22 Comments

1. Barb Chamberlan
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

   To separate marriage from its primary public purpose of uniting children with their mother and father is to render it meaningless. Marriage is the cornerstone of society, as well as its future.

   There are many types of relationships that are worthy of our respect, but only one of them is marriage, the union of one man and one woman.

2. Stefan
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

   This is one of the most dim-witted things I've ever seen. Seriously?

3. OvercameSSA
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

   Yeah, Stefan, I'm admittedly not too crazy about it either. I prefer to go with Barb's comment at the top which really says it all.

4. Rick DeLano
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

   Dim-witted?

   That is a content-free burp.

   Refute it, if you can.

5. roger
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

   I like it. Barbs statement is no doubt true. But to win a debate you have to take objections seriously, and shoot them down one by one until the doubters are gone.

6. John Howard
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

   There are some problems with it. The first is that it doesn't explain why we don't allow sibling marriage. The second is that it's response to "What about sterile couples" should be that they are approved are allowed to conceive children together, whether they can or do is irrelevant. Same-sex couples should not be allowed to procreate together. This whole chart becomes an argument for same-sex marriage because same-sex couples currently have a right to conceive offspring together just like a man and a woman do. That needs to be outlawed, like incest is.

   The chart really needs a third option right off the first "What is marriage?" node, with the answer "official public consent to sex and conception of children together."

7. Carlos
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

   - Justifies union of any number of persons:
   No because everyone will be treated the same and can marry he one person they choose. Equality for everyone, no discrimination against anyone.

   - Harms society at large by promoting an incorrect view of human nature:
   No because homosexuality is a part of human nature otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

   - Consenting to something does not make it just:
   It doesn't make it unjust either. American principle, the right to life, liberty and happiness. As long as you don't harm anyone, do as you please.

   - A comprehensive union with a link to children:
   Not from a govermenet perspective. Today there are no such goverment requirements on married couples so same-sex couples can satisfy marriage requirements. I think we all know our goverment and if having children was a requriment it would exist. Further, unmarried couples can have children, so marriage is not a necessary link.

8. TC Matthews
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

   I like it. It takes the "round and round" out of the sails of the trolls.

9. Good News
   Posted June 14, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

   Great work thank you! Clear and not “incorrect”.
   Well worth the effort! As are all efforts to bring sanity and clarity. All hands on deck. And this is an original work, which might help people otherwise confused.

   But the first and last problem with the chart is that it has a “revised view” of marriage. When we know “marriage” can not be changed. Impossible. True marriage will not change; it will only go nameless (weak and vulnerable). When the time comes we will have to invent a name to replace the one that was stolen from us.
   Of course ss-couples having babies is another problem that needs to be addressed! But it is a separate one It is having a name for the unique man-woman union that is vital. But of course I do not think for a minute”they” would allow a new word to name it. For they want it dead... the idea that the man-woman union is special; and the idea that man is unique and that woman is unique. They want to make silly-puddy of us, and empty heads of our children...

10. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    John - I read one of your pieces in, I believe, RedMass, about the money being given by billionaire Paul Singer towards research that could, in fact, lead to procreation without the need for both male-female contributions; that is, same-sex couple procreation. Scary stuff, and I think you're on the bleeding edge of where this SS"M" thing could go next.

11. Zack
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Nice

    This looks like the flow chart explaining how to fire a union teacher.

12. 14th Amendment
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    What an idiot. I like that he pulled commit/love/share into the revisionist view. Does this mean you're all okay with arranged marriage? I don't see why not since it's just about sex organs and reproduction.

13. tim
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    "sterile couples are still procreative in type, even if not in effect"

    This same irrational argument can be used to support same-sex couples - who have and raise families.

14. AD
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Too bad this is all opinion and not reality.

15. Publius
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    - Justifies union of any number of persons:
    No because everyone will be treated the same and can marry he one person they choose. Equality for everyone, no discrimination against anyone."

    Except for those who want to choose a second person. They aren't allowed their definition of marriage or sexual fulfillment they want. Why does Carlos want to throw them under the bus?

    There is no orientation test for marriage. Everyone faces the same law. Everyone is already treated the same. That is already equality for all. Currently you can marry any one person of the opposite sex you want (with some restrictions on age and incest) providing that person is not currently married and can give consent.

16. Publius
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    re nr 11

    The argument is very rational since "raising a family" is not the same as being procreative. Without procreative sex there would be no children for anyone to raise. Fertility rates have already fallen below replacement levels in virtually every Western country. One result is the coming collapse of pension and social security systems, a collapse which might be delayed by massive immigration or massive tax increases. Government benefits specifically designed to encourage procreation would, however, be unconstitutional under LGBT jurisprudence.

17. QueerNE
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, NOM. Didn't realize YOU created humanity with a specific purpose.

18. LEO
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    John @ 6, and Tim @ 11:

    Please explain to us NOMers how do SS couples procreate, and if you actually know of any who have procreated children naturally? Also please provide us with some factual information in your response. Fire away...

19. Carlos
    Posted June 15, 2012 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Publics - Again, limiting marriage to only two people discriminates against no one, straight or gay.

20. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 15, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Limiting marriage to two people discriminates against people who fall in love with more than one person; and after all, marriage is about uniting people who love one another, right? Right?

21. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 15, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    14th - I am fine with arranged marriages; they fulfill the government/societal purpose of uniting men and women with their offspring. That's the whole point; this notion of "love" apart from children being the basis for getting married is relatively recent perspective in the history of marriage; arranged marriages were quite common in years past.

    Although the reasons for marriage may change, marriage itself does not change. Marriage always has been the union of a man and a woman, regardless of the reason that the couple gets married.

22. Daughter of Eve
    Posted June 15, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Limiting marriage to one male and one female discriminates against no one, "straight" or "gay."