How does the sexual relationship elevate a lesbian family above that of my hypothetical family consisting of two sisters and a child? What is essential to marriage is not the sexual act but the object of the sexual act. Even when the male and female are incapable of reproduction, the object remains reproduction. Where two males or two females copulate that outcome is precluded in every case. It is LIKE bestiality, which is why the term sodomy includes both homosexuality and sex between man and another species of animal. (Ref. Black's Law Dictionary.) So those who were shocked when a Colodado political candidate equates the two OUGHT not have been shocked.
She was only Dr. Johnson kicking the stone.
The personal relationships between man and woman are also different from those between two men or two women, and the mariiage laws reflect this kind of sexual relationship. To attempt to substitute Part A and Partner B in place of man and wife is to make marriage a procrustean bed.
That is another difference between lesbians and two sisters. The child will be either be neither of the sisters, in the case of a ward, or the child will be one of theirs, and the other sister is the helpful aunt. With lesbians, the child will look at both women as his/her mother.
Sodomy also used to include oral sex. How come we aren't hearing people compare that to beastiality? I can't quite understand why people fight so hard against gay marriage.
"It's between two man and a woman!"
Why?
"It's to have children!"
Then why does it provide protections for the spouses that is independent of the children. And, some homosexuals seek to have children after they are "married." Why should a homosexual couple receive a different set of protections from each other than a man and a woman do? And why should a child from a union of two women, or two men as some men find ways to have a child outside of adoption, receive fewer protections than a child from a union between man and woman? Because the child is not a result of the sex between the two?