"Tremendous" numbers? Remember, I specified ROMANTIC love. And how many of the people in these passionate ROMANTIC relationships don't look forward to expanding their relationships into sex? How many of them are deliberately planning lives together WITHOUT sex?1. There are a tremendous number of passionate relationships of love that never involve sex.
Sorry, I've got 26 years of experience working against this claim. No harm yet. I'm as healthy as any typical 44 year old. And "demeaning"? How about you let people decide for THEMSELVES what they consider demeaning? You don't get to tell other people what demeans them.2. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. A truly loving relationship would never submit the other to such abuse. The conflict of sexual function exposes homosexuality as a sexual defect.
But if there are "tremendous" numbers of people in romantic relationships that hope to never progress to sex, then there are certainly significant numbers of homosexuals who don't practice anal sex, as well as significant numbers of heterosexuals who DO.
Yeah, that's just what my cousin tells all of his babymamas.3. At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Legislation in 17 states (and counting) has done exactly that.Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron. No legislation or ruling can change that fact.
Except at the legal level. Since you personally are not the arbiter or administrator of what marriage is, I'm not particularly worried about how you define it, or who you consider to be married. If you happened to be racist, and you proclaimed that two people of different races could never equate to marriage, interracial couples would be just as free to ignore your opinion as gay people are. We only care what the government considers marriage, not what independent citizens think.4. Ss couples can never equate to marriage at any level except the number of people involved.