Jesus didn’t get married either, so maybe that’s why– they just want people to be more Christ-like and forsake marriage in favour of being gay virgins. Even Church “fathers” like Paul saw marriage as being an unfortunate, grudging alternative to fornication.

When folks these days argue for a return to marriage’s early values, I can never properly date the point in history they are hearkening back to– often they are referring to some time after the fashion of bride prices, rape as wooing, and contracts engaged by ones parents, yet decades before marriage equality (removal of racism and heterosexism).

Also, they tend to sound a little grandiose with sweeping statements about marriage being for one man and one woman– they don’t get to decide what the definition of marriage is, except for themselves.

If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t get one. You’ll be sorry yours wasn’t as fabulous, though!

I remember watching a conference on several videos with a professor (don’t remember who or where) who was talking to his students about the immediate threat of over-population on our earth.

To make a long speech short; his suggestion was that the best alternatives was to spread some kind of disease over land which was highly populated, and preferably poor (because disease spreads much more quickly without good infrastructure).

The big problem and lack of logic behind his reasoning (in addition to the horrible lack humanity he and his students possessed), is the that the most poorest and often most birth productive areas on our world is also where the population as a whole consumes the least resources and food.

There is a clear link between families being poor and having very many kids.
There is also a clear link between families being rich and having very few babies.

But non the less, the rich families consumes much more land, food and resources than the poor ones does. And it should be obvious to everyone genuinely interested in this question, that the problem isn’t overpopulation, it is the way the food and the world’s resources are organized, and the horrifying overconsumption in the western world. That is the problem.

Really? I guess you know nothing of the history of marriage.

1. Marriage as a custom is old, perhaps as old as Neanderthal.
2. Gay marriage has a history just as long.
3. Marriage as a legal contract began as a modification of adoption rules in Roman times. At that time, homosexuality was not only accepted, it was seen as virtuous by many. Adoption and marriage were the means of bestowing rights of inheritance, property rights, and so on.
4. Marriage only benefits society in making rights of ascension and inheritance clear. Everything else is BS made up by the Religious Reich.
5. If the thought of same sex marriage makes you uncomfortable, say so. I think it’s very Religious-Reich-like to put forth such a non sequitur argument.

As the article by Johann Hari shows, there’s even plenty of evidence now that gay couples raise children who are just as happy and well-adjusted (and as likely to be heterosexual) as heterosexual couples.

Yet, there are still idiots who think they can trot out drivel like ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman’ without even attempting to provide a reason or logic, and that’s enough to justify discrimination against 10% of the human race.

(I couldn’t get the ‘edit’ to work)

What does it hurt any heterosexual that gay people would like to show their friends and their society that they’ve made a pledge? Grow up!