National Review hits on a "new" way to talk about Same-Sex Marriage - NOM says best article ever

[WillParkinson]

The editorial board of the wingnut National Review posted a lengthy essay on same-sex marriage today. Here's a tired, cliched excerpt:

Same-sex marriage would introduce a new, less justifiable distinction into the law. This new version of marriage would exclude pairs of people who qualify for it in every way except for their lack of a sexual relationship. Elderly brothers who take care of each other; two friends who share a house and bills and even help raise a child after one loses a spouse: Why shouldn’t their relationships, too, be recognized by the government? The traditional conception of marriage holds that however valuable those relationships may be, the fact that they are not oriented toward procreation makes them non-marital. (Note that this is true even if those relationships involve caring for children: We do not treat a grandmother and widowed daughter raising a child together as married because their relationship is not part of an institution oriented toward procreation.) On what possible basis can the revisionists’ conception of marriage justify discriminating against couples simply because they do not have sex?

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/09/national-review-on-marriage.html

---

So now it's not just meant for procreation, it's oriented toward procreation....

[rurallib]

1. So when a woman can no longer bear children, would the marriage be reclassified?

Or perhaps when the children leave?

[Glorfindel]

3. Maybe we should require a "Certificate of Fertility" prior to marriage

After all, if procreation is the point, why should some elderly crone or pathetic eunuch be allowed to marry? :sarcasm:

On the other hand, a gay man and a lesbian, both of whom tested as fertile, could marry for the financial benefits, even if they'd rather die than have sex with each other. :crazy:

[rurallib]

6. probably need to certify they can perform sexual acts also.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

2. Thought marriage WAS about sexual relationships?

Otherwise, it's called FORNICATION.

So they've hit upon the 'current contract of marriage' being MORE than just what parts of who goes where in whom to produce what results. WELCOME to the 21st CENTURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GodlessBiker]

8. +1

[Ian David]

4. That is why all married couples are required to consummate their marriage before a magistrate.

Otherwise, how would we know they really "do it?"

[customerserviceguy]

5. It's not a bad idea

I've known mothers and daughters who shared a household, and would benefit by liberalized inheritance laws that would result from recognizing their relationship as something to be respected. There are numerous non-sexual relationships that should be recognized in the same way that a traditional opposite-sex marriage is treated for tax and legal purposes.

[beyurslf]

7. There is nothing in the current law to stop a male and female non-relative from marrying

for any purpose they choose. They can marry for insurance or to get a green card.