AJP

this is not the equivocation fallacy, it's actually a circular argument.

I've made numerous and clear statements of fact through this all.

Equivocate? What truth have I held back on?

It's actually yourself that has let slip on the truth AJP.

So I conclude, you hold marriage as outside the celebration of combining biological differences between MF, and reduce the incidence of marriage to a social construct for "love" alone.

That's absurd! Are you familiar with the term shot gun wedding?

That is a wedding with a foundation of lust! But still and all, biologically correct.

You lose this argument hands down. There is no argument for gay marriage, and definitely no argument for homosexuals to usurp and distort marriage from its intended definition?

What other argument would you like to lose. Serve it up

I’m not sure a circular argument is any better, diver dan.

<<this is not the equivocation fallacy, it's actually a circular argument.>>

Although, I’m not sure how your argument is circular.

<<I've made numerous and clear statements of fact through this all.>>

No, you’ve made assertions based on misconceptions aand religious belief.

<<Equivocate? What truth have I held back on?>>

Wow. So now you’re using equivocation to argue against an accusation of having fallaciously used equivocation!

Had you read the like I provided, then you would have seen what I meant by equivocation. Here’s another link:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation

<<It's actually yourself that has let slip on the truth AJP.>>

Oh, really? Do tell.

<<So I conclude, you hold marriage as outside the celebration of combining biological differences between MF, …>>

Not ‘outside’, but ‘inclusive of’’.

<<… and [you] reduce the incidence of marriage to a social construct for "love" alone.>>

Not necessarily. Some marriages are arranged. Such marriages would not be based on love. At least not initially.

<<Are you familiar with the term shot gun wedding? That is a wedding with a foundation of lust!>>

Yes, another good example. Thanks for that one.

<<But still and all, biologically correct.>>

Again, marriage is a social construct, not a biological construct.

<<You lose this argument hands down.>>

How so? You haven't yet discredited anything I have said. I will grant, however, that you had just knocked down a couple of men made of straw.

<<There is no argument for gay marriage, …>>

Yes, there is: equality. You are yet to counter this.

<<… and definitely no argument for homosexuals to usurp and distort marriage from its intended definition?>>

Firstly, gay people wouldn’t be “usurping” anything. Secondly, what constitutes as marriage has evolved quite a bit already throughout history, so to describe any further change as “distortion” is both emotive and historically naive.

<<What other argument would you like to lose. Serve it up>>

I haven’t lost any yet. You, on the other hand, are yet to provide a rational reason to oppose marriage equality or to hold homosexuality in contempt.

Well AJP. I despair for your salvation. But maybe in the big book of the predestined, your name will be writ-large.
Good luck with the four horsemen! :-)) -|--