So, am I to conclude as far as human relations are concerned, human beings can legally acknowledge heterosexual human relations as being rape, as being incest, as being prostitution, but, it is absolutely impossible for human beings to legally acknowledge heterosexual human relations as being the Perpetuation of the Human Species as far as human relations are concerned? Only what the law does or does not say determines which human relations are or are not Marriage. Therefore, there are four options: 1. Abolish the Institution of Marriage. 2. Heterosexual relations are legally the Perpetuatiun of the Human Species. 3. Homosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 4. Heterosexual relations and homosexual relations are both legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. Adolph Hitler said it best when he said the people will believe a big lie before they will believe a little one.

Why do Homosexual Marriage advocates INSIST that it is impossible for homosexual relations to be marriage if the Perpetuation of the Human Species has something to do with the Institution of Marriage? Any particular heterosexual relations that is marriage may or may not perpetuate the human species. Any homosexual relations that are marriage would be in the may not category along with many heterosexual relations. That homosexual relations that are marriage would never make it into the may category well so what!  There would be many heterosexual relations thar are marriage that would never make it into the may category either. All that needs to be done is to change the law to something like, "A union of a man and a woman mating heterosexual relations, and, intimate human relations involving two adult human beings", and homosexual relations would be marriage even though the Perpetuation of the Human Species does have something to do with the Institution of Marriage. In fact it doesn't matter if the Perpetuatuon of the Human Species does or does not have anything to do with the Institution of Marriage for homosexual relations to be marriage. What does matter is what the law says. So, why do Homosexual  Marriage advocates INSIST that the Perpetuation of the Human Species MUST have nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage before homosexual relations can be marriage when that is simply untrue? The answer see post 29.

There are four options: 1. Abolish the Institution of Marriage for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. Heterosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 3. Homosexual relations are legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. 4. Heterosexual relations and homosexual relations are BOTH legally the Perpetuation of the Human Species. With option four heterosexuals and homosexuals would constantly battle across the entire spectrum of humanity socially, culturally, societally, civilizationally, over which relations IS the Perpetuation of the Human Species. However short or long it takes for this battle to be resolved homosexuals can only lose in the end. And when that day comes the phrase "NEVER AGAIN" will be given whole new meaning so choose well! Of course option three is even worse and is pure black vile evil. Perhaps there is a fifth option, heterosexuals can start an Institution of Mating that does have something to do with the Perpetuation of the Human Species. That way homosexuals can have the Institution of Marriage which has nothing to do with the Perpetuation of the Human Species and heterosexuals can have the Institution of Mating which does have something to do with the Perpetuation of the Human Species. I wonder if marriage is an euphemism for mating?

The Perpetuation of the Human Species and the Institution of Marriage both involve human relations. ALL human relations are inherently matingless and ALL human relations ARE matingless unless and until a man and a womam mate which IS the Perpetuation of the Human Species. The Institution of Marriage legally acknowledges this FACT. The FACT that any particular heterosexual relations may or may not perpetuate the human species does not change the FACT that ALL human relations are inherently matingless and ALL human relations ARE matingless unless and until a man and a woman mate which is the Perpetuation of the Human Species, or, change the FACT that the Institution of Marriage legally acknowledges the FACT that ALL human relations are inherently matingless and ALL human relations ARE matingless unless and until a man and a woman mate which IS the Perpetuation of the Human Species. This analysis PROVES the Institution of Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion, emotions, technology, or, homophobia. That indeed and in fact the Institution of Marriage is human beings accurately matching-up human relations in human subjective reality of THE LAW with human relations in physical reality to form the Institution of Marriage. There's an old saying, "What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive". So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if Homosexual Marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? AIR TIGHT!

The Perpetuation of the Human Species and the Institution of Marriage both involve human relations. ALL human relations are inherently matingless and ALL human relations ARE matingless unless and until a man and a woman mate which IS the Perpetuation of the Human Species. The Institution of Marriage legally acknowledges this FACT. Homosexual Marriage advocates are making the claim the Perpetuation of the Human Species has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage. If this claim is true then a man and a woman can ONLY be married as matingless opposite sex relations, i.e., matingless human relations. If this claim is true then for the last several thousand years every time a man and a woman have been married they have ALWAYS been married as matingless opposite sex relations, i.e., matingless human relations. If this claim is true then for the last several thousand years every time a man and a woman have been married they have NEVER been married as mating heterosexual relations, i.e., the Perpetuation of the Human Species. If this claim is true then it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man and a woman to be married as mating heterosexual relations, i.e., the Perpetuation of the Human Species. Homosexual Marriage advocates want it both ways and both ways going their way. On the one hand Homosexual Marriage advocates claim the Perpetuation of the Human Species has nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage. On the other hand Homosexual Marriage advocates claim a man and a woman can be married as mating heterosexual relations, i.e., the Perpetuation of the Human Species. This is an excellent example of DOUBLETHINK! Does this explanation help clarify the concern I am trying to convey?

