You said: "Procreation between close relatives has a higher chance of birth deformities and this was proved by science, not the Bible."

Well, let's take at face value what you just said.

1. You acknowledged that the Bible and science both point to procreation as central to the lines of eligiblity for marry.

2. Your point about procreation is irrelevant to one-sexed arrangements between relatives.

3. SSM argumentation denounces the very idea that procreation justifies the boundaries around marriage.

4. So SSM is different from marriage; and a merger would logically destroy the eligiblity lines based on your scientific assertion.

You said: "We do not marry children, because by law we have said they do not have the capacity to give consent."

But you have acknowledged that not all consenting adults may marry. So consent is not a trump card.

Also, some underaged people can marry but they are treated as exceptions not as the basis for a general rule.

As for underaged people, explain what you mean by capacity to consent. If you are using chronological age as a proxy for maturity, then, you would be breaking your own implied rule about defining too narrowly.

Anyway, the real point about capacity to consent, when you get right down to it, is consent to what?

Underaged people have the capacity to consent to lots of stuff. But when you suggest there is a limit on their capacity to consent to marraige, you really need to begin with what marriage actually is, at its core, before pinning a license on it and according special status. Then you can say why you'd deny that license and status based on age.

Defenders of marriage can do this. But SSMers seem to not have the capacity.

The premise of this blog was whether the Prop 8 was putting Christianity on trial. Well of course it was, at least in part.

The Christian faithful as well as the believers of any mono-theistic religion think only their religion is the one true religion and the way to heaven or their equivalent of heaven. And in the US they have the right to their faith and freedom of speech. They certainly have the right to use the Bible to support their religious beliefs.

But here is the rub. When religions step outside their use of their holy books and use what they claim is scientific proof that there should be no marriage between the races, there should be laws against sodomy and there should be no same-sex marriages, then others in society have every right to challenge their allegations.

Rick tells us that you can not marry your brother or sister, mother or father. True, and there are very scientific reasons why. Procreation between close relatives has a higher chance of birth deformities and this was proved by science, not the Bible. We do not marry children, because by law we have said they do not have the capacity to give consent. Rick has already agreed that consent is needed for marriage. Sometimes it is just best to use our brains and try to put aside emotions.

The Prop 8 trial was certainly more complex than just this singular issue.

So how did the defendants do in their defense during the Prop 8 trial? An objective answer will not likely be found here, but it is sure fun to read some of these opinions.

But in the day we live in, it is hateful to say someone is wrong.

BTW kim, learn how Bible translation actually works, not just from some interview with a nut.

You acknowledged, then, that not all man-woman combinations are eligible to marry.

However, related people can and do marry. Not all related people. The line that is drawn varies from place to place -- across cultures and so forth -- but the lines is drawn and justified based on the core meaning of the social institution.

By "love" you probably meant something sexual, given your talk of incest. However, close relatives would be ineligible even if they did not touch each other. And, yes, even if they did love each other. How do you explain that, given your comment above?

If you are declaring that "gay" is the new old, or that "gay" is a physicial disability like infertility, then, you need to explain yourself much better on those two points.

The lack of the other sex is not infertility -- it is nonfertility. It is not a physical disability. On the other hand, fertility, like infertility, is two-sexed since no individual can procreate without the other sex. Sure, it is the nature of human fertility that we start as children -- pre-fertile -- and mature through fertility, subfertility, and eventually infertility. A couple becomes infertile. So, sure human fertility is variable, in the normal course of things.

But no one-sexed arrangement -- regardless of love (what kind of love is irrelevant) and regardless of sexual behavior within that arrangement -- no one-sexed arrangement is anything but nonfertile. That is one of its defining characteristics. It is not a disability nor a physical problem that can be repair; it is not a condition that people become through the normal course of things.

If you want to base your claim on homosexual feelings, then, you are on the brink of declaring the homosexual orientation to be a disability. Perhaps you are ready to declare that the fix is to restore heterosexuality? I doubt it. But that's were your assertions would take you.

Adoption is a social construct. A noble institution. But adoption does not bestow marital status. However, providing a child in need is not dictated by the neediness of adults. It is legitimate to prioritize homes that can provide a child with the unity of motherhood and fatherhood. That is a first principle of marriage.

