You have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category.

You have not shown legitimacy such that SSM merits a special status, even if that would mean piggybacking on marital status.

You seem to have failed your own test.

Once again, are we to read into your remarks an emphasis on sexual orientation and same-sex sexual behavior when you refer to "same-sex couples"? Why are you not more explicit with what you actually mean?

Because there is no legal requirements that would define SSM by that which you have emphasized and that in which you have invested explanatory power. So you resort to a vague notion of a category -- "same-sex" -- which is not even the opposite of "marriage". There is a wide range of different-sex arrangements and relationship types that are not eligibile because of the core meaning of marriage.

This is a fatal weakeness in your viewpoint, Kevin, because you really are just making a special plea for a tiny subset of the nonmarriage category -- the subset that, by your imagination, is definitively homosexual, sexualized, and "loving". And yet you can't distinguish that subset from the rest so you keep resorting to "same-sex couples" without explaining the same-sex part nor the couples part of that phrase.

Marriage is a subset of the full range of human relationship types and kinds of living arrangements. It is the union of husband and wife. By type, it is public and sexual; by type, it integrates the sexes and it provides for responsible procreation; it is the foundational social institution of civilization. Its presumption of paternity carries far more socieal significance than anything you have said about SSM. SSM is a pale imitation and means far less than marriage. By your attempt to equate the two different things, you also seek to make marriage mean less and less.

And for what purpose do you seek to do that, precisely?

I had asked you about your comment regarding social pressure:

"Do you imagine that the vast majority of people in the adult homosexual population will be pressured to enter SSM? What is the motivation for society to exert pressure for such an outcome?"

As I explained:

"This goes back to the special reason for special status. You have restricted yourself to a view that makes the law (and social policy) neutral in regard to sexual attraction and sex differentation. You have not yet reconciled the significance, in your view, of (1) sex differentation for same-sex sexual attraction with the importance of (2) sex differentation for human procreation. You have not yet reconciled either of those two things with the lack of significance, in your view, of sex differentation for marriage."

But you have conceded that you have in mind a private arrangement, not a public type of relationship, and yet you need to reconcile that with the demand for a license and for special status. Especially in light of your viewpoint there is there is NO special reason for special status for SSM — maybe not for marriage too.

But if there is no societal benefit, why do you depend on the modern tradition of romantic love?

If what you have in mind is a private concern, then, you don't need to push for a change to the public relationship that is marriage. Private arrangements are already possible -- see my previus remark to Leah.

“The basis for consummation, adultery, annulment, and other provisons is not neutral on sex differentation. These provisions arose from the opposite-sex basis of marriage.”

You dodged in your reply comment.

If sex differentation is irrelevant to these provisions in the law, then, please explain the sex-neutral basis that you imagine would sustain these provisions.

It can't be something to do with the genitals, right? The all-male and the all-female combos are very different in that regard. It can't be something that distinguishes the huband-wife duo from other arrangements, right? What is the lowest common denonminator?

If you would propose a different basis for the all-male, the all-female, and the male-female combos, then, you must concede that sex differentation is more important that you claimed it was in your own viewpoint.

No matter, you conceded as much when your re-emphasized sex differentation via sexual orientation: "sexual orientation explains why someone chooses a same-sex or opposite-sex partner"

But there is no legal requirement for the sexual aspect that you think is definitive. You are groping around in circles, Kevin.

When people enter marriage they consent to all that marriage entails, including the basis for the presumption that the husband is the father of children born to his wife during their marriage. This is vigorously enforced. They also consent to the integration of the sexes. These combine to form the core meaning of marriage as a social institution that is foundational to civilization.

SSM is none of these things: it is sex-segregative, it cannot provide the opposite-sex basis for the presumption of paternity, and it is NOT foundational to civilization.

The marriage statutes do include the marital presumption of paternity. And contrary to Kevin's ignorant remarks about DNA testing, the law does not hold the default position that husbands, and society at-large, distrust wives and require that the governmente assign children based on DNA testing. In any case, DNA testing itself is based on sex differentiation and that is foreign to the arrangements (sexualized or not) that lack one or the other sex.

To repeat the gist of your own words back to you:

SSM is not about same-sex sexual attraction nor about same-sex sexual behaivor. You don’t have to have same-sex sex to get SSM'd and you don’t have to be SSM'd to havesame-sex sex. Homosexuality is a separate issue from marriage. It is a seperate issue form SSM. You don’t say “I do” to the prospect of having same-sex sex down the line, you say “I do” to the person standing next to you whom you love and want to commit to.

But there is no legal requirement for love. And the commitment in marriage is not just to the person you marry; it is to the social institution, to the core meaning, and it entails societal endorsement of the opposite-sex sexual relationship.

SSM is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, and lacks societal endorsement on that basis. Your own comments concede this.

But you have not distinguished SSM from the rest of the nonmarriage category. The vast range of that category is nonsexual but is also two-sexed. Yet here you are claiming a special status for one tiny subset.

Marital status is a special status; apparently you wnat society to become blind to the special reason for that special status.

Your ignorance may be due to incompetence, but I suspect it is due to a studied disregard for the core meaning of the public relationship that people form when they enter the social institution of marriage.

What is the core meaning of the relationship type you have in mind, Leah, if it is not sex integration and not provision for responsible procration and not the foundational social institution?