Compromise: The new official legal definition of Marriage shall be--"A union of a man with a woman mating heterosexual relations, and, intimate human relations involving two adult human beings". Homosexual Marriage advocates want to cut "A union of a man with a woman mating heterosexual relations..." completely out of the official legal definition of Marriage and include only "...intimate human relations involving two adult human beings" in the official legal definition of Marriage.  But, what about "EXPANDING" the Institution of Marriage TO ALLOW homosexual relations to be Marriage? What Homosexual Marriage advocates are doing is called Bait and Switch and is one of the very oldest tricks in the book. Only what THE LAW does or does not say determines what human relations are or are not Marriage. Homosexual Marriage advocates MUST accept this compromise definition of Marriage in order to have ANY credibility. Then the discussion can turn to what if any relationship exists between the Perpetuation of the Human Species and the Institution of Marriage. AIR TIGHT!

As far as human relations in objective, (i.e., physical) reality are concerned, the perpetuation of the human species, mating, heterosexual relations, and marriage, are all different ways of describing the exact same human relations that exist in objective, (i.e., physical) reality. The Institution of Marriage has the added extra dimension of human beings matching-up human relations in human subjective reality, especially human subjective reality of the law, (i.e., a union of a man and a woman--marriage!) with human relations in human objective reality, mating, heterosexual relations, to form the Institution of  Marriage. Which legally acknowledges the perpetuation of the human species is mating, heterosexual relations. By being married a man and a woman are legally superior in human subjective reality of the law than they were before they were married, by having special legal status, special legal rights, special legal privileges, special legal benefits, and special legal responsibilities, pertaining to the perpetuation of the human species that they didn't have before they were married. This is what the Institution of Marriage is, this is what the Institution Marriage does. The perpetuation of the human species, mating, heterosexual relations, and marriage, are all different ways of describing the exact same human relations that exist in objective reality, and it is impossible to change the human relations which exist in objective reality that these terms represent in human subjective reality. This means if the Institution of Marriage is to be redefined, the redefinition can only involve human relations that exist in human subjective reality, especially human subjective reality of the law. The only way to change the human relations between a man and a woman in objective reality is from matingless to mating. This is what the Institution of Marriage acknowledges. Once a man and a woman are married the only way to change the human relations between a man and a woman is in human subjective reality of the law, i.e., from mating to matingless. This is what Homosexual Marriage will do, by definition! Homosexual Marriage will redefine marital human relations in human subjective reality of the law as matingless human relations. In objective reality there is no difference between matingless opposite sex relations, matingless same sex relations, and matingless homosexual relations, (i.e., matingless same sex relations where two human beings try to mate with one another). All of them are matingless human relations. With the Institution of Homosexual  Marriage human beings will match-up human relations in human subjective reality of the law, (i.e., matingless human relations) with human relations in human objective reality, (i.e., matingless human relations) to form the Institution of Homosexual Marriage. Which legally acknowledges the perpetuation of the human species is homosexual relations, (i.e., matingless human relations). This is what the Institution of Homosexual Marriage is, this is what the Institution of Homosexual Marriage does. How will heterosexuals react when they realize they are being married as homosexual relations? So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if Homosexual Marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? So, am I to conclude Homosexual Marriage advocates claim infallibility? There's an old saying, "Be very careful what you ask for because you just might get it". And there's another old saying, "Getting something is one thing keeping it is another". And there's another old saying, "What a tangled web we weave when we pratice to deceive". There's another old saying, "Fact is stranger than fiction". And there's another old saying, "I TOLD YOU SO"!

