Not.

Read the marriage statutes. Do the basic homework.

Who are these man-woman combinations that are inelligible? Please provide specific examples

* * *

Jeffrey, the man-woman basis of marriage does not unjustly discrimination against nonmarital arrangements. There are man-woman combinations of people who are ineligible due to the societal concern for the core of marriage -- sex integration and provision for responsible procreation.

These societal concerns you'd extinguish from marriage -- you'd make marriage mean less and less for the sake of a subset of the nonmarriage category.

You have offered no good reason but you have made it clear that you fear to be anything but indiscriminate. That is not how laws are made nor how justice is achieved.

That is exemplified in your reply to Sally where you said: "Your argument is against same-sex parenting, not same-sex marriage."

Children are not punished by the man-woman basis of the marriage law. That you cannot imagine the highly beneficial societal signficance of the core meaning of marriage is not something to brag about, Jeffrey.

Well isn't that what the fuss is about? Some people don't mind divorcing children from parents, others do.

I mind. Kids deserve a mom and a dad. Your preferences are just that. Preferences. It doesn't change kids' rights.

It's not about you or your preference, no matter how much you want it, there are other people to think about who have rights too.

I also feel strongly that it is children's best interest to have their parents be married.

To all: I contend that SSM obliterates marriage at the core, therefore redefining marriage altogether. How so? Primarily, by blurring the lines of male and female. Men and women are one and the same so no need for gender/gender roles. If gender is malleable, ever changing, and in constant flux, then so too is marriage, right? In other words, gender is a social construct (figment of our imagination) thrust upon us by society in order to establish the roles we play. Men and women alike can and have interchanged "roles" throughout the course of history without any societal impact. Often cited is the idea that men can be nurses, women work construction, et al. So if this is true in the workplace, why not in the homefront (marriage)? Another example given, is in the rearing of children and how scientifically, there is no difference in developement in children of SS couples and that of OSM couples. If this indeed is true, then, why is gender (male/female) necessary at all? Additionally, if no children are involved, then what of the SS couple? Do they lose their identity as a SS couple all of a sudden? Or are SS couples using children as a means to an end?

Whatever side of the argument you are on, we have to recognize that the acceptance of homosexuality is tantamount to the SSM campaign. SSM, is therefore, just an offshoot of the legitimization of homosexuality. If it isn't, then why all the pushback from OSMers that understand it as such and equate the two?

I will go a step further and say that what really is at stake is the very definition of male and female. If that can be undermined, then there is no stopping the acceptance of homosexuality, and therefore, SSM. Furthermore, if being male and female isn't so much about outward appearance, but who I am on the inside, then the lines are further blended and confused to wit we will ultimately end up being an androgynous, amoral, ambisexual society, where there is no gender, no right or wrong, and everyone is the same. Talk about identity theft on a grand scale.

In summation, Liam Neeson, in the movie Darkman, after having his face near blown off, devises a scheme to get back at those who disfigured his face in an office explosion. After making "masks" that look like his would be assassins, he "counterfeits" his identity in order to get revenge. Ultimately, in doing so, he becomes the villain, indistinguishable from the "real" criminals. He ultimately concludes, "I am everyone, I am no one, I am Darkman."

Ok, watch the person you love enter ICU and the hospital block you from seeing them and then tell me how "bogus" the complaint is.

Sometimes I think chairm is a robot

SSM means less than marriage. You want marriage to mean the same as SSM.

Hospital vistation is a bogus complaint.

And you have yet to explain why a nonmarital arrangement ought to be treated as the union of husband and wife.

You emphasis a subset of the nonmarital arrangements and have yet to explain why that subset ought to be treated differently from the rest.

Your arugmentation seeks to replace marriage recognition with recognition of something else. That substitute has not been justified, even by your own stated standards.