SalGagliano, comment #24

What a nauseating bigot you are!

I shall leave aside your faulty anthropological just-so stories, and cut to the chase. Why is your weird definition of marriage (which I can only discern as something along the lines of "a legal institution that represents heterosexual pair-bonding and heterosexual child-raising) a better definition than a more tolerant, more inclusive, more liberal one that ensures a far greater benefit, happiness and equality for everyone? Allowing equal marriage for same-sex couples has no disadvantages and provides massive benefits. Continuing to make marriage a discriminatory institution on the arbitrary grounds of the number of trouser bulges possessed by the participants only causes harm.

gay marriage has no natural basis, for it serves no group evolutionary strategy or purpose

It has just as much natural basis as mixed-sex marriage. Same-sex love, same sex commitment and social bonding and partnership is just as natural and just as ancient as its mixed-sex counterpart. It also fulfils a vital social role - it is just as important for social group cohesion as mixed-sex marriage is. Significantly more important to those of us who are gay! It clearly did evolve, so it obviously has an evolutionary basis (and it occurs in every animal species we have studied), though that has nothing to do with its moral and ethical validity.

You are simply wrong here.