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?

Homosexual men: "All we have to do is go in front of the preacher the preacher will marry us and we'll be married"! Heterosexual man: "Look, it doesn't work that way. The institution of marriage is not a human construction, it is a human acknowledgment". Homosexual men: "Sure it does! All we have to do is go in front of the preacher the preacher will marry us and we'll be married"! Heterosexual man: "Listen, I'm telling you it doesn't work that way". Homosexual men: "Sure it does..." Heterosexual man: "No, it doesn't! Look, we're not GIVING you marriage! No, you can't HAVE marriage! Now get out of here"! Homosexual men: "Homophobe"! Heterosexual man "Homophobe? What the hell is a homophobe? Oh! They must be thanking me for protecting them"!  Same sex marriage advocates: "Homophobia! Homophobia! We have to protect them! They have the perpetuation of the human species in subjective reality"! Evil should never be so much fun. 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?

If a heterosexual man were to assault a homosexual man because the heterosexual man doesn't like homosexual men, then the heterosexual man can be charged with a so called hate crime because that is human relations in subjective reality. But, the heterosexual man can not be charged with assault because that is human relations in objective reality and as we all know human relations in objective reality don't count! The privilege of arrogance! Picking and choosing when objective reality counts and when objective reality doesn't count. Picking and choosing when human relations in objective reality count and when human relations in objective reality don't count. The privilege of arrogance! Picking and choosing when human beings must accurately match-up their subjective reality with human relations in objective reality and when human beings must not accurately match-up their subjective reality with human relations in objective reality goes beyond the privilege of arrogance and right into pure, black, vile evil! 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?

Any definition of marriage that does not describe mating, heterosexual relations will describe matingless human relations. With any definition of marriage that tries to include both descriptions then the description of mating, heterosexual relations will be subsumed by the description of matingless human relations because a man and a woman can be matingless opposite gender relations. Not to mention that the need to descibe mating, heterosexual relations in any definition of marriage proves that the institution of marriage does have something to do with human relations in objective reality. 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?

Shouldn't marriage be abolished? Isn't that equality of human relations? Homosexuals can get married, but, only with a member of the opposite gender just like everybody else. Isn't that equality of human relations? Why don't homosexuals start their own same sex institution of union? Isn't that equality of human relations? Why not use a marital paradigm that can include both mating, heterosexual relations as well as matingless human relations? Isn't that equality of human relations? Same sex marriage advocates are making the claim that same sex marriage is equality of human relations. 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?

And 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 any intimate adult relations? Especially intimate adult relations that according to same sex marriage advocates exist only in subjective reality. 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?

Shouldn't marriage be abolished? Isn't that equality of human relations at least as far as the institution of marriage is concerned? 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. Marriage can be abolished to achieve equality of human relations, but, mating, heterosexual relations can not be abolished to achieve equality of human relations, not unless one wants the equality of extinction! Shouldn't marriage be abolished? Doesn't true equality of human relations demand it? 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? 

Why not use a marital paradigm that can include both mating, heterosexual relations as well as matingless human relations? Answer: because it is absolutely impossible for the legal relationship between marriage and mating, heterosexual relations to be equal. With marriage a man and a woman can only be legally married as legally being mating, heterosexual relations. With marriage it is absolutely impossible for a man and a woman to be legally married as legally being matingless opposite gender relations. And it works both ways. With matingless (i.e. same sex) marriage a man and a woman can only be legally married as legally being matingless opposite gender relations. With matingless (i.e. same sex) marriage it is absolutely impossible for a man and a woman to be legally married as legally being mating, heterosexual relations. And that is the one and only way marriage between a man and a woman can be redefined, i.e., from mating to matingless. 2. There is only one marriage. There is only one marital paradigm. The only question is which human relations in objective reality is this one and only marriage and this one and only marital paradigm going to be legally predicated on. And there are only two possibilities, mating, heterosexual relations, or, matingless human relations. And since 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, same sex marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy. 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?

Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual relations. Legally all marriages are mating, heterosexual relations. As far as the law is concerned the perpetuation of the human species must conform to the dictates of mating, heterosexual relations. And it spreads out from there. Socially, culturally, societally, civilizationally, the human species revolves around mating, heterosexual relations. Same sex marriage will legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on matingless homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy. Legally all marriages will be matingless homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy. As far as the law is concerned the perpetuation of the human species will have to conform to the dictates of matingless homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy. And it will spread out from there. Socially, culturally, societally, civilizationally, the human species will have to revolve around matingless homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy. Worked out to the limit of it's logic eventually homosexuals will be able to legally control whether heterosexuals can get married or not, have children or not, or even have mating heterosexual relations or not. Just like heterosexuals have always been able to legally control whether homosexuals can get married or not, have children or not, or even have matingless homosexual relations or not. 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?

