And? People’s children will be happy if marriage is a shrine to the abstract beauty of opposite sex pairing when that abstract beauty is irrelevant to why people pair up or get married because they know they come from one man and one woman and …. So far it’s a non sequitur. Fill in the blank.

Marty: “Children aren’t why people get married — marriage exists because people have children.”

In large part, yes. So? How does making marriage a shrine to the abstract beauty of opposite-sex pairing achieve any of the things that people might have wanted to achieve with it?

Because ALL children know they come from one man and one woman. Even you — nothing “abstract” about it. Children aren’t why people get married — marriage exists because people have children.

Duh.

Why exactly would people’s children want marriage to be a shrine to the abstract beauty of opposite sex pairing when it’s completely irrelevant to why people pair up or get married?

Their children, that’s who. Moron.

For what purposes? If you want marriage to be a shrine to some conception of the abstract beauty of opposite-sex relationships then sure, but like I was saying, what moron would want that when it’s completely irrelevant to why people pair up or get married?

You can shoehorn same-sex couples into Marriage, but they still won’t be “equal”. Two left shoes is not “a pair of shoes”, never could be.

I’ll allow you the fictional belief that two men can marry each other, out of politeness. But please don’t insist that it would be “equal” to man+woman marriage. That is insulting.

Well sure. It’s not as if it’s not a neat system, and I don’t mean to piss on it for the sake of pissing on it. It’s just that it’s built on a biological foundation whereby, as a general rule, with exceptions, the opposites are attracted to one another, and the cultural component is largely about preventing this attraction being expressed too casually. So even though we probably agree that we want _plenty_ of people to form opposite-sex couples, any argument that assumes that traditional marriage is about ensuring that _plenty_ of people form opposite sex couples is just braindead - you might as well take credit for the sun rising. So if you want to argue that _all_ people should form opposite-sex couples, you can’t get there by extrapolation, because marriage isn’t, at all, about pushing the majority into opposite-sex couples. You’ll need to give some completely independent reason why those who aren’t opposite-sex attracted should be shoehorned into opposite-sex relationships, and the supposed abstract beauty of the arrangement doesn’t cut it. After all, if you’re in an opposite-sex couple and you’re straight, and you try to tell me that you got into it because of the abstract beauty of it, I’ll call you a liar. And if you if you’re in an opposite-sex couple and you’re gay and you try to tell me that you got into it because of the abstract beauty of it, I’ll call you an idiot.

Two left shoes aint exactly a “pair of shoes”.

I have been unclear with the section of your post that I selected to reply to - I didn’t mean to suggest that she wasn’t making a point about choice. It’s just I read you as supporting Tammy’s suggestion that “opposite marriage” was intended to refer to SSM as something opposite traditional marriage. On the contrary, I think the context makes it clear that she meant “opposite-sex marriage”. But if that’s not what you were saying then forget it.