"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage".

You seem to be trying to argue that if it would end the human race for
*everyone* to have a particular status (for example, being in a gay instead
of straight relationship), then it follows that there's something
undesirable or "abonormal" about that status.

If that were true, then it would follow that it's undesirable and abnormal
to be (for example) a full-time innkeeper--because if *everyone* (or even
almost everyone) were a full-time innkeeper, there'd be no farmers, doctors,
scientists, etc., and the human race would end.

Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the desirability
or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with the desirability
of *everyone* having that status. You're making a spectacularly naive and
silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative principle.

A secondary (but still fatal) inconsistency in your position is that in
fact, many gay couples do reproduce (albeit not with one another) and raise
children; yet you still call such a relationship "abnormal", and refuse to
call it a marriage; and conversely, many straight people voluntarily refrain
from ever reproducing (even having surgery to render themselves infertile),
yet you do not call them "abnormal" nor refuse to call their unions
"marriages".

--Gary