The issue of SSM is indeed sexual as is marriage because sex may lead toprocreation but often it does not. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage and neither is exual relations either.

You are correct that marriage only describes one subset of the range of HUMAN relationships and the reason we homosexuals are focused on being married is many but in this instance,homosexuals already enjoy all the range of human interaction that hetero-sexuals do EXCEPT for the relationship of marriage. We have boy/girlfriends, work friends, school friends, family, enemies, and any other concievable relationship you care to name.

The confusion comes, I think, when heterosexuals hear us talking about the financial benefits of marriage. That may give you the impression that we do not respect marriage for its procreation aspect. Far from it but more than that is the financial aspect of marriage quite apart from children or love. Insurance, inheritance, legal next of kin status-- these are all aspects that are not attainable for homosexuals. Civil Unions mostly do not afford these benefits. Legal wills and other documents also do not afford these protections. Besides, it is natural to want to celebrate your relationship and why would you assume that homosexuals do not have the same needs?

There are homosexual couples that want to have children and as posted before, children thrive every bit as well in a homosexual environment as they do in heterosexual family units. That is pure scientific fact.
Some couples either do not want children, realize that they cannot provide for a child and therefore do not subject a child to that horrible existance, or like me, cannot have a child because medically, They may not have the time nor physical energy to raise a child.

Anyway,
this was meant with all respect and so I would appreciate the same in return. The reason I say that is that I see MUCH vilification of anything that people write that shows homosexuals as human beings.

Your arguement seems to be more in anger over the judge rather than over homosexuals at all.First the judge did not stop nor in any way prohibit her from following her heart and finding a happy andloving marriage with a man so your anger causes an incorrect arguement or assumption on your part- that my relationship denies you the right to a relationship. My relationship does not, nor will it ever preclude yours.

Anyway you have not proved anything approaching an attack or violation of Carrie's civil rights and BTW what you are describing, we homosexuals have felt at the hands of heterosexuals for centuries! you had one experience. add it up and who has the better claim to violation of civil and HUMAN rights.

Children have always, (especially female children), have historically been seen as property and a resource for gaining wealth or prestige through alliances. Even biblical marriage is about productivity and inheritance rather than about love or any other amorphous idea called love.

As to the specific issue of children and child-rearing:
Every single scientific study ever done has proven that children are as stable and productive in homosexual households as they are in heterosexual households. When it comes to child-rearing there is no study in existance that shows a disparity between homo and heterosexual based family units. The arguement is flawed from the very beginning.

As to the desire of same-sex couples for the equality of marriage, the author claims that committed couples do not require marriage- then neither do heterosexuals need marriage.

The author also cites as example her love of her sister. Good for her and her sister BUT while the author can automatically inherit from her sister while I cannot inherit fomr my committed relationship. Legal wills do not garauntee inheritance and specifically, homosexual wills are routinly thrown out when challenged by the heterosexual family members. People are dis-enfarnchised (tossed out of their homes), and are routinely stripped of any legal rights to, at times, years of mutual ownership of property. These are facts and are indisputable. The author either didn't do her homework or has a personal axe to grind and so needs no basis in reality.

The author also goes into a laundry list of why all human needs acn be met with simple interaction with other people. First, She obviously has no realisitc Idea of how homosexuals are treated. A heterosexual can list a stranger as a beneficiary on health insurance policies but I cannot list my significant other. She say she pools money with others, and that she can get comfort from an animal but she never even recognizes the basic human need to have a specific asnd very intimate relationship wiuth another human. She thinks that homosexuals do not deserve human contact other than in general and public scenarios. She does not recognize that homosexuals have the need to grow old with that special someone just like hheterosexuals do. The author obviously does not realize that she praises thre instiitution of marriage in that it drwas adults (father/mother), into a very close and specific relationship nut she cannot comprehend that homosexuals- as human beings- are exactly the same in terms of emotional needs. True I have 3 cats and I love them and get MUCH comfort from them but A cat will live upwards of 15 years (rarely longer), and that is certainly not comparable to 50+ years in a possible relationship. It is rather very condescending and arrogant to assign what needs and feeling homosexuals are rather than recognize that they are EXACTLY the same as heterosexual needs except for one difference- the object of affection. That is the ONLY difference! homosexuals are after all HUMANS before they are homosexuals.

Finally,( and I'm sure your cheering that word...LOL)
Any children in a homosexual marriage would and are a priority. BECAUSE it is much more difficult for homosexuals to become parents (either through adoption or through surrogacy), those children are desired and planned for. Children are and always should be the priority because as the author said, they are the future. AND one thing in support of children which heterosexuals do not have is that homosexuals have to CHOOSE when or if to have children whereas heterosexuals can have the rare accident- and sometimes not so rare. There are plenty of unwanted children in the system today that lack homes or any stability. Homes because they have been abandoned or abused, and lacking in stability because fosterhomes after foster homes, and MORE abuse and more moving, and less long-term friendships, and absolutly no trust of any adult figure after their journey. That sure is such a better way than allowing the homosexual couple who are committed and who have the means from adopting and giving that child balance and direction and above all stability and love. NOw I want it understood that the child-care system and workers are not the people in the wrong for the most part, and there are certainly success stories of those abandoned children. The point reamains though that they have too much inventory and that there are not enough workers or homes to meet the need. BUT denying those children a home based solely on an outdated societal view of homoseuxuals, based not on science but on religion and feeling- pure subjectivity in other words- is downright criminal. If heterosexuals want to gain ANY headway with the child arguement, they must show that they can deliver on their rosy picture of heterosexual homes with 2 sexes. They have yet to do that and the best arguement FOR homosexual marriage and even child-rearing is that the system shows how inadequate the present thought really is.

The proof is in the pudding people. You just have to open your eyes to the world around you and stop being afraid of change and inclusion.

Be more careful about friends in the area before you shoot off from the keyboard...