1. Gigi says

    Blah, blah, blah. Procreation is NOT the reason that marriage was created. Historically, marriage was an arrangement that dealt with property, money and lineage. That’s it. The “marriage protectors” cry that The Gays are trying to “redefine” marriage, an institution that’s “remained unchanged for 5000 years” when that’s nothing but a big, fat lie.

  2. David in Houston says

    Such beautifully animated lies. They forgot to mention when they show the legal definition of marriage IT DOESN’T MENTION CHILDREN AT ALL! What a shocker. Because straight couples have NEVER been obligated to have children when they get married. So if straight couples don’t have to procreate, why are gay couples suddenly obligated to procreate?

  3. jamal49 says

    Marriage was never “created”. It has been and always will be a remnant of the patriarchy. It was about dowries, and women as property, and acquisition of land and commodities, and about the progeneration of male privilege and dominance over women.

    This nonsense that marriage was “created” and is meant to be between “one man and one woman” is utter bullsh*t.

    Millions, sadly, still want to believe this. This heterosexist propaganda piece soothingly confirms such idiocy.

  4. Tim says

    Hideous. Funny enough, you don’t see this anywhere in the UK with ease. Great that I saw this on a US site and not anywhere here. Guess it gives credence to the argument of paying no mind to US groups like NOM. These people really are the odd ones out.

  5. Javier says

    Perhaps, Tim. But gay marriage is stalled in the UK Parliament, and the opposition seems to be the side with all the zeal, organization, and political savvy right now. The progay side seems very lethargic and uninspired in the UK.

  6. Rick says

    I did not watch the video, but the two key points they make are valid:

    The principal purpose of marriage has always been to create a social unit for the practical purpose of procreating and providing a stable, secure environment for the raising of children.

    The whole idea of basing marriage on “romantic love” is entirely Western in its origins and even in the West is a very recent idea.

    Indeed, the reasons for the tax breaks and other benefits granted to married couples by the Federal government has to do with providing support to those who do the hard and expensive work of raising children, NOT to encourage coupling based on “romantic love.”

    And there is very compelling evidence that children raised by their biological father and mother fare better as a group than do the children of single parents, divorced parents, step-parents, or adoptive parents. It is not an absolute by any means, but certainly the BEST circumstance for the raising of children is most often being in an intact family with both biological parents present.

  7. Rick says

    Here is a link to a scholarly article on the history of marriage in Western civilization, which points out that procreation was the principal “duty” in marriage and that romantic love was never the basis for such an arrangement.

    (For the few of you who care about the facts)

    Now, that established, heterosexuals have, in modern times, diluted that purpose considerably by adopting the custom of basing marriage on “romantic love”–largely to accommodate the desires of women rather than men–with predictably disastrous results……and by so doing, have undermined the legitimacy of the argument that there is anything “sacred” about male-female coupling……but that is the line of attack to take, not the one that some of you are taking.

  8. Tristram says

    Utter pap. Marriage is not about children. Men and women don’t need to be married to have children. And they can be married and have no children. This IS about equality.

  9. Henry says

    Thankfully no one will see this in the UK – except perhaps some dreadful hate group members.

    Luckily politicians on both sides of the house of commons agree that marriage should be extended to gay men and women. It’s not in parliament yet, but I think it will pass when it does get there, although I hate to think that members of parliament get to vote on the validity of my eleven year monogamous relationship when they can’t achieve that themselves.

Leave A Reply