Never said that heterosexual marriage relationships grew out of an aversion
to homosexuality or evolved as a reaction to it. And since a heterosexual
orientation represents the majority of the population it is also going to be
the predominant type of relationship. But you are taking that farther and
saying that because it is the majority type then it must be the only
acceptable one, and b) it is somehow innate within heterosexuals to feel
that way. You then suggst that we tell it's innate because you assert that
within primitive cultures homosexuality either does not coexist alongside
heterosexual relationships in or is rejected. But many cultures both
primitive and not-so primitive have accepted homosexuality as fully equal to
heterosexuality, some Native American cultures, for example, even ascribing
a sacred quality to it.

By the way, tell the Spartans that homosexuality made no contribution to "a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew and
learned the ways of the clan." Among that "clan" it was not only tolerated
but mandatory and was considered to be fundamental to the stable structure
of society and the military security of the State.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message

....- to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe.
The
notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
"marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew
and
learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based
on
an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.

It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
heterosexual love.

I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan. Such a
prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
social interweave of the clan.

JG