Given the sexual basis for marriage, for example, couple means the two sexes. And that necessarily means a man and a woman -- a husband and a wife -- who form the marital couple. This provides for fatherhood and motherhood, together, and is central to the marriage idea itself.

All of that requires the inclusion of the two sexes. A couple of sexes joined together. And not just joined but joined to a core meaning that defines the social institution.

* * *

None of that fits the one-sexed scenario where the number one is definitive.

A lone individual is one individual and one sex. A twosome is two individuals and one sex. A threesome is three individuals and one sex.

The lack of one sex does not require a limit of two individuals. This is not a couple of sexes.

This is probably why the SSM idea is so vague as to not really distinguish based on the number two.

CHairm, what exactly do YOU mean by couple?

I love that. But sometimes a slightly more controlled trickle is more practical.

There is a sexual basis for marriage that does not fit the one-sexed arrangement.

I've asked you for what you mean by "the same-sex couple", and if you mean membership in an identity group, then, write that legal requirement into the law.

What, if any, sexual basis exists for SSM? None that appears in the law where SSM has been imposed. Do you propose a basis or not?

Do you propose an alternative to the solidarity of motherhood and fatherhod that is embedded in the marriage law?

Do you oppose integration? Maybe you think that sex-segregative is the new sex-integrative feature of SSM?

Chairm disseminates information like a cascading waterfall. If you pay attention, there is actually a lot of really heavy stuff going on in his comments. I'll let him speak for himself, but as an aside, if you want to understand, honey works much better than a baseball bat.

But seriously, what does that have to do with allowing or not allowing two lesbians to get married? Perhaps you can also succinctly explain the rest of Chairm's comment -- something to do with the government strictly enforcing the man/woman requirement obviously is inaccurate.

Huh? The government enforces paternity on married people? What does that even mean?

False analogy. Chocolate isn't trying to be called peanut butter. Nor is peanut butter trying to be called chocolate. Chocolate is still called chocolate and peanut butter is still called peanut butter even if they do go together. The two remain distinct with their own terms and definitions, just like married couples and homosexual couples.

1. When peole enter the social institution, they consent to all that this entails. The marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced.

Its sexual basis is the same as for consummation, annulment provisions, grounds for adultery-divorce, and so forth. That sexual basis is not sex-neutral nor is it one-sexed. That's the law because that's marriage.

2. The man-woman requirement is also vigorously enforced. The law does integrate man and woman; but that is the work of the social institution and the law recognizes this.

I see that you, as most SSMers, switch from eligiblity to outcome (i.e. guarantee). Apply that to your own SSM idea and you will chop it off at the knees.

* * *

You sure do read lots of stuff into what I've said that is simply not there. If I don't respond to each mistake you've made, don't take that as confirmation of your misrepresentations.

* * *

Yes, some related are eligible while others are not. This line is not justified by your any-two-person notion. Indeed the number two is not justified based on what you just described.

Benefits do not self-justify. You can start with the type of thing being licensed and go from there. You should avoid circular thinking when dissing someone else for providing a vigorous defense of a reasoned viewpoint.

That way the red hue of embarassment on your face might fade from view.

Cheerio,
Chairm

Real concern for your fellow man & the greater good would seem to center on the overall health of the institution of marriage.