Some vague notion of sexual orientation? Really.

Please cite the legal requirements for same-sex sexual behavior in any jurisdiction that has enacted or imposed SSM in the law.

No such requirements exist.

Your own comments have negated your rhetorical dependance on treating SSM as a sexual type of relationship. That destroys your attempt to push the gay-straight dichotomy.

Marriage is not about that.

Also, earlier you had said that marriage is neutral on sex difference. Yet you have emphasized sex difference via sexual orientation.

Please cite the legal requirement for same-sex sexual orientation anyplace that SSM has been entrenched in the law.

None exists, as you must know.

Unlike marriage, the thing you have described is not a sexual type of relationship or arrangement.

You have made ignorant remarks about SSM being defined by sexual orientation.

If only you would apply your own stated standards to your own viewpoint, then, you might realize that you are stuck on stupid. Stupid being the assertion of rules of argumentation that destroy your own demand for SSM.

This has unfortunately not proven to be the case in countries where SSM has taken hold, as the statistics cited earlier illustrate.

Are you trying to say that same sex couples are the picture of stability? that their lifestyles are not plagued with violence, and disease? that dads don't matter to children? that responsible procreation has nothing to do with marriage? The writhing twisting logic goes on and on trying to make SSM look normal and equal. By merit alone, it is not equal by a long shot. Pretending it is can only add to the problems marriage and families are suffering.

This is misconstrued yet again. You over simplify a beautiful principle in your attempt to muscle the argument to your favor.

And where does it end? Speaking of the core of marriage, what it is and what it isn't in no way belittles any segment of the population, including polyamorists, polygamists and many other varieties of desire that would like to be married.

The question is, what is marriage? and why? You believe it is a simple legal contract, a piece of paper that gives the state's stamp of approval. I believe it is more, and has been more, for good reason.

You need to come up with better reasoning than screaming "equality" in a crowded room to justify turning marriage on its head.

The reality is that ss couples suffer from core instability that cannot be remedied by a watered down version of marriage. To use your house analogy, it would be like throwing kerosene on the flaming house instead of water.

Didn't mean to offend. Feminist sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet. But when you see these constant replies that marriage is only a vessel for children, you've got to wonder what their view of women is, seeing as women are having the children (Of course their husbands play an equal role). We seem to be boiling marriage down to kids, kids, kids, and ignoring that it is initially a significant step in a (hopefully) healthy relationship.

I think we share some of the same values. I agree that divorce and single parenting (to the extent of dead-beat dad/mom syndrome, because a single-parent can do a great job with their child), are not good for children. You also cited same-sex marriage as contributing to this decline. However, SSM does not mean that their are fewer heterosexual parents in the world, nor does it mean there are fewer OSMs. While in your view, and to some extent, mine, divorce and single-parenting take away from OSM by literally destroying it (in the case of divorce), SSM is an addendum to it, adding a group of people who can share in marriage and provide stability for themselves and any children they might have.

L. Marie,

Regardless of whether you think same-sex parents are the equivalent of opposite-sex parents, same-sex families exist, and denying the safety net of marriage as an "So they think they can be parents, eh?" act certainly doesn't help the children involved.

Side note:

Going back to my previous analogy of marriage being like a house: "It seems like fire’s already burning down the house and OSMers are ignoring the pyro with the gas can and blaming the prospective buyers for the blaze." Marriage is not solid right now. I'd argue it never has been. There have always been marriages of convenience, money, naivete, arrangement, and neccessity. But when there are people who think marriage is great, and are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to get married, traditional marriage supporters don't like it. You just can't please some folks.

"(side note: women aren’t just baby-factories) "

I find your oversimplification of this argument to be offensive. In addition, it is disingenuous of you to imply that women do not partner equally with men in marriage.

As part of Toronto’s 29th Annual Pride Week celebration, the LGBTTIQQ2S communities, families and friends will unveil this year’s Pride Parade on Sunday June 28th at 2 pm...

Join our International Grand Marshal, Victor Juliet Mukasa, Parade Grand Marshal, El-Farouk Khaki and Honoured Group, AIDS Committee of Toronto, as they guide the LGBTTIQQ2S communities through our amazing stories of equality, human rights, respect, diversity, honour, love and acceptance...

Join our parade facebook group to cultivate a collaborative effort between a wide range of diverse LGBTTIQQ2S communities...

Okay, I'll bite. LGBTTIQQ2S?

Well, apparently:

LGBTTIQQ2S means "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited..."

"2-Spirited" is, I believe, a bisexual Native-American, rather than "too spirited" as in Anne of Green Gables.

I didn't author this bit, but I find it interesting that once the SSM camel's nose is in the marriage tent, look what baggage it brings. --sam

because to do so would require the dismantling of the very core of the marriage institution. The principles that make it what it is. To hold something that is broken up as an ideal makes no sense.

I am against pretending that two moms is the same as a mom and a dad, giving them societal encouragement would increase those numbers and increase the hurt to the children involved.

Aren't you taking this description a little too tightly? Because marriage is linked to children and has children in mind doesn't mean it is the sole extreme reason for marrying. There are other sections as well, as Chairm said earlier in the thread, but the nurture and stability of children cannot be removed from marriage without destroying something vital.