you think should be done with these kids.

* * *

Draw a circle. In that circle is the entire child population of the country.

Draw small circle within the first circle. That is the child population living in nonmarital families.

Draw a small third circle within the second circle. That is the child population residing in same-sex households.

Draw a tiny circle within the smaller circle -- about 1/20th the size of the fourth circle. That is the subset of the child population within same-sex households who were attained via third party procreation (extamarital procreation) or by adoption (not procreation).

It is this tiny subset that you are emphasizing in your remarks because the other children have the protections accorded to children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos.

SSM does not directly create the child-parent relationship at law. For that relationship there are at least two pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment (or loss) and 2) government intervention to assign a substitute parent.

This is the virtual inverse of marriage. Your emphasis on this tiny subset of the children residing in same-sex households (that fifth tiny cricle) does not justify the change to marriage that you demand. In fact, your emphasis points outside of marriage.

You are talking about protections for childlren. Yet your remarks exclude all but that tiny subset.

Unlike the superficial thinking behind the bumpersticker "marraige equality", the basis for protection equality is not about encouraging nonmarital trends.

Calling nonmarriage marriage does nothing for children in families where there is need for protections. The need arises due to the lack of, or the deep diminishment of, sex integration and responsible procreation within the nonmarital arrangements. You argue against these definitive features of marriage so it is understandable that you hold an anti-marriage view.

Your view of SSM depends on peering through the lens of identity politics of the gaycentric variety. That, too, is very unfortunate. Pressing identity politics into marriage law was unjust when a racialist filter was used; and it would be unjust if a gaycentric filter was used.

Restate your question. I answered what I thought you meant to ask. Elaborate if you want to discuss further. Thanks.

"Why would you exclude the wide range of nonmarital families with similair needs?"

What are you talking about? I said I agree with society's preference to see children raised by married adult couples. That's one reason I believe same-sex couples should be permitted in fact, encouraged, to marry: if they're raising children, those kids get the same benefit of marriage security that the kids of opposite-sex parents do. It's really quite simple, and it's completely in line with the thinking of family-friendly groups across the political spectrum.

Yes, I realize from your earlier posts that, as a small minority, the children of same-sex couples are second-class citizens. I'm hoping you'll reconsider that unfortunate point of view.

Maybe it was out of frustration that you called people "un-American" and bigoted and so forth.

Of all the children living outside of marriage, you emhasize just those who serve your SSM argumenation's emphasis a particular identity group.

Please explain your emphasis instead of dodging, again. Why would you exclude the wide range of nonmarital families with similair needs?

You said:

"Do these children need to be put back in foster care or orphanges?"

Your imply that someone has argued in favor of taking children from their adoptive parents.

No one has.

You said:

"Are two dads worse than zero dads?"

You imply that someone has argued that a second dad negates the first dad.

No one has.

If you meant to ask a real question, rather than make a rhetorical statement, then, please elaborate. Thanks.

I'm saddened that you consider the children of same-sex couples second-class citizens simply because they are a small minority. I don't think their numbers, or lack thereof, should be the determinant in what's best for them.

Marriage!

What is marriage, Jeffrey?

Marital status!

You are pivoting in circles.

* * *

There are millions more children living in nonmarital families where there are also needs for protections. That portion of the child population is much larger and more diverse than your ideological emphasis on a tiny subset of that child population. Your pose is very much that of a gay identity hack.

Chairm, try answering the question that was asked for a change. Instead of always answering questions with other questions.

Can’t distinguish between marriage and non-marriage? Well, if you’re married, you possess a marriage license with your name and someone else’s name on it. You may have had a wedding or just appear before a magistrate for legal approval. If you do not possess a marriage license, and did not get pronounced “married” by a magistrate or religious figure, you are not married.

It saddens me that you have so little regard for children being raised by same-sex couples. I think these kids deserve to have the security of married parents, just like the children of opposite-sex couples should have. Just because there aren’t as many children in same-sex households as in opposite-sex households doesn’t make them second-class citizens.

" there’s no good reason to exclude any committed couple not otherwise prohibited."

So there's no good reason unless prohibited.

More circles.

I dunno, maybe you are sincerely saying that consent is the one and only criterion.

If so, then, you still invited the question -- consent to what?

Consent to marriage, of course. But what is marriage? You have yet to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.

Marital status! Sure, but that status based on a type of relationship which you have yet to distinguish except by repeatedly saying, marital status!

* * *

And Jeffrey I have commented about children living outside of marriage.

You keep emphasizing a small subset and seem oblvious to the rest.

Why is that?