What are you talking about? I responded directly to your numbered bullet points, one after another. Just like this reply. Are you willing blind of that or just dont get it? I will not continue to fetch for your entertainment value if you refuse to any see the directness of my replies.<quoted text>
1. Classic avoidance ploy. Play dumb with a backhanded troll attack. In other words? You have no reasoned response
And children in a straight marriage are deprived of having two dads or two moms. Exactly where that becomes a condemnation lies wholly in your personal perspective. It is not a fact that there is any condemnation at all with any particular combination (M+W, M+M, W+W). You should admit that it is solely opinion that some of these parenting combinations must be bad.<quoted text>
2. It is a 'personal opinion' that children in a ss household are deprived of either a mother or father? Admit what? Normal people will admit that someone who does such a thing to a child is evil.
Hello? Nowhere in your wonderful quote do I see the word Law. There is no Law of Reproduction. And, you ignore that fact that even if there were some such law, gay sex would NOT be violating it in any way because gays arent EVER trying to reproduce when they do it.<quoted text>
3. As to violating evolution's law of reproduction, "While evolution is the foundational force of biology, sex is the mortar that holds that foundation together. So advantageous is sex that despite the high biological cost of sex most macroscopic animals, including 99% of all vertebrates, reproduce sexually" (Sites, 1993)
You implied that somehow gays are faulty and you cited the word evolution to back yourself up. Re-read what I wrote now and you should get it.<quoted text>
...4. Where did I say homosexuals are not a part of the human race? Why do defensive??? It is making you stupid
Isnt that like a double negative? Defective failure of mating behavior = successful mating behavior? At the lowest level you are confusing reproduction with mating.<quoted text> 5. Sorry, but homosexual couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Unless you have proof of a purpose???...
Your words are steeped in loathing. Maybe not fear, though. I will gladly retract that one for you. But, you are in no way being supportive, encouraging or accepting of gays or their human right to marry one another if they desire. So, that is where you indicate pretty clearly where your mind is.<quoted text>
6. Where have I indicated a fear or loathing of homosexuality? I do hate denial, something you are steeped in. You revert to the classic fall-back of gays when they have no argument, fear and hate. How childish and what a victim mentality
What make you think I need you to consent to my relationships? And no, an oxymoron is a phrase combining words that contradict each other. Clearly, SSM is no oxymoron.<quoted text> 7. You can have any relationship you want. However, calling ss couples married is an oxymoron.,,
Exactly why does ANY history about SSM matter in this discussion?<quoted text> 8. You don't understand the history (or lack thereof) of homosexuality and calling ss couples married? I think you understand perfectly, just playing dumb again.
Man up dude or change your picture!
Youre going to live the rest of your life in the future that is what matters.