Again, I must ask, Are you drunk? What does "I'd marriage" mean? You use it twice. Makes no sense grammatically or otherwise.<quoted text>
Here we go with your 'confusion' excuse again...
First you could make no sense of the essence I'd marriage, then it was an 'opinion', then a 'term paper', and now it's a 'theory'. Just like evolution, right?
As to essence, that is exactly how I used it to prove SS couples do not equate to marriage. You are the one who portrayed it as exclusionary to other elements I'd marriage.
But here is still the bottom line : The basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
SS couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly not equal to marriage.
The bottom line is that if you believe that the basic essence of (the most important part of) marriage is a cross cultural constraint (on the father) on evolutionary mating behavior, then your wife has my condolences.
I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not define their marriage in this manner.
And since mating behavior isn't always the primary drive for people to marry (based on the fact that many people do not or cannot have children), then same-sex couples are no more of a failure than those couples who do not procreate.
In large, we're not marrying to have children. We're simply legalizing the long-term relationship that we choose to be in--as most couples do.
Bottom line--your opinion is worth nothing to us. If you don't like gay marriage, too bad. It's happening throughout the country and around the world. And eventually, it'll come to your neck of the woods as well.