If the Institution of Marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species then the Institution of Marriage must be abolished for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If the Institution of Marriage does have something to do with the perpetuation of the human species then a human being can only marry a human being of the opposite sex-- just like everybody else! Either way there is no case for same sex marriage. With the Institution of Marriage a man and a woman ARE ALWAYS  married as being heterosexual relations. With same sex marriage a man and a woman CAN ONLY be married as being matingless, genderless, partner A and partner B homosexual relations. So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Three easy questions for same sex marriage advocates. 1. Does the Institution of Marriage have anything to do with the perpetuation of the human species? 2. Does the Institution of Marriage have anything to do with mating, heterosexual human relations? 3. Does the Institution of Marriage have anything to do with matingless opposite gender human relations? Please answer each question honestly with a simple yes or no. Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Imagine the Queen knights a man. By knighting him the Queen legally predicates the defense of the kingdom on him. This makes him  legally superior in human subjective reality of the law, than he was before he was knighted. He is still the same man in objective (i.e., physical) reality, but, now he is legally superior in human subjective reality of the law than he was before he was knighted, with legal rights and legal privileges that he didn't have before he was knighted. He is legally superior in human subjective reality of the law to any man that has not been knighted, and he is legally equal with any man that has also been knighted. Now imagine instead that a man and a woman, as a couple, are knighted by the Queen. The Queen, by knighting them as a couple, legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on them. This makes them, as a couple, legally superior in human subjective reality of the law than they were before they were knighted. They're still the same couple in objective reality, but, now they are legally superior in human subjective reality of the law than they were before they were knighted, with legal rights and legal privileges that they didn't have before they were knighted. They are legally superior in human subjective reality of the law to any man and woman couple that have not been knighted, and they are legally equal with any couple that has also been knighted. Homosexuals have a valid inquiry. Why can't same sex couples be knighted by the Queen and have the perpetuation of the human species legally predicated on them? Any particular mating, heterosexual human relations may, or, may not perpetuate the human species. That same sex couples can never perpetuate the human species, well, so what? Not all mating, heterosexual human relations can perpetuate the human species, so what's the problem? This is the problem: When a man and a woman get married, the perpetuation of the human species is legally predicated on them, as them being mating, heterosexual human relations in objective reality. Which is why with marriage a man and a woman can only be legally married as being mating, heterosexual human relations. Which is why with marriage it is absolutely impossible for a man and a woman to be legally married as being matingless opposite gender (i.e., human) relations. If it is absolutely impossible for a man and a woman to be legally married as being matingless human relations, even though they can be, then how is it possible for same sex couples to be legally married as being matingless human relations? Answer: they can't be! Unless... the perpetuation of the human species is legally predicated on matingless human relations in objective reality! That way any two human beings regardless of gender and as a couple can get married because any two human beings regardless of gender and as a couple can be matingless human relations, in objective reality. Same sex marriage theory advocates that baby (in objective reality) has absolutely nothing to do with the Institution of Marriage, and, that is correct! The Institution of Marriage concerns human relations, specifically the human relations that the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on. Baby is an object, a possible result of those human relations. However, same sex marriage theory also advocates that the Institution of Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with human relations in objective reality. That the Institution of Marriage only concerns human relations in human subjective reality, i.e., what human beings think, feel, believe, and human subjective reality of the law. Same sex marriage theory also advocates that it is absolutely impossible to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on human relations that exist in objective reality. And now you know why!

