NOM can't handle the Biblical definition of marriage

You ever notice that for all of their complaining about how gays are attempting to "redefine" marriage, if you pointed out to religious right groups that marriage has not been the same throughout history, they bristle.

A perfect example is the graphic that has gotten NOM's Ruth Institute up in arms:

This is what the Ruth Institute says about the graphic on its Facebook site:

This image has been making the rounds on Facebook, in an attempt to discredit those of us who insist that removing the gender requirement is redefining marriage. Look carefully at the image and you will see that in ALL of the examples, both genders are represented. This image reinforces the conservative position about needing a gender requirement, it does not undermine our position. And here is why: marriage has always been understood primarily as the means to bearing and raising children. Yes marriage provides companionship to the married partners, but that has never been the reason we needed marriage as a society.

Do you buy that? Neither do those leaving comments. The Ruth Institute's Facebook site is getting blasted.

Extra Treat: Think Progress is also getting into the act - NOM Defends Biblical Marriage, Including Slavery, Concubines, Polygamy, And Rape