Are you really so dumb to not know that I didn't take it literally? Nope, it is a dumb analogy. Plain and simple. I'm quite happy you took the time to compose it though. It speaks volumes about you. Or was it something you copied? Which sheds more light.KiMare wrote:
Here is a simple explanation of the difference;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' fruit trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call nut trees fruit trees too!
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are the picture of defective failure. Mating behavior gone abusive with NOTHING to show for it.
Sociologist say marriage would not exist if it were not for children.
But of more importance, someone who murders their own child has no platform to claim children are not a part of marriage. You should be in jail.
You took that literally? Really?
Are you really, really really sure you were not just playing dumb to avoid admitting using the trees as a type exposed the ridiculousness of gay twirl?