--

Yes, Nicholas, press that point.

Do we not hear from SSMers that the opposite-sexed basis of marriage is not an option for those who feel attracted to the same sex?

The sex composition of the arrangement is THE most important factor for SSM, they insist.

But then they also insist that sex composition is irrelevant for marriage.

When it comes to SSM, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual attraction and romance. None. According to SSM argumentation, the lack of such a legal requirement makes this factor irrelevant to SSM. But they don't adhere to their own rules of argumentation.

The contradiction is blatant.

Meanwhile the opposite-sexed sexual basis of the legal marital presumption of paternity is neither sex neutral nor hostile toward sex differentation. Indeed, even the criteria for challenging the presumption, at law, has a sexual basis that is irrelevant to the one-sexed arrangement — call it SSM or something else, call it sexualized nor not, call it gay or not, label it whatever.

It is not anti-gay since the legal presumption of paternity applies regardless of whether the father calls himself gay or the mother calls herself lesbian. Most of the children, by far, who happen to live in same-sex households got there when they migrated from the previously procreative (i.e. opposite-sexed) relationships of their moms and dads — usually marriages. These children are protected by the sexual basis of the presumption of paternity. That's because, on this definitive feature of marriage, sex differentation is highly relevant while gayness is irrelevant.

Once again, SSMers disparage this even as they contradict their own rules and emphasis that sex differentation is of the utmost importance to SSM, at law, while sex differentation is of no importance to marriage, at law.

They don't even attempt to reconcile the profound flaws in their line of reasoning on this point.

Press further, Nicholas, you are on the right track. It is track that the SSMers have been plowing in their own way. Time to reap what they have sown.

First, you misunderstood my point about what the ills of society are caused by.

You stated previously in post # 249 that "There is no state interest in marrying only opposite-sex couples, in fact, there is much harm when the state does this." By implication you suggest that the State has gotten it wrong all the while, and therefore, the ills of society can be attributed to this malpractice. My counterpoint was to say that, if this notion is true, then why does the State continue to do so if it has no interest in recognizing marriages as the union of male and female, husband and wife. Wouldn't it be undermining the State's authority while at the same time upholding it too?

Secondly. there is no misunderstanding of your posts on my part. It is evident where you stand on the matter of SSM. What I don't get is your insistence that your oft-repeated mantra of "what about adultery and divorce and for the sake of the children" hasn't been answered satisfactorily. It has been at length, but again, you just don't want to listen to the response given. Again, such is your wont to create a diversion to the topic at hand.

Also, if the dual gender nature of humanity is incidental to marriage or anything else for that matter, why are we male and female? Why aren't we all just one sex/gender? Or is there no purpose to you being a male/man in this world? By your own admission, you are dating a woman and are seeing where the relationship goes. Why, if sexuality is incidental/irrelevant, couldn't you just as well be in a same-sex relationship? If not, why?

In other words, you want to license SSM so you need to say what makes it different from other stuff, because other stuff woud lack the essentials that make SSM what it actually is.

And those essentials, in the form of SSM, at least in your view, would justify that society license it and accord it special status. The other stuff would not includes these essentials.

Put aside the criteria you have used to attack the core of marriage; state the principles upon which you would test SSM versus other stuff.

If you feel better talking about SSM as if it was marriage, go ahead, but I think in doing that you'd be mistaken, as the essentials of SSM exclude the essentials of marriage. But for the sake of discussion, go ahead, refer to SSM as marriage and we can proceed with what you think are necessary features or elements or purposes of the relationship type you have in mind.

Even if you think these criteria gut my defense of marriage, why would you advocate the equivalent of MAD (the old cold war nuclear arms strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction)? As I said, it is self-defeating as an end in itself.

An intellectually honest approach, and a way to potentially win greater support, would be to just make the independant claim for SSM based on what makes SSM, SSM.

If you say that the thing that makes SSM, SSM, is a license to SSM, then, you'd be travelling in circles. And removing the special reason for special status. Is that okay with you -- no special status on part with marital status?

If not, then, just state the core, the essential(s), without which the relationship type you have in mind (aka SSM) would merit society issuing a license.

Surely you wouldn't wrecklessly endorse society issuing a license for NOTHING, right? What is the something you have in mind? Distinguish it from other stuff.

Failing that, well, the notion of SSM includes a campaign that makes a frontal attack on the importance of tradition, of civil society's social institutions (marriage being a foundational example of such), of freedom of conscience, of our form of self-government, and so forth. That's in addition to the derision thrown at the core meaning of marriage itself.

If you propose a substitute meaning, or a substitute institution, then, the onus really is on you, as the would-be reformer, to plainly state the essentials of the something you'd have society license.

You clearly favor that to become public policy, right?

When the public school violates the trust of parents on this very issue, as happened in Massachusetts directly in connection with the SSM merger, your quesion becomes moot.

Sally,

I agree. The eager willingness to stifle any opinion on gay issues but that of the gay lobby is frightening. There is a propensity within that community to denigrate any opinion but their own. No diversity of thought is tolerated and they're taking this to schools and promoting it in the name of the very thing it despises---Tolerance.

Dane, I don't think you have to worry about that happening any time soon. What she talks about in her books is a result of the relationship, not the title IMNTBHO.

Personally I think teachers ought to stay out of teaching morality beyond basics like the golden rule, civility and kindness to others. Let morality be taught at home, especially touchy issues like sexuality. This stuff has no place in kindergarten.

Because we teach about war we have to tell kids they're bigots for having morals?

Come again??

With that logic it’s safe to assume that you do not condone children learning about war, famine, slavery, etc or any other events that have occurr and still do occur in the world because of the effect itll have on the young and “impressionable”?

Pretending homosexuality doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it disappear. Children are going to learn it exists one way or another at some point. The same way they will learn about disease, death, war, etc. and all other things you find not “healthy”. Wouldn’t you rather it be learned by a trusted teacher than by, I dont know, the media for example?