"It sounds like a man who fathers a child with a woman he is married to has a stronger claim to those children than the man who fathers a child with a woman he is not married to."

It sounds like that because that is how it actually is, at law.

Also note that a married man who impregnates an unwed mother does not create a presumption of maternity whereby his wife is the mother of another woman's children. This is because of the opposite-sex basis of human procreation.

* * *

Your remark, as quoted above, suggests you find this baffling somehow.

Maybe you think a man, at random, should be presumed the father of children born to the husband and wife down the road? Even if, perhaps especially if, that man has never had the opportunity to impregnate the mother? The husband should not be presumed the father because this would be very unreliable?

What would such a default position serve?

* * *

When a marriage is intact, courts show deferrence to the husband and wife. If an outsider, a 3rd party, challenges paternity, the courts are very reluctant to intervene.

If the husband challenges paternity, the court may use its discretion and allow the challenge to proceed. The basis for an interventin begins with the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife. Or, conversely, the opportunity of the wife to have been impregnated by her husband. The latter is not always enough for an intervention if the former has been established. Discretion usually means judicial restraint. But challenges are still possible -- and sometimes in statutes the criteria are carefully codified.

When husband and wife are seperated, the court might use its discretioni to permit a challenge by a 3rd party -- such as a man claiming to be the father. Again, the criteria for the presumption of paternity that applies to the husband AS WELL AS the criteria for a challenge to that presumption are based on the opposite-sex nature of human procreation.

No matter how this is sliced, this makes of marriage a sexual type of relationshp; adultery is also based on this central aspect. As does consummation and annulment and other provisions in the law of marriage.

But the marital presumption of paternity has been imitated, in some jurisdictions, with an unwed presumption of paternity. This also has the same opposite-sex basis.

The government -- and the judiciary acts as an arm of government on behalf of society -- privileges marriage first to protect the children, also to protect the parental status of the husband and the wife, also to protect their particular marriage, and also to protect the social institution of marriage itself.

Unwed procreation does not get the same deferrential treatment. Also, interventions are more readily achieved even if more cumbersome to implement. All that said, the marital presumption of paternity is much more reliable than is the unwed presumption of paternity. This shows the influence of the principles of responsible procreation which marriage, rather than cohabitation, makes normative.

Nothing that an all-male or an all-female arrangement might do sexually could rise to the signficance of the basis for the presumption of paternity as exists within marriage or outside of marriage.

Sure, you might rely on some other concept, such as the nonsexual basis for relatively new doctrines of parentage. But such a nonsexual concept would not make SSM, at law, a sexual type of relationship.

Marriage is a sexual type of relationship for reasons that are anti-thetical to SSM argumentation.

That statement by Jeffrey notes once again the harm he wishes to do to marriage.

Instead of marriage carefully watching over a particular practice of how humans naturally mate, he wishes to remake everyone's marriage into nothing more than his own (and I quote) "complex and rich appreciation for the experience of marriage".

In fact, to see just how rich and complex his view, he later compares his view of marriage to divorce...

I don’t see marriage as a “luxury good,” requiring exclusivity in order to maintain value. If SSM devalues marriage, what is one to make of divorce?

While appreciate the candor, it is actually shocking to see such a blatant comparison of "SSM" and divorce as both engendering the same benefit to society.

I can see the bumper sticker now, "SSM, at least we are a good for the marriage institution as the divorce rate!"

Thousands of Revelation Rainbow wristbands were worn by proponents of traditional marriage.
The RevelationRainbow.com website is dedicated sharing the Biblical worldview on today's issues.
http://revelationrainbow.com/Licensed_to_Wed.asp

I said: “I think adult citizens should have the right to marry the person who consents to marry them.”

You said: See, I’m not so sure. In the perfect world, I might say, “any two consenting adults in an intimate, romantic relationship should be able to marry.” That’s unworkable in the real world of course, as there’s no way to “test” for it.

I totally disagree. In fact, if society truly valued marriage, it would make couples of either sexuality apply for a marriage license and wait one year for it to become valid. What’s striking to me is how easy it is to marry someone. That ease implies a lack of value: stuff that is easy to obtain often isn’t worth very much. If we make married couples wait some period of time to dissolve the marriage, we should also make couples wait some period of time to create the marriage. Then it would seem more valuable, and worth maintaining. The value of marriage doesn’t come from its “genderness,” it comes from peoples’ commitment to it, and that commitment doesn’t seem very great in our society. I can imagine the day when there’s a website like this where genuinely pro-marriage forces (unlike this website, which is actually for opposite-sex marriage only) of either sexuality versus easy-marriage forces debating how easy or hard it should be to get married!

