[valkyrieanne]

The elaborate argument is based on one premise alone - the presumption of fertility.

The point is that marriage has not been *inevitably* tied to fertility for at least 70 years or more.

Nor is "natural reproduction" necessarily the default in marriage. Many couples where the wife is over 30 or 35 need artificial means to conceive, which to some people is morally the equivalent of homosexuality anyway.

[hillaryisalesbo]

However, assuming homosexuality is hereditary, it is a negative evolutionary mutation. However, Homosexual creatures definitionally cannot pass on their genetic code (absent medical intervention). So from a Darwinistic perspective, homosexuals are a way whereby nature discards genetic refuse.