 Human beings and human relations exist in both human objective (i.e., physical) reality as well as in human subjective reality. In human objective (i.e., physical) reality, as far as human relations are concerned, the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on mating, heterosexual human relations in objective (i.e., physical) reality. In human subjective reality, as far as human relations, that exist in human subjective reality, (e.g., the law) are concerned, the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on mating, heterosexual human relations that exist in human subjective reality (i.e., the law, marriage!). Human beings accurately matching-up what the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on in human subjective reality, mating, heterosexual human relations in human subjective reality, (i.e., the law, marriage) with what the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on in human objective (i.e. physical) reality, mating, heterosexual human relations in human objective (i.e., physical) reality, forms the Institution of Marriage. And it's that simple. Human beings accurately matching-up human relations in human subjective reality (i.e., the law, marriage), with human relations in human objective (i.e., physical)  reality (i.e., mating, heterosexual human relations) forms the Institution of Marriage. Not too many people know and/or understand this simple fact. What is difficult to understand is that a man and a woman (in objective reality) can be mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality) or, a man and a woman (in objective reality) can be matingless opposite gender human relations (in objective reality) but, a man and a woman (in objective reality) can not be both mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality) and matingless opposite gender human relations (in objective reality) at the same time (in objective reality)! The Institution of Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations, in objective reality. With the Institution of Marriage when a man and a woman (in objective reality) get married (i.e., have the perpetuation of the human species legally predicated on them) they can only be legally married as being mating, heterosexual human relations in objective reality. With the Institution of Marriage when a man and a woman (in objective reality) get married (i.e, have the perpetuation of the human species predicated on them) it is absolutely impossible for them to be legally married as being matingless opposite gender human relations in objective reality.  And the reverse is true!  A matingless Institution of (same sex) Marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations in objective reality. With a matingless  Institution of (same sex) Marriage when man and a woman (in objective reality) get married (i.e., have the perpetuation of the human species predicated on them) they can only be legally married as being matingless opposite gender human relations in objective reality. With a matingless Institution of (same sex) Marriage when a man and a woman (in objective reality) get married (i.e., have the perpetuation of the human species predicated on them) it is absolutely impossible for them to be legally married as being mating, heterosexual human relations in objective reality.  And that is the one and only way the Institution of Marriage between a man and a woman in objective reality, can be redefined in objective reality, i.e., from mating heterosexual human relations in objective reality to matingless opposite gender human relations in objective reality. So, say farewell to precious, precious, equality of human relations at least as far as the Institution of Marriage is concerned. The Institution of Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating heterosexual human relations (in objective reality). It doesn't matter if that mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality) occurs for a trillionth of a second (in objective reality), or, if that mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality)  occurs for twenty years (in objective reality). The Institution of Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on that trillionth of a second (in objective reality) or, on that twenty years (in objective reality), i.e., on mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality). And, of course, the reverse is true. A matingless Institution of (same sex) Marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless human relations (in objective reality). It doesn't matter if that matingless human relations (in objective reality) occurs for a trillionth of a second (in objective reality), or, if  that matingless human relations (in objective reality) occurs for twenty years (in objective reality). A matingless Institution of (same sex) Marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on that trillionth of a second (in objective reality), or on that twenty years (in objective reality) i.e., on matingless human relations ( in objective reality). It is absolutely impossible (in and of itself) for the legal relationship between marriage (what the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on in human (legal) subjective reality, mating heterosexual human relations in human (legal) subjective reality) and what the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on in objective reality, mating, heterosexual human relations in human objective reality, to be equal. By legally forming the Institution of Marriage, marriage (legal subjective reality) makes mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality) legally superior (in legal subjective reality) to mating, heterosexual human relations( in objective reality). So, say farewell to precious, precious equality of human relations at least as far as the Institution of Marriage is concerned (again). This of also woks both ways, i.e., with a matingless Institution of (same sex) Marriage. So, therefore the question is which matingless human relations (in objective reality)? A hug? A kiss? A handshake? A pat on the back? A punch on the nose? Anal sodomy? A woman can not physically enter another woman with her reproductive organs, but a man can physically enter another man with his reproductive organ via anal sodomy. A man can also (besides mating) physically enter a woman with his reproductive organ via anal sodomy. So, am I to conclude a matingless Institution of (same sex) Marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on anal sodomy (in objective reality) and that all marriages will legally be anal sodomy (in objective reality)? Perhaps same sex marriage means what it says and will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless same sex relations i.e., two males performing anal sodomy. Perhaps, (though unlikely) any Institution of Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species in objective reality. Perhaps, any Institution of Marriage  involves only human relations in human subjective reality, especially human subjective reality of the law. In that case,  just what exactly and precisely word for word is this so called right, that supersedes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that it is incumbent upon the state to legally sanction intimate adult relations (objective, or, subjective)? Shouldn't the Institution of Marriage be abolished? Doesn't true equality of human relations demand it! The Institution of Marriage can be stigmatizing to the unmarried, discriminatory to the unmarried, preferential treatment for the married, all those nasty, nasty things that Political Correctness adamantly and vehemently insists must be completely, totally, 100 per cent, absolutely, zero tolerance eliminated from society to achieve precious, precious equality of human relations. The Institution of Marriage can be abolished to achieve equality of human relations, but, mating, heterosexual human relations can not be abolished to achieve equality of human relations, not unless one wants the equality of extinction! Shouldn't the Institution of Marriage be abolished? Doesn't true equality of human relations demand it? So, say farewell (yet again) to precious, precious, equality of human relations at least as far as the Institution of Marriage is concerned. The answer is yes. The United States Supreme Court has no choice, as per the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but, to strike down the Institution of Marriage as unconstitutional. There's an old saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". Therefore I propose a Constitutional Amendment that will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality). The Constitutional legal definition of mating, heterosexual human relations (in objective reality) will be, "any mating heterosexual human relations between a man and a woman in objective (i.e., physical) reality". The Constitutional legal verification will be, "from between twenty four hours after and one year after a man (in objective reality) and a woman (in objective reality) receive official legal State sanction by the State that the perpetuation of the human species has been legally predicated on them as being mating, heterosexual human relations in objective reality, the man and the woman must both sign an affidavit affirming that they have consummated (by mating in objective reality) their official State sanction. If  the man and/or woman do not sign the affirmation affidavit with in the prescribed time, then the official State sanction they have received shall be automatically and instantly annulled. If the man and the woman lie on their affirmation affidavit then the Constitutional legal penalty shall be, a one dollar fine, non-negotiable. This Constitutional Amendment will give the State Constitutional authority to legally sanction mating, heterosexual human relations and it will be written into the Amendment that this authority supersedes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is absolutely nothing wrong with human beings accurately matching-up their subjective reality, (especially subjective reality of the law) with human beings and human relations in objective reality. In fact it's a very good idea! Unless, of course, your P.C. Mindf***ed.

