Exactly. I understand the concern about how removing the opposite-sex requirement opens up the *possibility* for abuse, where "any two consenting adults" may take advantage of marital benefits, even though they're not an intimate couple.

But Civil Unions already allow that, as do a few SSM states... and I just don't see that exploitation happening in any widespread, destructive way?

“Besides, you have conceded that there is no sexual orientation requirement that defines the category “same-sex””

There isn’t any. But that doesn’t mean the government can discriminate against homosexual couples in the granting of marriage licenses.

“If partipation rates are suddenly relevant now, when discussing siblings, then it is relevant when discussing gay and lesbian participation rates in same-sex householding. About 90% of the openly homosexual adult population does not reside in such households. The demand is miniscule.”

The demand for mixed race marriage is even more miniscule I imagine. Yet we still made it legal. It’s a little goofy to discuss same-sex “householding” arrangements when the vast majority of same-sex couples do not have access to marriage. Like different-sex couples, I imagine same-sex couples might not want to set up a household together until the permanence of the relationship can be established.

“…yet you shrug your shoulders when I asked about siblings of the same sex and the same sexual orientation. I did not say they’d be engaged in sexual behavior together. They might, they might not. But they’d be ineligible even if they did not touch one another.”

Arguments about siblings or relatives getting married are irrelevant to a discussion of SSM. If there are prohibitions against siblings or relatives marrying under opposite-sex marriage, those prohibitions remain in place under same-sex marriage.

“More importantly, your viewpoint, if imposed, would borrow the word marriage for a nonmarital arrangement. Why would siblings or anyone else view their relationship as marriage? They would just want the privileges that comes with the license. You know, like the identity group you keep emphasizing.”

Again, siblings or relatives getting married has no relation to SSM. If a brother and sister want to wed, or a father and daughter, they could presumably sue the state now for that right.

“Consenting adults form loving, committed couples”
“You’ve said this repeatedly and yet you have not said what you mean by this. Consent to what? What kind of love? Commit to what? If it is just this personalized agreement, then, you are concerned with something other than marriage.”

I think it’s pretty clear. Adults is people over a certain age. Consenting means these adults agree to do something; it’s not against their will.

“You haven’t come up with a reason for special status. Your argument is against marital status. It is not based on commitment since you can’t say to what they’d commit. It is not based on consent since you are a-okay with barring some consenting adults. You emphasize one identity group and that discredits your talk of equality. No, Jeffery, you have a lot of homework to do before you can make the case for this legal reform that you favor.”

I have come up with reasons for denying different-sex couples special status in receiving the right to marry: it discriminates needlessly and without valid reason against same-sex couples. Unless you can prove that same-sex couples have less value or stature in society, and I haven’t seen or heard anyone do that, there’s no valid reason to prevent them from marrying. And unless you or anyone else can prove that it’s detrimental to society to permit SSM, I think states are going to have a hard time maintaining opposite-sex only marriage licenses.

No, Chairm, I have no homework to do. The Iowa Supreme Court has done all the heavy lifting necessary, from a legal standpoint. The state of Massachusetts, as the pioneer on the issue, has done the heavy lifting of discrediting the notion that SSM brings social or cultural catastrophe. And frankly, ludicrous TV commercials like those from NOM, and public appearances by cranks like Maggie Gallagher, are invaluable in discrediting the opposite-sex only message.

"It’s the gender requirement that I’m opposed to."

That is obvious. But you emphasize sexual orientation anyway.

You said:

"it is overwhelmingly homosexual people who form same-sex couples"

Highy doubtful if not outright false.

Besides, you have conceded that there is no sexual orientation requirement that defines the category "same-sex".

If partipation rates are suddenly relevant now, when discussing siblings, then it is relevant when discussing gay and lesbian participation rates in same-sex householding. About 90% of the openly homosexual adult population does not reside in such households. The demand is miniscule.

Yet you emphasize homosexuality.

There is no requirement for same-sex sexual behavior and yet you shrug your shoulders when I asked about siblings of he same sex and the same sexual orientation. I did not say they'd be engaged in sexual behavior together. They might, they might not. But they'd be ineligible even if they did not touch one another.

They would not be barred from SSM due to homosexuality. And, according to your own stated standard, the lack of a legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior means siblings would not be breaking laws against incestuous sexual behavior -- just by showing up for a license. And you wouldn't want the government prying into bedrooms, would you?

The criminalization of sexual behavior between consenting adults is something you have not justified so you can not rely on that anyway.

More importantly, your viewpoint, if imposed, would borrow the word marriage for a nonmarital arrangement.

Why would siblings or anyone else view their relationship as marriage? They would just want the privileges that comes with the license. You know, like the identity group you keep emphasizing.

* * *

You said:

"Consenting adults form loving, committed couples"

You've said this repeatedly and yet yu have not said what you mean by this. Consent to what? What kind of love? Commit to what? If it is just this personalized agreement, then, you are concerned with something other than marriage.

