Gay marriage makes zero fucking sense to anyone with two braincells to rub together and a traditional understanding of marriage. For most of human history and in most parts of the world marriage is a contract where a woman subjugates herself to the man in exchange for his protection and provision. This already is a raw deal for the man, considering he's getting something of infinitely lesser value than he's offering. Yet he accepts because the purpose of a marriage is not this exchange per se, but the woman's fertility being used as a means to guarantee his own proginy. That's the sole purpose a marriage serves: providing an environment for reproduction, childrearing and through it a "retirement plan" (having lots of strong children who can take care of you). Gay "marriage" does not fit into that in the slightest, which is why advocates of gay marriage seek to undermine every single part of it. From facilitating divorces to government mandated retirement plans (de-emphasizing the need to have children, which ironically destroys these pension schemes) to that retarded "parent 1 parent 2" bullshit France is pulling.
If you read the fucking screencap you yourself posted you see this exact reasoning: the goal of all marriage is reproduction. Those who cannot reproduce (at least not without requiring expensive treatments (on the bill of the taxpayer of course) and a "third" parent (who's actually the second parent because IVF isn't fucking magic)) are not entitled to marriage.
>D-DOES THIS MEAN A MAN AND A WOMAN WHO HATE EACHOTHER ARE MORE ENTITLED TO MARRIAGE THAN TWO MEN WHO LOVE EACHOTHER?!?!?!?!
Yes
>B-BUT WHAT IF THE WOMAN IS INFERTILE
Then even the most conservative Catholic (au contraire: ESPECIALLY the most conservative Catholic) will acknowledge this as grounds for annullment. Precisely because the goal of marriage is reproduction, one that cannot lead to reproduction is assumed to have never been valid.
