Conservatives say marriage has always been between a man and a woman. They’re wrong.

The Washington Post ^ | May 13, 2015 | Trevor Burrus

[Mrs. Don-o]

The State has no real interest in licensing or regulating friendships or personal alliances per se, but only the ones that have procreative potential.

Nobody insists that the State set up conditions for initiating or terminating relationships predicated upon sharing bonsai or bicycling or classic British films. And relationships involving property land, homes, exchange of goods and services, can be readily taken care of by private contract.

I have often said this in relation to the irrationality of "gay marriage." What for? What friends demand legally enforced "twosiness"? It calls to mind a banner I saw in a crowd shot of the big pro-traditional-marriage march in Gay Paree: a couple of flamboyant self-described queers proclaiming "We're gayer without marriage."

So it seems marriage is primarily set up, not to secure the consortium and interests of adults, but primarily to secure the rights and interests of children.

That is why it is intrinsically applicable only to man-woman couples.

It might be objected, "Aren't there a lot of sterile man-woman couples?"

Yes; but to examine all couples for fertility would be an impermissible invasion of privacy. So the reasonable position of the State is to assume that man-woman couples are potentially fertile, since they are predicated upon the only kind of intercourse that can spontaneously produce offspring.

[Mrs. Don-o]

So you won’t answer the question? That’s OK. We can’t always expect personal conviction.

[Yosemitest]

You can get no stronger conviction than the WORD of GOD.
But FOOLS don't believe GOD or His WORD.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Still not answering the question.

That's OK, I understand.

[cookcounty]

"The writer is actually from the Cato Institute."

That obviously doesn't make him a deep thinker.

"Historically, marriage has been about finding good in-laws and securing economic advantage. And marrying for love is a thoroughly modern invention."

This is what they call trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

Tries to blame the church (can't these guys find somebody else to hate?). You see, the rest of the world, including the ancient world, was just crawling with same-sex marriages, it was just normality, and then that darn Apostle Paul came and ruined it for everyone. (/sarc.)

This guy is dumber than a bag of condoms.

[cookcounty]

"It was not uncommon for, say, a patrician Roman to marry his horse"

Though not as common as marrying a figment of one's imagination.

It's amusing how many of these arguments for same-sex marriage are so, ….uh...twisted.

[UCANSEE2]

Who is New-Bruce?

You mean like the new guy in prison ?

Do you recognize where that photo grab came from ?

[NorthMountain]

I have no idea where your photo came from.

Clearly, you have no idea where my photo came from. It is from the Monty Python Bruces ...

Rule One: No Pooftas.

[NetAddicted]

Thanks for the summary. Now I can avoid the Com Post.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

Okay, it hasn’t always been ONE man and ONE woman. The world has also produced polyandry and polygamy. However, we have NEVER had homosexual marriage until now. Lucky us.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

FWIW.

PING!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I actually read the whole article on Cato’s web site. There were exceptions to the rule, but you are largely correct.