Let's pass legislation (i.e., Constitutional Amendment) legally predicating the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations! This law will apply equally to the rich as well as to the poor. So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? This action is the only viable course to take. And yes, it will change the Institution of Marriage in this country. There is no choice. This must be done!

There's an old saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Political Correctness has reinterpreted this old saying, but, for Politically Correct protected groups only, as being, "your right to freedom of speech ends at the tip of my royal ego"! So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated?

In the Declaration of Independence the phrase, "all men are created equal" means exactly and precisely this: that nobody, but, nobody has the right to be liked. Do kings and queens have the right to be liked? Do any royalty have the right to be liked? Do any nobility have the right to be liked? Does any aristocracy have the right to be liked? Nobody, but, nobody has the right to be liked! No matter how high up on the totem pole, no matter how low down on the totem pole, no matter where ever in between on the totem pole, nobody, but, absolutely nobody has the right to be liked. But, wouldn't some people love to get their hands on that magic wand, "Everybody must like me"! Well there is no such magic wand and if there were good luck anybody getting their hands on it because without a doubt, teen-age girls would be hogging it. And then there's the flip side. Human beings, especially adult human beings in this country, have the inherent authority and constitutional authority of freedom of speech, to say what they do and do not like and why, and who they do and do not like and why. If everybody has the right to be liked then everybody has the right to a totalitarian police state because then nobody has the inherent authority and constitutional authority of freedom of speech, to say what they do and do not like and why, and who they do and do not like and why. And just what king and dukes and lords and noblemen are going to be creating and controlling their Politically Correct right to be liked? Who has it and who doesn't have it? How they have it and how they don't have it? Who can violate it and who can't and under what circumstances and conditions it can and can not be violated? Yes, just what king and dukes and lords and noblemen are going to be creating and controlling their Politically Correct right to be liked? And that is exactly and precisely what the people at the very top pulling the strings on Political Correctness and same sex marriage are doing, creating and controlling this Politically Correct right to be liked. Which is why nobody, but, absolutely nobody has the right to be liked is the one and only way "all men are created equal", by definition! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", that's what raises human beings up, "...that all men are created equal", doesn't raise human beings up, that's what knocks human beings back down! For example, Abraham Lincolns' Gettysburg Address, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal"."...conceived in liberty", thats what was raising the slaves up. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thats what was raising the slaves up! "...and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", that wasn't raising the slaves up, that was knocking southern whites back down! "No! You do not have the right to be liked. No, you do not have the royal prerogative to legally own another human being. Get back down! (SMACK!) All men are created equal"! Political Correctness advocates equality as being everybody has the right to be liked. Declaration of Independence espouses equality as being nobody, but, nobody has the right to be liked. The culture war! There's an old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Political Correctness has reinterpreted this old saying, but for Politically Correct protected groups only, as being, "Your right to freedom of speech ends at the tip of my royal ego". So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Human beings and human relations both exist in objective reality. Therefore, human beings and human relations must both conform to the dictates of objective reality, especially conform to the dictates of objective reality that human beings can do absolutely nothing about. In fact human beings and human relations have both evolved in objective reality to conform to the dictates of objective reality, especially conform to the dictates of objective reality that human beings can do absolutely nothing about. Because if they didn't then the human species wouldn't exist in objective reality. And objective reality, especially objective reality that human beings can do absolutely nothing about will always have the final word, by definition. Which is why it is so important for human beings to accurately match-up their subjective reality with human beings and human relations in objective reality. Because objective reality, especially objective reality that human beings can do absolutely nothing about will always have the final word , by definition. So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated?