How can something that is not necessary for marriage,and which is quite common to relationships other than marriage, be a “fundamental feature” of marriage? One might as well claim that a ring or a bouquet is a fundamental feature. Furthermore, it is quite silly to claim that this is what differentiates marriage from a strong friendship. Such a claim ignores the fact that persons of the opposite sex can have strong (even sexual) friendships with one another without being married in any sense. There are plenty of people who have procreative sex without desiring the commitment of marriage, and plenty of people who want the commitment of marriage without procreation.

Vogt really ought to know these things.”.

He does know these things, but they are inconvenient to his argument so he ignores them and pretends something else is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Safley

Note how they don’t reduce marriage to shoving a penis into a vagina or the production of children:

“First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. [...] Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals. Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context.”

The truth is, the government cares about marriage because the contract creates a new family structure that supercedes relationships based on blood or adoption. That structure exists regardless of any children the couple may have, by whatever means. By denying that contract to same-sex couples the government prevents us from superceding our “natural” families, leaving only same-sex couples vulnerable.

As I understand, conjugal visits are now banned in California for first degree murderers – thanks largely to Doris Tate (Sharon’s mother). But I don’t believe you (Brandon), Robert George, Maggie, Brian, or any other members of the marriage police had any involvement – because you were so busy working yourselves into a frenzied obsession with denying marriage to people like me and my same-sex partner of 31 years. To the exclusion of everything else, the coveted combination of penis and vagina means everything, doesn’t it?

I understand that Vogt is operating out of a Roman Church theology that refuses to leave medieval ideas in the medieval period, it is incumbent on us to show that their positions are outdated and attuned for authoritarian, patriarchal societies–as Steve points out.

The gender metaphysics that people like Vogt rely on are highly abstract and have little to do with how people actually live–as Tisinai’s more philosophical arguments point out. This is why their side has a hard time with empiricism (science). They insist that their gender metaphysics is a substitute for empiricism. In a democracy, it is not.

It’s “complementarity,” not “complimentarity.”

Complimentarity would have something to do with the art of saying nice things to people. (Which is I laugh every time I read an online profile saying, “I’m looking for someone to compliment me.”)

If you don’t want to tackle all 14 posts, you can go here to see my rebuttal of George’s work on “comprehensive union” and “organic bodily union,” which appears to be what you’re getting at with “sexual complementarity.” Briefly, though, when I read something like, “In the case of sex between an opposite-sex couple, that end [toward which sex is oriented] is naturally procreation unless outside forces disrupt it’s natural aim,” as if there is only one valid and important end, it makes me wonder if the writer has ever experienced the impact of having sex with a partner they love. But check the link for a fuller analysis.

As for when you say: “in the eyes of the state, marriage is *primarily* about the creation and rearing of future citizens (i.e. children), not primarily about the emotional happiness of adults,” I need to point out two things.

First, that you keep asserting this but never prove it.

Secondly, even if you did prove that marriage is primarily about creating and rearing of future children, that would not be enough to make your case, and not just because same-sex parents are perfectly capable of rearing children (by the way, if you think Regnerus gave us information about the outcomes of same-sex parenting, you need to look at his study more closely; he does nothing of the sort).

But even if marriage is primarily about creating future children, as long as there are other sufficient reasons for government to promote marriage, even childless marriage (as NOM founder Maggie Gallagher explained here), then your argument flounders.

No, you’re in a quandary. Either you believe:

1. Procreation is a necessary condition, and the only sufficient condition for marriage(which no one, including, actually believes), or
2. Procreation is not a necessary and the only sufficient condition for marriage, in which case there are no grounds for excluding a couple from marriage simply because they cannot procreate (a policy which our government has never followed, by the way — at times even insisting that couples prove they CANNOT procreate before they’re allowed to marry).

This is not just a hypothetical situation. It’s been traditional for eons as a way for homosexuals to survive in a virulently bigoted world. More typically it’s been a homosexual man marrying a heterosexual woman, or vice versa.

So exactly who is it that’s trying to redefine marriage, Mr. Vogt? the people who says that it is all about a penis and a vagina, and that that pretty much determines marriage?

I don’t think you’ll find all that many straight people who would agree.