Anonymous wrote:The foundation of a society is the abilty to reproduce and provide a stable environment

Does that mean that EVERY couple in that society MUST bear children? Then why do you seem to think that a childless hetereosexual couple deserves to be married, but a gay couple with children does not?

yes good job mr president, this will kick start the economy

To bear

Lesbians are quite well equipped yo best children. Extra uterus y'know, so fertility is pretty much a lock. Based on your logic you should put them at the head of the marriage line.

Anonymous wrote:The foundation of a society is the abilty to reproduce and provide a stable environment

So you're pro gay marriage, then? You seem to want to create families, encourage reproduction and establish a stable environment for children. Check, check, check.

Anonymous wrote:The foundation of a society is the abilty to reproduce and provide a stable environment

News flash: gay people actually have more children because they can marry.

Anonymous wrote:too late. the Democrat war on Christianity has been exposed and will be bashed to death before the election. Obama hates Christians and eats Dogs,....Oh....and the economy sucks and is unraveling into something that resembles the pile of excrement and vomit left behind by a OWS protest.

You must listen to Rush and Hannity - you know they're creeps and extremists, right? You sound like a piece of work.

The foundation of a society is the abilty to reproduce and provide a stable environment

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

No problem. Then no one who is incapable of producing children or who doesn't intend to produce children should be allowed to marry. Marriage for breeders only!

Infertiles don't deserve to be married either!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

So who should decide?

The duly elected representatives of our government who are selected to legislate our laws, whether that is state legislatures or the US Congress. We have a representative Republic. While I disagree with some of what my representatives may do, I do agree with Dick Lugar (and Edmund Burke) that our representatives owe us not only their industry, but their judgment as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

So that means anyone who has had a vasectomy, hysterectomy, tubes tied, is post-menopausal or has any form of infertility should not be allowed to marry because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature. RIIIIGGGHHHHTT. Or is it that you just don't want some people who can't produce offspring together to get married? And only those that you choose.

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

Please explain how denying marriage rights to same sex couple is different from slavery, in the context of the bolded statement above.

Centuries of social, legal AND economic arrangements, check.

Support in biblical text, check.

Let the people decide what rights are granted to other humans? Er, not the best course. Sometimes change has to be accomplished through legislation. The abolition of slavery affected a lot of people directly, but it was the right thing to do.

I will be interested to see how those opposed to full rights for homosexual couples explain their bigotry to their grandchildren who are studying the struggle in school. I can just hear it now, a lame "eh, it was a different time..."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

What you call constitutional rights, others would call a radical change in legal norms and social policy (which actually it is, even if one favors it). (The use of "segregationist" is incorrect, by the way

Is there a fundamental right to polygamous marriage? What about marriage to a minor? Why would homosexual marriage be a fundamental right and not these? Who decides what is a fundamental right? You?

We ban lots of things involving minors. As for fundamental rights we have Locke. And our constitution.

Polygamy would never work legally. (What if one party wanted out? What about inheritance?) That is the rational, legal reason for banning it. Many, many laws would need to be written and rewritten.

Adults under 18 (or 17 in other states) are minors and as such are not recognized as being able to decide for themselves whether to marry. And you can't legalize man-dog nuptials because the dog can't say "I do."

But there's no rational legal reason to ban SSM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

What you call constitutional rights, others would call a radical change in legal norms and social policy (which actually it is, even if one favors it). (The use of "segregationist" is incorrect, by the way

Is there a fundamental right to polygamous marriage? What about marriage to a minor? Why would homosexual marriage be a fundamental right and not these? Who decides what is a fundamental right? You?

We ban lots of things involving minors. As for fundamental rights we have Locke. And our constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

No problem. Then no one who is incapable of producing children or who doesn't intend to produce children should be allowed to marry. Marriage for breeders only!

Ban marriage for elderly women. Be consistent.