Actually, I went ahead and did explain why. Just for you.<quoted text>
Actually, you do.
You created a phrase, and seem to think that repeating it is enough.
If you want to argue that same sex marriages should not be legal, then you really do need prove why.
And you can't.
All the smirking and inappropriate smiling in the world won't make you appear sane, unless you CAN prove that there is some rational reason behind your opinions.
You make them. Now, back them up.
But for some reason you deleted the rest of the post...
Here it is;
Just the facts honey.
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
We know that you think yourself clever for having thought up this thing, but, so far, you have been unable to point out its basis in any marriage law.
You have been unable to show there sex is prohibited outside of your "constraint" of mating behavior in maqrriage, and you can't prove that any such constraints within marriage are not the sole discretion of any married couple.
And, since not all sexual behavior (or even most) is doing to do a darn thing to support the survival of the species, I think your reliance on evolutionary mating behaviors as a point of law is rather silly.
Care to try again? Using logic, please.
I have no need to show anything you claim. I simply described the bare essence of marriage. It stands on it's own merits.
You only confirm the statement with your 'argument'.
Social scientists assert that marriage would not exist were it not for children. The motivation of mating behavior is simply but powerfully to spread DNA as far and wide as possible. It is why sexual activity often occurs outside marriage with only an unintended consequence of children.
The constraint of marriage is simply to restrain couples to care for their offspring.
I made no attempt to make mating behavior a point of law. That is silly. It is a simple fact that law ignores at it's own peril.
I do commend you for being one of the first on these threads to even attempt a response.