ILLOGICAL... mating requires male and female with mammals and denotes procreation.
The biology of nature defines monogamy and human permission is not required...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
You just shot yourself down with it above... Learn Latin and Greek... get a life...
Who is he that is not of woman born?
Two points. First you are defining a mate as merely a sexual recipient. Most people consider a mate as much more than that, and nothing I have ever seen requires that two people who love each other must be capable of procreation. Therefore sex is secondary to the love. Second, even in heterosexual relationships, most couples do not engage in sex for the purpose of procreation, and in fact engage in sexual acts that could not possibly result in procreation. And yes, they are all mates.
Once again, perhaps you could direct me to your source that monogamy requires a biological procreation.
You just shot yourself down with it above... Learn Latin and Greek... get a life...
I believe I answered your point above. You might want to consider challenging it. I don't know what Latin or Greek or "get a life" have to do with our discussion.
Who is he that is not of woman born?
Source?