well. if you can marry a men without problems, why should anybody marry a women? you can marry a dude without having sex with him...

Want to be?
Why they can be straight?For god's sake ka-pi lol,they can't do otherwise,they don't want to be,is what they are,what they always were and will always  be,it does not change!So it matters to accept their nature and don't feel bad and ashamed about it because there are intolerant or vicious and prejudiced people...

Some gay people sadly say,;-I wish I wasn't gay or damn I'm f@cked up, I think I'm gay,why me e.t.c-,and it's justifiable,it must be very difficult to be gay,taking into account some situations...One of the main reasons that I love gays,I'm very empathic with people that are unfairly scorned...

Marriage between a man and a woman became a norm, not a truth. Semantics about whether gay rights should be categorized as a human right or as something else are just that, semantics. It doesn't change the fact that, from an ethics point of view, the restriction of marriage against two people of the same sex is just as wrong as racial segregation was over 50 years ago. It may not be a "human right," but it sure as hell is a social right.

The growth has been extremely visible in third world countries but in first world countries that growth is actually turning into a decline

That comment was supposed to be more of a same-sex marriage would be more beneficial in third world countries type of argument. It obviously exists but you don't see anyone fighting for same-sex marriage over there, a place where such a thing is really needed.

Also I have every right to be in this argument as much even if I was totally against same-sex marriage. There is a reason why same sex marriage is not legal everywhere even in first world countries. If I'm talking out of my ass than so are all those governments which do not allow same-sex marriage. 

People should be able to register their relationships officially, no matter the genders of the people involved. Now I consider that different from marriage, and marriage should be a thing of communities (e.g. religious communities) with no power in the legal system - and that marriage should be done with the rules imposed by the community. If the religious community has marriage and doesn't want gay people to have marriage, fine, but that marriage shouldn't have any legal power. Problem?

That is, seperate law and culture, including religion.

im confused, your example contradicts your argument...

Only five countries on earth have experience a reduction in popilation over the past 20 years,

Nauru
Albania
Hungary
Bulgaria
Russia

Nauru population decline is largely down to the younger generation not wishing to continie long standing traditions and leaving the island to make new lives for themselves.

The rest have experienced heavy immigration to neighbouring countries with a large portion of Albanian, Bulgarian and Hungarian migrating to neighbouring France, UK and Ireland, meanwhile russian population reduction is also a result of residents moving, however russians differ slightly in that their emigration patterns are much wider spread, either way the population decline is down to moving to greener pastures rather than a reduction in populace as a result of birth to death ratios.

Just how long do you think the human race as a whole can continue to expand in populace? Current UNFPA estimates put the global population hitting 8 Billion by 2025, 9 Billion by 2043 which is also around the point where most experts agree the global reserves of oil will have been used, a decade or so later reserves of gas will be gone and then by 2083 just as the population hits 10 billion, the last of the fossil fuels, coal, will expire too.

At what point do you think the hundreds of millions of cars no longer able to function, thousands of power stations that rely on fossil fuel, and as a direct result, a rapid increase in electricity and gas prices will effect the average consumer when the demand for such resources has increased over this timeframe to accomodate an additional 3 billion humans, an increase of over 35% from todays numbers?

What we NEED is a reduction in birthrates for a few decades so that demand for resources decreases along with it, until a viable clean, reliable and safe solution is found for the planets power and resource requirements.

Governments don't like population decrease because with it comes a reduction in taxable income, taxable spending and a financial flow.

Hospitals don't have enough beds for patients, Prisons are over capacity, cemetarys are starting to refuse the coffin-burrial of loves ones in favor of cremation as a result of running out of land to bury the dead, yet you think the best answer is for the population to continue to increase?

Also, refusing marriage between gay partners or implying that they should be "kept under check" is laughable.

Gay people will still be gay even if you tell them they can't get married, refusing marriage doesn't make them suddenly viable parents.

Interesting to note is that nazi germany persecuted all the lgbt individuals they could gather. The movie paragraph 175 and several historical documents attest to this.
So unless society wants to dig itself out of nazi like ideology for good, they better stop enforcing discrimination and lack of rights for certain groups of people.
Interesting also is that they used propoganda including the desired core family, and the straight family to be promoted as the absolute ideal. Not much unlike what certain people do to this date.

sure, i understand your argument, and it is valid, but your example contradicts the argument. 

Ah the good old times... Wish I could marry a 13 year old girl like they used to..