I have already explained, so read the prior posts.
I assume the number was chosen to ensure that Neanderthals didn’t make the cut. Because, you know, who knows what nasty stuff Neanderthals got into! 
Do you not understand what adoption is? Human males DO consent to raising some other males children at times. Lions never do. Therefore, what lions do is irrelevant to human custom.
Most of the so-called ‘changes’ did not affect the basic idea of heterogeneous sexes.
No, it’s a statement of fact. The culture is evolving, the traditions are evolving, and the definition and use of the word “marriage” is evolving.
Melchior’s personal definition of “marriage” does not have anything to do, necessarily, with how the actual word is used in English. In English, in 2014, “marriage” is a concept that can include gay couples.
Back to the OP:
My interpretation if this is not that they are making a new claim of why they think SSM is bad, but rather they are trying to distance themselves from their previous argument which has now been totally debunked.
Basically:
“We admit that the study (around which we previously based our entire argument) didn’t actually say that SSM was bad for kids of same sex partners, but that’s OK because we were never claiming that anyway (even though in fact we were). So don’t let the fact that this study has been ripped to shreds in academic circles influence you as to the validity of our argument as to why SSM is bad, should we be able to come up with one.”
I am not imagining plurality of votes that pass legislation, public opinion polls, conversations with colleagues, students, kids etc.
You misunderstood, of course. Fidelity protects the husband from raising another man’s offspring without his consent or knowledge. That is why female fidelity was valued and virginity prized.
That’s because the cubs use way to much ketchup.
The idea is that people clearly mated with another species a long time ago - longer ago than your 40K years ago line. So, by your logic, mating with other species must be okay, as it is respectably ancient.
So your logic leads to the conclusion that marriage between a man and a female bonobo is okay, but not marriage between two men.
You’re kind of shooting yourself in your own foot on the “tradition” argument if you are using this as a defense against my question. Or do you insist that we go back to that fine tradition? How many goats are you intending to pay for your blushing bride?
How nice! But unusual…
That’s a great explanation for ancient customs, professor. In modern times, we have paternity tests for those that care. Marriage is not about procreation, and hasn’t been for at least a century. It’s a way of legally formalizing agreements associated with long-term companionship. Such as medical visitation rights, power of attorney, and inheritance. The government doesn’t care whether two married people have kids, so they shouldn’t care whether they are opposite sex or not.
This has been a very bad and oppressive tradition and custom, and I am very glad that it is changing.
I was explaining, and neither approving nor disapproving.
But you see, marriage *is *an ancient custom. Duh.
Do you approve? And, as you can see, popular approval/disapproval is a huge part of how customs and traditions (like the acceptance of same-sex marriages) change over time.
Like it or not (and you are clearly in some sort of denial), the custom and tradition (and definition) of marriage is changing.
No, that’s false. Some people have filed lawsuits. The problem is that the arguments being presented are specious (that some sort of ‘right’ is being violated). What disturbs me is the abuse of judicial power based on lunatic interpretations of law and acceptance of these arguments. In many forums and in these suits, logical argument is at a premium.
How is ‘you are in denial’ an argument? Give me an argument! I have. ‘Like it or not’ is not an argument.
That you have demonstrated has changed and evolved with the culture.