That sexual basis is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements, sexualized or not.

The unwed presumption of paternity is related to the marital presumption of paternity; the sexual basis is the same. But the unwed presumption is not embedded in the nonmarriage category of relationshps and arrangements -- most of which are not sexualized anyway.

SSM is a clearly and naturally a subset of the nonmarriage category. Besides, there is no sexual basis, at law, for SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted. So why the emphasis on gayness, Beth?

You have not explained your favoritism on that point.

* * *

Regarding families, the universal basic element has been the union of husband and wife -- of father and mother -- in extended families and in polygamous families. Are there some odd variations that have existed outside of the social institution of marriage? Sure, but so what?

The nonmarital trends disprove your assertion, Beth, that "The idea that men and women will no longer rear, care for, or support their children without OSM marriage, is a fallacy..."

Indeed, your assertion is contradicted even by your own sociological reference to kinship and alliances.

Your remarks are really odd, by the way, from a sociological and anthropological viewpoint. You are not making much sense in that regard.

The SSM merger in Massachusetts has not had the influence on the divorce rate you imagine, Beth.

You now appear to be regurgitating the talking points of the SSM campaign and not thinking for yourself.

* * *

The affirmation of the core of marriage via marriage amendments and measures do NOT take rights of a 'target' group. The marriage law targets marriage, not nonmarriage.

Child molesters? Criminals? What are you really talking about, Beth? Please be more specific.

Like trying to preserve and not side line home heat by making it a law that the front door must be kept closed while also leaving the windows and back door open, the interest of the state in "preserving or not side lining" home heat is not achieved by this method.

The objective of responsible procreation will not be achieved unless the anti-same sex marriage law also takes away the rights of criminals, molesters, philanders, abusers, beaters, and others similarly situated. Targeting one group is unconstitutional because the proposed "responsible procreation" state interest and objective is unlikely to be achieved.

I don't see how marriage equality treats heterosexual unions any differently or "sidelines" their version of "responsible procreation." Perhaps its the other way around, treating homosexual unions differently in a way that denies them about 1100 federal and state benefits so that they can responsibly care for their families.

Sociologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed that marriage historically was not about the regulation of procreation but rather, it was about "the creation of alliances among different kinship groups."

Even the idea that parenting must be undertaken by both a mother and a father is a relatively new argument because the history of the family includes a wide variety of structures, most often including extended families and polygamous families.

The idea that men and women will no longer rear, care for, or support their children without OSM marriage, is a fallacy purported by the "responsible procreation" camp. The historical references of kinship group alliances support this claim.

From what I've seen homosexual same sex parents seem to be doing an equal if not better job of taking care of their children. The commitment to families and marriage is apparently inspiring heterosexual couples in Mass. to make a lasting commitment to marriage. Mass has the lowest divorce rate in the US.

The point here is that you haven't provided a homosexual version of responsible procreation. I don't think there is one that can provide the sexual basis for your emphasis on sexual orientation.

So let's be fair and drop the heterosexual qualifier from your use of "responsible procreation".

The question is, how would the SSM merger further responsible procreation? I don't see how it could, since it would actually sideline responsible procreation, but maybe you can show otherwise.

In this context, the question about the SSM-merger, in other words, is not "why not" but rather "why"?

Why treat all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives? Sidelining responsible procreation does not further it.

"If your hetero-centric model is the one we should use, can an argument be made for mass removal of these children from same sex arrangements? Or would a more realistic solution be to provide same sex couples with the social status and benefits civil marriages affords?"

Besides, my argument is not hetero-centric but childcentric. And, no, I haven't argued that the government is empowered to take children from their homes. You still haven't explained why a gaycentric version of nonmarriage merits a special status on par with marital status.

You wouldn't want to write sexual orientation into the laws governing families -- especially those with children -- which exist outside of marriage, right? Well, neither do I.

Homosexual civil marriage then, has no effect in order promote, preserve or prevent heterosexual responsible procreation.

Why?

"There is no basis on offer for according SSM a preferential status on par with marital status. Nothing, certainly, that is child centric."

The issue then becomes what about gay and lesbian families with children. Should civil marriage law provide any form of support for these children? If your hetero-centric model is the one we should use, can an argument be made for mass removal of these children from same sex arrangements? Or would a more realistic solution be to provide same sex couples with the social status and benefits civil marriages affords?