It is intriguing that you would view the creation of human life (human procreation) as the manufacture of human beings (industrial production). That dehumanizes all involved.

What, if any, significance (societal or otherwise), does your viewpoint place on human procreation? Given your remarks, the question arises: does your viewpoint include a distinction between "sexual reproduction" and "asexual reproduction"?

I thought you might like to take a turn at bat, but you are still pitching the same old talking points. The bases never get loaded with you on the mound. And it seems the inning never ends.

On the other hand, the far left you go the more inclined are people to disparage the core meaning of this foundational social institution. So you may be onto something there about the extreme liberal view of something of societal signifiance. I think it has more to do with susceptibility to identity politics than to the actual ideological underpinnings that differentiate the parts of the liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum. Some conservatives are prone to identity politics, too. The marriage issue is one which cuts across political and ideological lines.

That is why it is important to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.

And why, if SSMers had the courage, they'd distinginguish the relationship type they have in mind from the rest of the nonmarriage category, if that is even possible at law. You know, without resort to identity politics, collectivism, utilitarianism, and relativism.

You would not define that group via "primarily collectivistic or utilitarian arguments", right?

You would not go all relativist on us, right?

It might help the discussion if you clarified what you mean by these terms -- collectivistic, utilitarian, and relativist. We may not share a common understanding. Your remarks seem contradictory to me.

* * *

Marriage is a universal social insitution. A social institution has coherency. Its core meaning provides that coherency.

Society, via governing authorities, recognizes and shows preference for this foundational social institution.

If you wish to make government blind to the core of marriage, then, you seek to blind society as well -- but in the opposite direction, by using government to suppress that core meaning. Or, you might prefer that we describe that as government's indifference to the definitive features of the thing being recognized or licensed.

This core exists, Charles, whether or not you approve of it. I would given SSMers the opportunity to specify what the core of same-sex union is, too. Maybe you would deny this for both marriage defenders and SSMers. Hence my request for you to clarify the "entire group of people" you have in mind.

Do you believe that marriage does NOT merit a special status? That a license is rather superfluous anyway?

Some in favor of SSM are explicit about this. And they argue with consistency that marriage should be flattened to a private arrangement because it has no special reason for special treatment. Private reasons suffice. Social reasons are irrelevant. The government would treat all private arrangements as equal -- except those which might harm society. Those would be outlawed. All other arrangements would be tolerated. That would fall short of the preferential status now accorded marriage; and short of the protective status now accorded part of the nonmarriage category. Tolerance is as far as the government, on behalf of society, ought to go, they say.

So harm to society becomes the hallmark of what is outlawed, rather than benefit to society as the hallmakr of what is shown preference, as per your previous remarks.

But maybe I have misread -- would you be kind enough to confirm, correct, or clarify? Thanks.

I've asked about the societal significance of same-sex union and I asked for the special reason for special status (note that marital status is a special or preferential status and SSMers demand as much).

Charles downgraded societal to "social" significance.

He then parlayed ineligibility for a marriage license into a supposed right to a license to same-sex union.

This unjust piggybacking shows a lack of courage to make same-sex union stand on its own two feet.

Seems inconsistent to me,that conservatives seek to privatize just about every institution in society,yet still cling to the idea of socialized marriage.

Rather optimistic aren't we? Unless DOMA is deemed unconstitutuional and all marriage statutes are rendered null and void, "marriage equality" will wage on in perpetuity. In fact, as Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, the controversy of the issue remains todays as much as if not more than ever. The same fate will be that of SSM regardless of the eventual outcome.

And no, even in twenty years, I still won't recognize counterfeits. And why should I? Because you say so? Because of a "marriage license?" Because the sky will still be blue? That is akin to saying that the letters "a" and "b" are phonetically the same.

Why do you continue to claim "That children are better off when their parents are married, regardless of the gender composition of those parents?" So being male and female is insignificant altogether? So why are we then? Or does being male and female only have significance within a SS relationship as you seem to insist?

