Replies

I think you ought to think things through a little harder first.
So are you saying that people who are known to be biologically infertile

I think you ought to think things through a little harder first.

I did. You're the one adding the complexity. Personal medical history or age is not the point or the issue. The point is: Does a male and female have the potential to produce offspring? The production of offspring and their care is the reason for marriage. That offspring may or may not be produced is not the point of the standard.

What? Is that qualification so difficult? Does it really offend you? Do want a law that reads like a legal brief? A tome of 900 pages? I don't get some of you people. You don't like gay marriage and would like a durable legal standard to prevent it and at the same time uphold the institution of marriage and you want a law that has so many exceptions that it is rendered meaningless.

Does it really offend you? Do want a law that reads like a legal brief? A tome of 900 pages?

Being a law student, actually, yes I would. And, like I said, someone with a hysterectomy physically does NOT have the potential to bear children, so your definition would exclude them.

And quite honestly, I don't care one way or another about gay marriage, only that it should be done legislatively, not judicially.

Actually, my problem is that you're arguing that marriage laws should be written to make procreation the stated goal of marriage, but not insisting that procreation actually occur. It makes me wonder why you would harp on about procreation when you don't actually care if any procreation really happens within the marraige -- you just want one of them to be male and one of them to be female, but for some reason you throw up reproduction as a smokescreen to hide that.

I'm not comfortable with gay marriage, although I do know of people who are in same-sex relationships and they are happy with their lives, and I won't begrudge anyone happiness in a world in which so many people have none. I find it ironic that gays want to get married legally when many people who have personal assets built up would rather avoid the legal implications of marriage.

A few issues (for which I have sympathy for gays):

Alice-in-Wonderland logic. Since gays are allowed to adopt children, for all practical reasons, they are as much their children as if a heterosexual couple adopted. If they can adopt, the children deserve the protection of marriage...being the responsibility equally of both people, in case something happens to one of them, visitation rights if the couple breaks up, legal rights.

I know people who aren't gay who, as they get older, could see protection of their well-being in a legal union with a close friend. It would take precedence over relatives taking over their affairs if something happened to them.

Benefits from jobs that go to families depend on marriage, don't they?

I'm still not entirely comfortable with this concept; but, where children are involved, I want what's best for them. And PS: a lot of these adoptions are children nobody else would take, and if I have to choose between Massachusetts raising those children, and someone else doing it, I'll go with having people who care raising the child (or in some cases families of children so they won't be separated). The state saves money (how's that for a concept in MA) and the influence can't be worse than that provided than the nutcases who run social services.

The arguments about what a marriage should mean? I think the arguments there should be directed to churches that have these weddings. And, honestly, if it's not a church I belong to, it's not my business.