Why don't homosexuals start their own same sex institution of union! Their own name, their own customs, their own traditions, their own ceremonies, a brand new institution of union for the human species! This is called freedom, true freedom. This is called diversity, true diversity. This is called equality as in equal opportunity. These are the values that political correctness stands for. So, am I to conclude heterosexuals can do somthing that homosexuals can't? So, what would be more phenomenally important and exciting for homosexuals than to start their own same sex institution of union? What would be the difference between a same sex institution of union and the institution of marriage? Why doesn't the human species have a same sex institution of union? What would be more phenomenally important and exciting for homosexuals than to start their own same sex institution of union? Question 1. Why don't homosexuals start their own same sex institution of union? Answer: because as everybody knows it wouldn't be the same as marriage. Question 2. What would be the difference between a same sex institution of union and the institution of marriage? Answer: a same sex institution of union would have absolutely nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species, mating heterosexual relations, and by extension baby. Question 3. Why doesn't the human species have a same sex institution of union? Answer: because while a same sex institution of union sounds good in theory, human beings would be accurately matching-up their subjective reality with human relations objective reality to form the institution of marriage, and human beings would be accurately matching-up their subjective reality with human relations objective reality to form a same sex institution of union, none the less, human beings would not be able to maintain their accurate matching-up of their subjective reality with human relations in objective reality. That is to say sooner or later a same sex institution of union would become just another name for marriage which is why the human species doesn't have a same sex institution of union. And finally, what would be more phenomenally important and exciting for homosexuals than to start their own same sex institution of union? Answer: to have the perpetuation of the human species legally predicated on matingless homosexual relations! Please note that what a hypothetical same sex institution of union would be is what same sex marriage advocates claim that the institution of marriage is! 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?

Diversity of human relations occurs with opposite gender relations which can either be mating, heterosexual relations, or, matingless opposite gender relations. As much as human beings love to mate, heterosexual relations, as much as human beings do mate, heterosexual relations, none the less, matingless human relations, (opposite gender, same gender, or, same gender where two human beings try to mate with one another, i.e., homosexual relations,) vastly out number mating, heterosexual relations. It is this true diversity of human relations, mating heterosexual relations, that the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on. Matingless human relations (opposite gender, same gender, or, homosexual) are not diversity of human relations. Mating, heterosexual relations is where true diversity of human relations occurs. The institution of marriage also acknowledges that true diversity of human relations occurs with mating, heterosexual relations. 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?

The institution of marriage concerns human relations and as far as human relations are concerned the perpetuation of the human species is predicated on mating, heterosexual human relations. So, am I to conclude the human species has never done anything to acknowledge and deal with this supremely and critically important fact? Marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations. Marriage makes mating legally superior to mating whether it's the same heterosexual human relations or two different heterosexual human relations. That is to say, marriage in subjective reality makes mating in objective reality legally superior in subjective reality to mating in objective reality, whether it's the same heterosexual human relations in objective reality or two different heterosexual human relations in objective reality. And that is how marriage legally predicates the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations. If marriage is no longer going to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations, than what will? What is going to replace marriage to legally predicate the perpetuation of the human species on mating, heterosexual human relations? Answer: absolutely nothing! If marriage in subjective reality is no longer going to be legally predicated on mating, heterosexual human relations in objective reality than what will marriage in subjective reality  be legally predicated on in objective reality? Answer: matingless homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy. So, am I to conclude same sex marriage says exactly and precisely what it means? That the perpetuation of the human species will be legally predicated on matingless (same sex) homosexual relations, specifically two males performing anal sodomy? Answer: YES! With same sex marriage human relations as far as the perpetuation of the human species is concerned are not going to be changing in objective reality. So, then what will be changing with same sex marriage? Answer: Human relations in subjective reality! And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

1.Throughout all of human history all societies, all cultures, all civilizations from around the world, from the most dirt primitive tribes, to the mightiest of empires and everything in between, all customs, all traditions, all languages, all religions, all everything! It hasn't been just a constant, it has been the constant throughout this vast panorama of human experience, the constant throughout all of human history that there has never been same sex marriage. A complete, total, 100 per cent shut-out for same sex marriage. So therefore there must be a reason and that reason must be airtight. 2. Same sex marriage morally wrong? Compared with what? Slavery? Ritual human sacrifice? Cannibalism? Same sex marriage morally wrong? Compared with what! 3. If it's good enough for today then it's good enough for back then, at least every once and while in human history. A dirt primitive tribe here and there, a decadent society here and there, the ancient Greeks. In fact it is simply and truly impossible that there has never been same sex marriage through out all of human history unless there is a reason and that reason is airtight! God is not airtight. Religion is not airtight. Homophobia is not airtight. Morals are not airtight. All of them combined are not airtight. So, therefore there must be some other reason and that some other reason must be airtight! 4. And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

It is absolutely impossible for the legal relationship between marriage and mating, heterosexual relations to be equal, so say bye-bye to equality of human relations at least as far as the institution of marriage is concerned. If marriage legally has absolutely nothing to do with mating, heterosexual relations, then shouldn't mating, heterosexual relations be legally superior to marriage? Historically the answer has always been yes. Same sex marriage advocates are making the claim that the answer is no. And if same sex marriage advocates are wrong then what are the consequences and why should those consequences be reevaluated? And it works both ways. If marriage legally has absolutely nothing to do with matingless homosexual relations, then shouldn't matingless homosexual relations be legally superior to marriage? The answer is yes! And if not then what happens? So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

When same sex marriage advocates scream bloody murder baby has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, that is a deflection. What same sex marriage advocates really mean is the institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with mating, heterosexual  relations. So, am I to conclude equality like beauty is in the eye of the beholder?