The difference is that you demand SSM because of gayness.

Those other scenarios? They are not made especially eligible to marry for the sake of child abuse, drug abuse, criminality. None of that stuff is the basis for eligibility, as you well know.

The death-row inmate, for example, may be eligible but not JUST because he is currently an inmate.

The child abuser does not get to say, “I abuse children and so THAT must make me eligible to marry.”

And drug abuse is not THE basis of eligibility to marry.

You have things upside down. You claim that a relationship that is gay (as you might say) must be eligible BECAUSE it is gay.

Sure, you want to entrench the notion that gay and straight are the two identities that distinguish human beings, but those identities are irrelevant to the core meaning of marriage around which rules for eligibility are drawn.

Is it wise to permit a child abuser to marry? Nope. On this point the law is an arse. Likewise with death-row inmates.

However, the rationales are defensible for their eligibility in the particular cases that created the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter. The court left open the possibility, however remote, of the inmate sexually consummating the marriage and/or procreating with his wife. The drug abuser might sober up and reform his ways — it has been known to happen you know — and become a responsible spouse and parent. And, as appalling as one might think it (and I certainly do) the child abuser might lead a better life in future.

But in my view each of these things would justify limits on eligibility to marry. Why? Marriage is a comprehensive interpersonal union and one must be capable of forming such a union. Responsible procreation enters into it, sure, but the key is the relationship is procreative in kind even if not in outcome in each and every instance.

“I pretty sure the data do NOT bear this out (that 90% of the gay community are not even involved in “unregistered cohabitation”).”

You would be mistaken based on census data and the HRC’s own analysis of the census data.

Now, if you think that room-mates ought to fall under the category of unregistered cohabitation, then, I guess you have a point.

My point is that the practice is very rare within the adult homosexual population — re same-sex householding under whatever guise (that, as the census does, presumes is householding of those in gay relationships).

A cursory glance of your sources…

1) D’Emilio: First article referred to the push for marriage equality as an “unmitigated disaster”. It’s no surprise that it was published in 2006. Times have changed DRASTICALLY since.

2) Taylor: Confused and self-defeating. She argues that we all deserve “human rights” but shouldn’t strive for the very marriage equality that would give us those rights. Umm okay…??

3) Polikoff: Argues that unmarried couples should have the same legal protections and benefits as married couples, which is an argument FOR marriage equality. Further, she writes, “…If I have to vote up or down on gay marriage, I’m going to stand on the side of gay rights at every opportunity.”

4) Rinnert: Written in 2003 when 0 states had marriage equality. He closes the article with: “Gay marriage is not for me; but in a perfect world, it would be an option for those who want it.”

5) Krauss: Written in August 2003, just two months after Canada legalized gay marriage.

6) Ettelbrick. Published in 1998. Are you kidding me?

THESE are your gay voices against gay marriage?

Couples who would never be allowed to keep any children they made, couples with histories of child abuse, drug abuse, even couples where one partner is serving a life sentence or on death row are nonetheless allowed to marry.

We can approve and allow people to conceive offspring with someone of the same sex, using stem cell derived epigenetically modified gametes, but it is not a good idea, and we certainly do not HAVE to approve of same-sex conception. The debate about same-sex marriage should not be separated from the debate about same-sex couples creating offspring together, they have always been the same question and should always be.

The French position skirts the question of propriety [not to mention scripture]. A couple “loving each other” has nothing to do with parenting, society’s real [and only] legitimate interest in marriage. Yet to be proven by the social sciences is that proposed alternatives to one mother and one father are as good for the child.

I loved my mother dearly, but one mother was plenty enough.

I pretty sure the data do NOT bear this out (that 90% of the gay community are not even involved in “unregistered cohabitation”).

Others can. And some African Americans opposed the abolition of slavery not because they hated themselves, or other blacks. Some did hate themselves and others like them.

Some embraced the idea of slavery, of being a slave throughout their lives – destiny,
dependency, fear of the unknown, living without any concept or idea of freedom, or any idea of ‘self.’

There are aunt Dorothys. There were (are) uncle Toms – dutiful, long-suffering servants faithful to their master.

Can’t draw any conclusions about the motivations of whites from looking at uncle Toms.

Can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of dogma and discrimination carried out over the centuries of slavery.

Good lesson, slavery. Good lesson, religion.

But this situation has not gone unobserved among gays: “Self-denial is as finely tuned a punishment as the damage any posse could inflict.”

How exactly does this work? Do they think that gay ‘activists’ sit around thinking their #1 problem is straight people getting married? Therefore if they get SSM legalized what happens then? Lots of gay people get married? OK then what? Straight people stop marrying out of disgust of sharing an institution with gays?

Once SSM is legalized how do they get all ‘regular gays’ to get married? Or is the plot to make SSM legal but have few gays actually get married? What if most straight people just don’t really bother to notice or care either way? How do they motivate ‘regular gays’ to fall in line to whatever this master plan is…either get all gays SSM or not SSM?

I’m asking anti-SSM activists here to explore this question on two levels. One is what they honestly, really think gay activists think they can accomplish and how. The other is what is practical to expect to happen in the real world.