Marriage and civil unions are about giving legal effect to certain rights that every individual has. The fact that they are separate but equal institutions does not mean that they discriminate against gays – or against heterosexuals.

I agree that is one of the outcomes when people get married. However, it is not why marriage exists.

Right – it’s to allow each individual to make a final life choice of life partner and replace the next of kin with which s/he was born with the person of one’s own choosing. I never said it was about making anyone feel better about themselves – I have been very clear about what I believe the purpose of marriage to be and the faults I have with your proffered purpose.

I understand why you cannot contradict what I have said, because the purpose I have identified applies to every single marriage without exception. But that does not justify creating a straw man of statements I never said and then proceed to knock it down.

Your friends should just get married and call themselves civil union partners.

I oppose gay marriage in NJ because there is a Civil Unions law that provides all of the legal rights and benefits of marriage for homosexuals – but you are making Curt’s case better than he is. (No disrespect to Curt).

The many people who seek sexual partners for reasons other than procreation do so for sexual gratification. Sexual gratification is no justification to be married. I think you are confusing the reasons for chosing a mate (long term marriage partner) with sexual desire. Some people have sexual intercourse prior to, and in cases like Tiger Woods, after they are married without any intention or desire of getting married. Unless humans are going to abandon parental responsibilities, they should choose wisely with whom they mate. If all they wish is sexual gratification there is no need to have a mate.

Your first paragraph makes my case why civil unions should either be open to everyone or be abolished entirely.

But THE LAW did not treat you as married – with all of the legal rights and benefits associated with marriage. You may well have treated your your girlfriend *as if* she were your wife before you got married, but I assure you that the probate court would not have, nor would any hospital administrator.

As for your flip response to bunnies – it was totally unwarranted. You are the one who confused seeking a mate with seeking a marriage partner, and generalized it to all of nature. Plenty of people seek sexual partners for reasons other than procreation, as the contraceptive industry’s success attests.

Re: #56,

As I told my wife prior to being married, in my mind and heart I was married to her. I did not need a license or ceremony to validate it. We acted and treated each other as if we were married. The reason to make it “official” was mainly because we intended to have and raise a family.

Without the desire to have kids, I would probably be similar to my friend that is in what can be considered a “common law marriage”.

As for your assertion that procreation cannot be the fundamental purpose, I wish to point out again that infertility has long been a justification for ending a marriage. This “rule” has existed for thousands of years and has been codified in law.

I recognize that people get married without the desire to have children. However, from my viewpoint, there really is no reason for them to get married.

Re: #57,

For the same reason bunnies don’t pay taxes…they don’t have the attention span to fill out and file the necessary forms.

You wrote:

“Whether you want to admit it or not, in nature, which includes humans, mates are selected based on their ability to produce and provide for offspring.”

So explain to me why in nature only human beings get married? Where are all the marriage ceremonies for bunnies, who also like to procreate?

When you got married, did you and your wife promise to love, honor and cherish? Or did you promise to procreate and save civilization?

Why doesn’t a marriage license reqiure proof that you can procreate, and a declaration of your stated intent to do so? Why isn’t there a marriage physician doing physical exams to make sure that marriage applicants are fit for the particular purpose?

Like I said, most people who get married in fact do want to have children. But that does not make procreation the fundamental purpose of marriage – lots of people procreate just fine without it. And lots of people want to make a final choice of life partner without any intention of having offspring.

A fundamental purpose such as you are ascribing cannot be both so underinclusive and overinclusive. By defintion and in logic, such underinclusion and simultaneous overinclusion means that however important a factor procreation is in marriage, it cannot be the fundamental purpose. Particularly given that the purpose I have identified applies to every single marriage.