Your definition of marriage is childish and as narrow as your mind. You don't see marriage as a committment between two people who are romantically and emotionally attracted to one another; you define marriage based upon little more than having "genital compatability", as though the only requirement for a "proper" marriage is interoperable parts.<quoted text>
Law has as much a chance of making children a 'requirement' as it does dictating to evolution. I can't believe you make such ridiculous statements.
Moreover, it is hardly my 'prejudice' that a duplicate gendered couple is vastly distinct on every discernible level possible.
Again, you can't prove that anything is identical except for the number and the narrow aspect of 'contract'. An incredibly diminished and narrow view of marriage simply so a imposter relationship can impose a fake relationship.
Like I said, even a child can see through this silliness.
Unsophisticated people like yourself cannot expand their minds beyond the "mommy and daddy and baby makes three" mentality of 1950's America. I understand that, and if that's where your head is at, fine; just don't prevent other people from enjoying the benefits of marriage.
Stop acting like you're normal and "those people" are freaks. I mean, lets ace it, some guys get off owning and carrying guns as an extension of their manhood, but I don't call them freaks for it.