By calling my questioning 'games' I take it you are simply dismissive on this. Noted.<quoted text>
1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.
The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games....
Careful now... asking why you think marriage isn't about love is NOT claiming that you made the statement. Telling me I lied is , well, ironically a lie of yours.<quoted text>
2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?
Another lie... lots of gays have procreated... and lots of straight people do not....<quoted text>
...3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.
I daresay that is not simple logic (maybe simpleton logic!).'blunders' are what define and drive evolutionary forces. I would contend that humans have a certain frequency of how many will be gay - just like a certain frequency will have curly hair or blue eyes. There is no 'blunder' in what we are... just variation.<quoted text>
...4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
This is simple logic.....
Thanks for the stream of consciousness, I suppose. Here are my responses in order if you are interested:<quoted text>
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Love exists even in the void of marriage (for straight people and gay)
Lots of committed relationships have nothing to do with mar
riage (or sex)
Human rights are innate, not granted
Equate diversity redundancy.. what???
Surely, sacred religions arent afraid of the doing of you or I
Violate history? Oh yeah, bring back slavery and the dark ages! Yipee!
Things dont get better without change
Laws do change this for instance the marriage tax credit
WTF is duplicating sexuality
So children of single parents are also condemned? Really?
WTF is design of sexual union
Evolution has no laws. Not one... none at all
Pray tell, what is the unhealthiest relationship of all?(hint: its not SSM)
Reproduction doesnt require marriage; and marriage does not imply kids
Dilute.. the..what, huh?