Love

In language, masculine terminology is sometimes used to encompass both feminine and masculine. Think of the American founders: "All men are created equal" has been extended to women for a long time. If they said "all men women and children are created equal" it would be more precise, but pomegranate linguistically.

"All men are created equal" did not extend to women for a long time. In fact, more of American history has excluded women than it has included, based on this statement. It's not pomegranate linguistically though, if one says "all humans" are created equal.

Talking about marriage is sorta the same deal. I have nothing against gays, I am not going to get in an argument with you about gay marriage or gay rights. I am just old-fashioned as far as language is concerned because passive, political terminology is the surest way to bastardize the English language.

I am not talking about gay rights. I'm saying that unless gays were legitimately in love, they would not protest for their rights. Therefore, by that conclusion, the love between two homosexuals must legitimate.

Whoever created "African American" and "Caucasian" should die a slow painful death.

By extending you logic, we might as well not categorize between species of animals because dogs are dogs and cats are cats? Then we can further extend the concept by saying that we shouldn't distinguish between humans and apes because they're from the same evolutionary branch.

So I am not going to say "all men women straights and gays are created equal" because taht, while accurate, is a pathetic aping of the linguistic process. By the way, people forgetting to mention all groups does not mean they are racist or otherwise bigoted; and asking for clarification may be best in non-accusatory terms.

Sorry for my accusatory terms, but that's the nature with which I speak.

As far as bisexuals screwing more than 1 person because of their sexuality, I see that as BS for the same reason I see straights cheating as BS. "It's not cheating because the OTHER person is my gender" is STILL cheating because the girlfriend has to sit there while you have sex with someone else, who is not her.

How about polygamy? In certain cultures where polygamy is allowed, would you call it cheating for a man to be married to two women?

As for love, to be more precise, love is an evolving emotion.

This I agree with.

You begin with hormone-induced passion that makes things easier for the couple, because the hormones smoothe the trouble between them. In about a year, the hormones fade a bit, and they start getting angry at each other more.

They fade because of habituation. This exists for all things, not just love. It exists for hate, anger, friendship, and a whole spectrum of emotions.

However, there is more trust and experience, and love evolves along those boundaries. A 70 year old couple walking past a 25 year old couple would define its love differnetly than the 25 year olds, though they had been where the 25 year olds currently are at.

While you can say that, the concept is still the same. It's an attraction to or dependence on the partner that one is with.