Oh, boy.

I have always thought the "gay marriage" issue was a pointless thumb in the eye of religious conservatives. The rights themselves are mostly--if not entirely-- available already through civil unions. This isn't an argument over civil rights, but about the desire to use the same word as the religious people.

I understand that historically government has had a hand in marriage...because of adultery laws no one enforces any more. Marriage is now a religious thing, so it is a violation of the separation of church and state for the government to legislate any definition of it. Government should be getting out of this, not into it.

The real concern with opening up the definition of marriage is the subsequent breakdown of the dyad structure. If you conceptually divorce reproduction from marriage--as gay marriage does--then there's no reason to stick to marriage being between two people. And no, this is not slippery slope: this is one of the things the Supreme Court is worried about.

And the problem with polygamy is that it implies war and imperialism.

Multiple marriages has historically ALWAYS ended up with men having multiple wives, and almost never the reverse because women marry-up more often than men for biological reasons. Allow polygamy and there will be a shortage of eligible women, especially for the lower class. War is a handy and logical way to kill off the excess lower-class male population.

Gay rights is a good issue to discuss, but gay marriage has some very unpleasant implications. Implications I don't think most people have thought through. I don't think giving 5% of the population inheritance and hospital visitation rights is worth risking locking us into war-economy imperialism. We need to find another way.

What about breastfeeding ( Can a father breastfeed ), of course not. Sure there is bottle feeding but breastfeeding is by far the superior medium of feeding a child for the first six months.

What will two mothers do when a boy grows up and he asks them " Why is something down there growing"." My friend said that he mast**** what is that?". What will these two mothers do when they have to choose if they're going to circumsize a child, which is something which will affect the child forever. What about "The Talk".

What will two men do when a girl grows up and tells them "This is my chest growing", " Why is hair growing" "Why am I bleeding down there". I don't think any man will be able to answer those question as well as a woman.

Of course these days there's the internet but I highly doubt that when a girl starts to menstruate the first thing a man will think is " let me find out what to say to the child on google"

And these are only just a couple of example.

This says a lot. I don't mean to offend but typically people who present certain kinds of argument have no idea what actually being gay is and struggle to find compassion to actual understand it. Millions of people around the world did not "want to be gay" but they are, I can't speak on everyone but for 99% its not a choice, its just how their biology works. Regardless of whether they ever sleep with another man or women they are still gay as its a sexual orientation not an activity. Its no more a choice then deciding whether as a straight man your biology and hormones respond to the stimulus of a gorgeous women, or your brain responding positively to the taste of sugar. Society is then left with a decision; be accepting of people for who they are or oppress them. 

Regarding bringing up children, we may have are ideals about what a family hope should look like in order to provide the best upbringing for kids, but actual findings say something very different. 

 "In what they described as the largest study of its type in the world, University of Melbourne researchers surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social wellbeing.

Lead researcher Doctor Simon Crouch said children raised by same-sex partners scored an average of 6 per cent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-healthier-study-finds/5574168

I presume same sex parents cannot just have kids on the whim so the extra consideration and self awareness  probably encourages them to be the best parents they can be. Just my own assumptions on the results.

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. 

Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Men and women of full age, without distinction of any kind (as outlined in Article 2) have the right to marry.  The omission of a mention of sexual orientation in Article 16 does not imply that homosexuals may be denied this for Article 30 clears that up rather splendidly.  Article 7 states that all are equal before the law without any discrimination to equal protection; laws which allow heterosexuals to marry should thus be equally applicable to homosexuals.

Same-sex marriage is not a political ideology.  Fighting for it is simply standing up for the inalienable human right to marry, a right which many wish to arbitrarily deny.  

If people can have the right on Gay Marriage, can people also have the right for Incest, animal sex, Necrophilia, or pedophilia, Polygamist? Saying no it's a little bit hypocrite isn't? Or where, or who the one who made the law, where do we determine the moral, if we becoming so civilize do we have to follow roman culture or ancient age because their lack of knowledge and science. Do we follow old culture to determine the human right. Who has the right to make the law or human right?

well the most brutal wars were not fought by nations the were okay with polygamy...

Under these arguments single parents should have their children taken away as well, is that something you are advocating?

So then what exactly do you think happens?  Does the hypothetical man in your extremist example run away screaming about not having enough estrogen to handle the situation?

I was raised by a single parent, my mother.  When I got to puberty we had a conversation.  I don't feel like less of a man, or human being, because of the lack of father figure in my life.

Polygamist would follow, but the rest of your examples have obvious logical reasons to remain illegal.  Incest has been known to produce children with an overly high proclivity for genetic defects while the rest of your examples are with people, animals, or things which cannot by definition give consent.  Marriage should simply be a pledge of love between any number of consenting individuals.  This definition procludes negates the possibilities of animal sex, necrophilia or pedophilia while giving rights to consenting adults that they should logically have.  

gay marriage is not the same as incest, animal sex or pedophilia.

Polygamy, well thats a totaly different thing and just looser fear it.