I'm using YOUR WORDS, Kim; YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS...<quoted text>
You aren't seeing anything clearly, you are in a desperate but stupid gay twirl.
I changed nothing, marriage has always been a life-long commitment.
Moreover, I have described marriage in numerous ways, and have in fact indicated those descriptions are only partial.
The description you are referencing has always been framed in the qualifier of, "at it's most basic essence". A phrase that clearly indicates a partial description. Moreover, it references a scientific description, something I have never limited marriage to.
Additionally, you assert that a failure to actively procreate disqualifies a married couple. Really?
It's never been a problem before.
At what age of the child?
Who says the couple might decide to have another child late in life?
Again, this in a frantic foolish and futile attempt to equate a barren, perpetually desolate duplicate gendered couple with marriage.
VV, it just is not going to work, no matter how hard you twirl...
Now you're trying to change your definitions. Typical...
Talk about twirl...