1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.<quoted text>
Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.
Say what exactly?
Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.
"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.
Thank you, smiles back to you.
The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games.
2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?
3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.
4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
This is simple logic. Perhaps you might try a direct response to the fact; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
By the way, here is some of the other elements of marriage distinguished from gay couples;
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.