“But see, with opposite-sex couples, intimacy is kinda implied. Most people are heterosexual, so it’s likely that a male/female couple who applies for marriage does so because they’re romantically involved.
But if we strip the opposite-sex requirement out, marriage becomes between “any two people who want to exploit the benefits of the institution of marriage.”

That most people are heterosexual doesn’t make their motives more virtuous. Women marry men for their money, men marry their wives for their looks or for what they think is ready access to sex LOL. People of either sex marry for loneliness. There is an abundance of bad reasons to get married, for people of either sexuality.

“And suddenly there’s no “point” to marriage anymore, it becomes an end in itself.”

You’re starting to sound like Chairm, lol. Maybe I have an unromantic view of marriage but it only applies to who can participate. I actually have, I think, a complex and rich appreciation for the experience of marriage, which is of far importance, and which I see no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

The belief, real or feigned, by opponents of same-sex marriage that SSM devalues the concept of marriage is highly subjective. I don’t see marriage as a “luxury good,” requiring exclusivity in order to maintain value. If SSM devalues marriage, what is one to make of divorce?

“We’re then saying that the rewards and benefits are completely arbitrary, don’t “mean” anything, aren’t to “encourage” anything other than two adults bonding to gain them.”

The rewards and benefits don’t change depending on who participates in marriage. Couples will form, regardless of whether marriage is available or not.

See, I'm not so sure. In the perfect world, I might say, "any two consenting adults in an intimate, romantic relationship should be able to marry."

That's unworkable in the real world of course, as there's no way to "test" for it. But see, with opposite-sex couples, intimacy is kinda implied. Most people are heterosexual, so it's likely that a male/female couple who applies for marriage does so because they're romantically involved.

But if we strip the opposite-sex requirement out, marriage becomes between "any two people who want to exploit the benefits of the institution of marriage.

And suddenly there's no "point" to marriage anymore, it becomes an end in itself. We're then saying that the rewards and benefits are completely arbitrary, don't "mean" anything, aren't to "encourage" anything other than two adults bonding to gain them. But you might as well offer free coffee for it's benefit at that point, lol.

I mean OK, maybe in it's Real World application it doesn't really matter. It's mostly semantics and it doesn't seem like hordes of (just friends) same-sex opportunists are getting married in SSM or Civil Union states to exploit it's benefits.

But I can see the objection.

“But a man is the father of his children born to his wife during their marriage.” We may be reaching an impasse on this particular topic but what does marriage have to do with paternity? It sounds like a man who fathers a child with a woman he is married to has a stronger claim to those children than the man who fathers a child with a woman he is not married to. If that’s what you mean, I think that makes sense. But what does it have to do with same-sex marriage? How would this not also impact infertile different-sex couples?

I wonder why the Iowa state attorney general either didn’t use this argument, or if he did use it, it failed.

““I’m following the Iowa Supreme Court’s lead on this one, and saying it does.” Then you bind yourself to its reliance on same-sex sexual attraction and romance. And that was pulled out of nowhere.”

I’m happy to be so bound. I think the Court was relying on why or how couples form. In essence, the long history of different sex couples may be more a function of prohibitions on homosexual relations rather than anything particularly special about male/female couples. Now that same-sex couples are viewed by society as important and valuable, and homosexual sex is no longer criminalized, it just makes sense to update marriage statutes to reflect these cultural changes. Clearly same-sex couples can enjoy the benefits of marriage as well as different-sex couples. Nothing in the marriage statute requires a gender basis. Only when it comes to access does gender appear to play a role, artificially it appears.

“Jeffery, while we have discussed much of your viewepoint, it appears you are very reluctant to apply your own stated standards to test your viewpoint. Why is that?”

What do you mean? My viewpoint is that consenting adult couples should be able to marry. That’s my standard. I reach that standard because I don’t think the state should violate ITS standard to avoid unnecessary discrimination. I think adult citizens should have the right to marry the person who consents to marry them. I favor couples marrying but if prohibitions against polygamy are found to be unconstitutional, then groups should be able to get married, too.

How many children in homosexual househodls were studied in the aggregate? And the breakdown in how these children were attained? And how these samples were selected?

Thanks.

Okay;

Crowl, Alicia, Ahn, Soyeon & Baker, Jean (2008). A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4 (3), 385-407. Retrieved June 02, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1080/15504280802177615

Not just one study, a meta-analysis of NINETEEN studies. Look it up, and note the ample footnotes

"What do the statistics say?"

That on many aspects such as; Parent-Child Relationship, Gender Role Behavior , Gender Identity, Children's Cognitive Development , Children's Psychological Adjustment, Children's Sexual Preferences, there is no statistical differences between children of married opposite-sex parents and children of same-sex parents. The ONLY statistical difference is that the same-sex parents report a better Parent-Child Relationship than the heterosexual parents, but all things are equal from the child's point of view.