Also, Ms. Gallagher, Chairm, and many others, have stated their case time and time again without imposing a "religious" definition of marriage. Its just seems to be falling on deaf ears in your case.

Lastly, your continual remark that adultery and divorce have changed the core of marriage makes me question whether you know what the core of marriage is. No doubt they have hurt marriage, but they have not changed the core. The core is still intact as the union of male and female, husband and wife. Always has been and always will be no matter how much SSMers try to trivialize it.

“I am not assuming, but I am asking because it is a pattern here that an SSMere shows up to trot out old talking points, each refuted, and then disappears only for another SSMer to pop-in to trot out the same old talking points and … rinse and repeat.

Are you pinch-hitting for Kevin? Are you Kevin? For the record, please.”

What’s been refuted? That children are better off when their parents are married, regardless of the gender composition of those parents? That it violates equal protection guarantees in the US Constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples for the purpose of granting marriage licenses? That the religious purpose of insisting on opposite-sex only marriage imposes a faith belief on believers and non-believers alike? That adultery and divorce, completely legal and supported by Christians, is actually damaging to marriage, while same-sex marriage is not?

No, Charles is not I. Smart people often reach the same conclusions, though.

You ought not to quiver at the thought that what is at the core of same sex marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage has any "social signifigance" or benefit at all.Since when is the freedom or the civil right to marry based on the benefit one's marriage might provide to others?
The rights and liberties of individuals should not be determined by thier social utility,nor by popular ballot.Conservatives on this issue should stick to purely religious arguments against gay marriage,not that I would agree with them,but for thier own sake.They're beginning to sound much like the relativists they claim to oppose by using what are primarily collectivistic or utilitarian arguments against an entire group of people.
We all know where that leads.

I am not assuming, but I am asking because it is a pattern here that an SSMere shows up to trot out old talking points, each refuted, and then disappears only for another SSMer to pop-in to trot out the same old talking points and ... rinse and repeat.

Are you pinch-hitting for Kevin? Are you Kevin? For the record, please.

And irrelevant to "the research" you have in mind?

How about same-sex householding with children -- noting the various means by which such households have attained children? Irrelevant, also?

You might reread my previous remarks about the lack of randomized samples and longitudinal studies as a major problem that undermines the certainty of your assertions (i.e. speculations).

Also, perhaps reread the part where I explained how SSMers insist that marriage and children are disconnected but that SSM and children are connected. The virtual inverse is more like it.

I know. You want to assert a "right" to equate SSM with marriage. Well, you can assert it politically of course -- and try to change the law through legislation -- but to claim a constitutional right to marry one must first establish how marriage is different from nonmarriage. You claim a right to something, not a right to nothing, surely.

But even before that, the SSMer must establish how SSM is different from nonmarriage. Your complaint is based on sexual orientatin or idenity, is it not?

From this basic work you might then make comparisons and do "the research".

I had asked you about 'same-sex' parenting and you did not reply. Did you mean to refer to comparison of single parent scenarios -- there are studies on that very thing but these have been prompted mostly by child-custody scenarios in the wake of divorce or estrangement and in which lesbian mothers sought to find support for retaining custody of children. There is very little research on gay men with which to compare. And the total number of children studied in even the remotest semblance of 'same-sex' parenting (being generous in anticipation of what you might have in mind with that term) is so small that your assertions (i.e. speculations) seem way out of proportion to the available evidence.

You assert something about 'same-sex' parenting. You assert something else about SSM. You conflate the two in your comments but that misrepresents "the research".

I think you have quite a bit of clearing up to do here.

I had asked for your standards of argumentation on this matter and instead of replying directly you supplied this quote.

Can you state, in your own words, the stqandard of argumentation that this quote implicitly relies upon?

And please back-up the truck and state what you think is Kevin's intended point. Earlier you suggested I had missed it.

Also, while the truck is backed-up, please state the supposedly "unsupportedf assertion" you think I made earlier.

Thanks.