I am socially objective...
Mammalian reproductive biology is impervious as a secular standard, it is an axiomatic state of reality.
Homosexual monogamy is a phantasmagorical fetish and is no more real than those things that seem to appear before us in a dream (the “gay religion”)
Why do I have to explain the “birds and bees” to a grown man?
Um . . . these words have meanings, you know. Attacking the messenger and just name-calling isn't likely to win you any points, I would think.
Especially in a case like this, when 'Marxist' would mean someone who favors giving power to the central govt to achieve social engineering.
In short, think real hard about which side are the "cultural marxists" here!
Too funny!
I am socially objective...
Forgive me, what does that mean to you? Cuz to me, 'objective' would mean you see things the way they are, without bias. And you clearly have a bias in this case. Typically, I have been called 'socially objective' in the past, cuz I can see both the sides have valid points in a case like this.
You clearly only see one side.
Homosexual monogamy is a phantasmagorical fetish and is no more real than those things that seem to appear before us in a dream (the “gay religion”)
60%+ of all marriages end in divorce, adultry is rampant in straight marriages, etc, etc.
I don't actually know any gay couples, so I can't speak to whether or not they stay together for life. But I will simply point out that it doesn't matter to this debate, cuz this is about taking a right of the states and giving it to the federal govt. For the purposes of social engineering.