* * *

You haven't come up with a reason for special status. Your argument is against marital status. It is not based on commitment since you can't say to what they'd commit. It is not based on consent since you are a-okay with barring some consenting adults. You emphasize one identity group and that discredits your talk of equality.

No, Jeffery, you have a lot of homework to do before you can make the case for this legal reform that you favor.

Sexual orientation isn’t a requirement of marriage. It’s the gender requirement that I’m opposed to. Sexual orientation drives couples to form: same-sex or opposite-sex. If a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman mutually consent to get married, all the best to them, in my opinion. And if two straight dudes want to get married, all the best to them, in my opinion. The discussion of sexuality comes up only because it is overwhelmingly homosexual people who form same-sex couples, the couples 45 states are still discriminating against in terms of granting marriage licenses.

“What could possibly justify the ineligibility of two male siblings who are both inclined toward same-sex sexual attraction and romance?”
Beats me. What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? How does society currently keep a brother and sister from marrying? Does same-sex marriage really introduce something new to the “sibling’s getting married” concern? Incest is illegal. Unless sibling marriage proponents can get that changed, it’s going to be kinda tough to see sibling marriage anytime soon.

“You also point to the courts to decide the matter rather than the actual laws and the definitive legal requirements. You know, the requirements you wish to abolish or deeply discount: the man-woman criterion and the marital presumption of paternity.”

I don’t really care if the courts or legislatures correct the current injustice of marriage statutes. Like voting used to be, marriage is currently arbitrarily limited using gender. I don’t see any way around it legally, morally, socially, etc. Consenting adults form loving, committed couples that contain one man/one woman, one man/one man, one woman/one woman. The government issues a permit called a marriage license, that grants specific rights and obligations to couples. Those rights and obligations seem to pertain to the “coupleness” rather than the “genderness” of the couple. For example, marriage law doesn’t require the man to do or be something, and the woman has to be or do something else. Apart from the arbitrary requirement in 45 states that the couple be one male and one female, there’s nothing in the marriage statutes that lays out any gender-based rules and regulations.

“Gut marriage law of these things and marriage becomes a nonsexual type of relationship, at law, and so the incest concern is not really about incestous sexual behavior. Your pro-SSM arugments deconstruct the basis for the eligibility criteria.”

Who wants to gut marriage law?! I don’t. I just want states to stop discriminating in the issuance of marriage licenses based on gender. I think it’s time society recognize that adults form heterosexual and homosexual couples. Unless SSM opponents come up with valid reasons against it. So far, they haven’t.

You also point to the courts to decide the matter rather than the actual laws and the definitive legal requirements. You know, the requirements you wish to abolish or deeply discount: the man-woman criterion and the marital presumption of paternity.

Gut marriage law of these things and marriage becomes a nonsexual type of relationship, at law, and so the incest concern is not really about incestous sexual behavior. Your pro-SSM arugments deconstruct the basis for the eligibility criteria.

You'd agree that these are not legal requirements when people show-up for a license for an all-male or an all-female relationshp, right?

That court's reasoning does not depend on the equality doctrine but on a series of false equivalencies.

What could possibly justify the ineligibility of two male siblings who are both inclined toward same-sex sexual attraction and romance?

It would not be some problem with homosexuality, right? Nor could it be about the choice of consenting adults. And it can't be about the nonexistent requirement for certain sexual behavior; this would not be a sexual type of relationship at law anyway.

So SSM argumentation encompasses more than you might wish to be held accountable for.

This is not a device. This is intrinsic to your complaints.

There's no reason that other groups can't pursue their right to marry. If a brother and sister want to marry, let them sue their state for that right. If a group of people want to marry, let them sue their state for that right. The courts may rule that a brother and sister have the right to marry and that laws against incest are unconstitutional. But what do these other groups have to do with same-sex couples? It's just a device by the opponents of same-sex couples to smear.

If "marriage equality" is truly about equality of consenting adults, as you have said, then, you can't now say that nongay people must go to the back of the line.

You said: "burdening same-sex couples’ right to marry with other groups"

Nope. SSM supporters have taken on that burden the moment they started complaining about the eligibility rules.

But I see that you recognize that SSM argumentation is about the group which is just another way of conceding that it is about identity politics of the gaycentric kind.

Consenting adults, Jefferey, are some more equal than others, according to what you just said?

"....why do SSMers insist on discriminating against nonmarital families which are NOT sexualized but are same-sex — like siblings or dad/son or mom/daughter or uncle/nephew or aunte/niece?"

I wasn't aware that they do discriminate. I support SSM and certainly do not discriminate against "non-sexualized" families? What's the discrimination you're seeing, Chairm? If related people want to marry, let them, like gay couples, pursue a remedy with the state. But burdening same-sex couples' right to marry with other groups who might wish to marry is the ultimate red herring. The current legal issue is, can same-sex couples marry? Relatives are forbidden to marry. If they object, let them sue the state, and let the chips fall where they may.