Calling you a human is the imposition of an impostor thing hardly just or consistent.KiMare wrote:
6.If you believe a fundamental change to the building block of society will have absolutely no affect
rK; The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
KiMare'a wrote; First, you fail to even address the question. Such a change will have momentus changes, many of which are unpredictable. This has always been the case in just our nation's history. No fault divorce has fatally fractured the family. Abortion has 'protected the mother' at the expense of her child. Just two examples.
Second, marriage is the ONLY natural building block of society. It is what separates us from the animal kingdom and indiscriminate procreation. Any other setting is a drastically negative default option. According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on seven family types, lesbian couples rate last, AFTER single parents!
Moreover, gay couples mutually procreate nothing, a clear genetic indication of defect, and directly contrary to the primary goal of evolution.
Finally, rights are protected by law, it has no power to create. Gay couples fail to equate to marriage AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF NATURAL DESIGN AND PRIMARY FUNCTION. Calling gay couples married is an imposition of an imposter relationship, hardly just or consistent.
Out of literally millions of animal species, you note eleven (11), yes, eleven species that mate for life.
What you fail to note is that for humans the constraint of marriage flies in the face of evolutionary mating behavior. A drive that is equated to the desire for food, water and air.
Now ask yourself, "Why do we constrain such a powerful drive with marriage?"
Second, scientists have no clear means of judging animal orientation. Moreover, they know that some same sex sexual behavior (SSSB, yes, that is the term scientists use) in numerous species, is clearly not homosexual, but motivated by other purposes.
Which brings us to your attempt to equate an absolute genetic defect with animals, human aging, birth defects and deliberate sterilization. Simply silly stupid.
Here is an analogy of the difference between the rare occasion of childless marriages (96% of marriages historically procreate) and the 100% desolate barrenness of mutual procreation in gay relationships;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
BTW, you can't make a good analogy. The ability to produce apples is part of the definition of an apple tree. In fact, it pretty much is the definition, a tree that produces apples. But, the ability to produce offspring is not part of the definition of marriage.
Can you come up with a reason you should not have been aborted?