arguments have been totally demolished.

Marriage, at its beginning, was a way to ally families and consolidate property. More recently, it's become a way to promote a non related life partner into first degree relative status, something that can be accomplished by no other body of law save adoption.

Making your life partner your first degree relative confers a whole host of human rights that isn't granted any other way, like the right to visit in an ICU and to limit other visitors, the right to plan a funeral after death, and automatic inheritance of property and child custody.

It's all about the sex to right wingers, especially right wing men, and sex should always produce progeny, at least theoretically. It's a bizarre viewpoint that would have every single woman thrown out of her marriage at menopause or granted automatic divorce should hubby feel the cold hand of impotence.

They just don't get it and they'll never get it, which is why we need to steamroll right over them.

or if they become incapacitated - just ask Newt Gingrich. So maybe they do practice what they preach.

Either to pass wealth down to if you were wealthy, or to take care of you when you were old if you were poor.

But that's been a long,long, long time. It has been at least a century that marriage has been about creating a new legal family unit from two people who are in love and want to spend their lives together. That's the real definition of marriage, and it in no way precludes same-sex relationships.

So you are older and beyond child bearing age, and wish to marry someone else who is also beyond child bearing age - God doesn't want such people to marry ? ..... Why the hell not ? ...

One of the lamest arguments they have, but not surprising that someone has dusted it off .....

and I brought up that some different gender marriages can't produce children and therefore those can't be "normal" marriages (that's the adjective the Tweet used). I was told he meant natural marriages.

There are many that are still hung up on same-sex sex--they don't see us as individuals that do more than have sex with someone of the same gender. If they did any kind of research, they'd know about lesbian bed death and needn't worry so much about sex.

I've suggested this before. Liberals/gays should propose laws in all 50 states where people applying for marriage licenses MUST pass a fertility test. If they fail, they can never get married. Also add an amendment where if no children are produced within 3 years, who live pass one year, the marriage is annulled and all tax breaks received by that marriage must be repaid with interest. Stupid? Of course. But isn't that what the rethuglicans do all the time?

Jennifer Rubin published a "we fucked up" article on this today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/03/31/how-did-the-right-lose-on-gay-marriage/

A little self-awareness never hurts - even for her.

--in promoting divisiveness among the 99%, have realized that this tool is now beyond its "best used by" date. They don't care anyone, so they're willing to let us have it. Of course getting to that point required a great deal of hard work by activists also.

If their freedom of practice religion was subject to the wills of others they would be crying "they are trying to make me do something I don't want to do". The excuse i get from RW who says if there is same sex marriages ministers will have to do something they don't believe in. Guess what, the same people wants to make others not do what they believe in.

although it was about property rights and distribution, protecting bloodlines, and establishing a safe haven for procreation (i.e. the "household&quot . Arranged marriages were often the norm, and if love dared to appear it was often enough outside of the formal marriage. If marriage ceremonies were even conducted at all, as they seem to have been rare before the Council of Trent required them.

More to the point, it was to establish paternity in the millennia before we knew about DNA so those property rights and bloodlines could be adjudicated. Seems like everyone was diddling everyone else back then, too, but that piece of paper from the priest decided who the "official" father was.

Some places in ancient Greece seem to have sanctioned same sex marriage of sorts (Sparta particularly celebrated such unions) but nowhere else in world history has it been a major institution and in ancient Rome, Europe, and many places in Asia, it was strictly forbidden. Africa and pre-Columbian Americas? Not likely.

Now, that doesn't mean it's not time for it to be accepted, but silly arguments from all sides should be put to rest.

So, the question now is how do we reconcile the thousands of years of marriage history, law and culture to the present need to respect the rights of same sex couples and give them full access to to the social and legal benefits of marriage.

The simplest way might be to eliminate marriage entirely and make civil unions the norm for everyone, with a big church wedding optional (but legally meaningless) for anyone who wants it. Simple, but not so likely to happen.

We don't think much about it any more, but for much of history marriage not only assumed a sexual relationship, but also required it. Repopulating was behind that and isn't a problem now. Civil unions, however, defuse any moral arguments about sex of any sort since they don't make any assumptions, much less requirements, of sexual activity.

...which entitles those whose names are on it to certain benefits.

Marriage allowed for consolidating power, acquiring land and wealth. It also provided a way to transfer those things. For the early Church, however, these worldly things were ephemeral, worldly and thus, not desirable.

Celibacy was preferred in much of early Christianity, one could become closer to god, more spiritual. In marriage one becomes more worldly, tied to worldly things. Children were viewed as the best part of marriage, the rationale, if you will. Asceticism was preferred, but it was not a very practical thing for a sect to insist on. The Shakers tried a similar thing, and we know how well that worked out for them. Taking in orphans, though laudable, was not a viable long term plan.

The Catholic Church ran into a bit of a conflict about the subject of wealth and power. But, such is the fallen state of man, meaning that human nature is variable and subject to temptation.

So, there is a history for what the anti equality folks are claiming. The rationale just doesn't hold up very well on closer inspection. Only for the truly holy aspirants does it have any shred of integrity or plausibility.

Those 9 states only allow first cousin marriages if they are either over a certain age (mostly 55) or one of them is unable to procreate.

What they are saying is the purpose of marriage has to do with it being an institution to help society perpetuate itself by having a legal framework of obligations for parents to provide for any children who are born into the union. It is a recognition of biological fact. That has nothing to do with individual preferences for children or whatever.

The fact is this is what marriage was created to be. It was that way for centuries, for millenia. Love had nothing whatsoever to do with its origins. It originated with the discovery of paternity.

He actually argued that sex was solely for procreation between married couples. I told him if he believes that then he'd better be prepared to stop enjoying the horizontal rumba when his wife reaches menopause and embrace celibacy from then on. The response was crickets.

I'm the first to admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, but dayum - these guys take the cake!

I honestly believe, as many have suggested, that they just don't think their rules should apply to them...and that's why they're so unforgiving when thrusting their beliefs on others.

And yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense, doesn't it? Yet I've had so many run ins with ultra-religious types where they don't seem to get this simple concept. They display the kind of thinking I'd expect from a child...yet even a child will accept reason. Heck, most children reason better than a lot of adults do, the little free thinkers.

In my experience, the sort of person who'd argue that marriage - or by extension, sex - is about procreation, is pretty much immune to the discomforts of logic. They put their bible before the Constitution, and that's the problem: they don't understand that freedom of religion doesn't trump freedom, full stop. And that's where they get themselves tied up in knots, not that they realize it themselves until it comes home to roost.

I don't know what the answer is. But I wish this country would stop legislating from the church pulpit.

making laws that exclude gay and lesbian marriages. That's a real threat to marriages... or potential marriages

So I must be married for the wrong reason. lol

and let someone else have a chance at the procreating, you selfish so-and-so!