There are millions of families outside of marriage. A significant subset is comprised of people in same-sex arrangements of mutual caretaking. But the vast majority of such arrangements are not sexualized but include related people.

That brings you full circle. Not all related people are eligible to marry even if they have children. Adoption does not change that.

Turn the light on and let it come in. Reason will help you see the profound flaws in your thinking.

Being gay is not a choice. Falling in love is not a choice. Can my partner and I procreate? No. Can older hetero (50s and up) couples procreate? No. Can couples with infertility procreate? No. Can all adopt? Yep.

Raising children is not just done by bio parents. If that were the case, here, in modern society, there would be a lot of neglected, abandoned, abused and unwanted kids. More than there are now.

Adoption is nature's answer to caring for kids whose bio parents can't, for whatever reason.

Additionally, marriage strengthens families, whether they be gay or straight, especially if there are kids involved.

But you can't necessarily marry anyone you love.

For example, I bet you love your brothers and sisters.

But you can't marry them.

Same with your Dad, your Mom, and your nearest relations.

You also might love some cute little baby next door but guess what?

You can't marry the baby either.

You might love six or seven other people, and all of them might love you back.

Guess what? You can't marry them all.

And you might love a female, but guess what?

You can't marry someone of the same sex either.

The reason, Jennifer, is that marriage by its nature involves the union of the two complementary genders of our species.

Society has always given special recogniition and benefits to marriage that it has *not* given to other very heart-felt relationships, and do you know why?

Because society has recognized *its own interest* in marriage.

It unites the two genders, both for mutual support, and also for the benefit and nurture of the children who are the common result of these unions.

Society has always recognized and preferred marriage because society knows that marriage creates and nurtures the next generation, Jennifer.

And we both know that no next generation will ever arise from any same sex union.

Yes, you are making that up. They're using the actual transcripts which are available 1 to 2 days after testimony. Please do your homework before posting.

Oh...and you didn't have an "Aha" moment, the link to the Scopes trial has been making the rounds since the trial started. Thus, NOT your original idea, so don't try to claim that.

I suggest that NOM might indicate to us here on the blog what we can most effectively do to mobilize and support opposition to the elitist's intention to redefine marriage without the consent of the governed in DC.

I also learned that if Congress does nothing on this matter, this law will go into effect the day the 30 legislative day review period runs out, whether or not the case is under appeal.

I am appalled at the possibility that gay marriage would be allowed for a short time and then be taken away once the court rightfully decides that silencing the voters on this issue violated the DC Charter, and then the voters decide to support traditional marriage instead.

Please tell Congress that they must not let this happen. There was absolute chaos in California because of the rash decision on the part of the State Supreme Court to allow gay marriage for a short time knowing full well that the question was up for a vote in a few months. Their lack of common sense and judicial responsibility was reprehensible, and I'm seeing the same situation with Congress right now.

Assuming ADF files its appeal in a timely manner, Congress has to stop this law from going into effect until the court has made its decision. I'd hate for ADF to have to file an injunction to stop it from going into effect while it's under litigation, I'd prefer that Congress did its job and told the DC Council they just don't get to silence the voters like that. But if an injunction is what it takes I hope the ADF attorneys will do that.

In the meantime, please call Congress and tell them to boot this law back to Mayor Fenty and the Council.

See:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/tell-congress-to-protect-peoples-vote.html

The DC Charter makes only one exemption to the provision allowing voters to put a matter on the ballot: they are not allowed to include appropriateions matters. The Charter provides no other exemption.

The Board of Elections had absolutely no right to stop the people's request to vote on this issue, and doing so absolutely, unquestionably violated the DC Charter. I am confident the court will find that to be the case.

The only question is how long that will take and whether or not Congress will do their job and act now in order to prevent the same situation from happening there as happened in California, where gay marriage was allowed for a time and then taken away by the voters, when the State Supreme Court could have - and should have - stayed the implementation of their decision until after the election. The chaos that caused isn't something one would ever want to see happen again. It's going to be difficult enough when New Hampshire and Iowa repeal their gay marriage laws (or modify their state constitutions to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman), but then they had no clear provision for putting this on the ballot. It's just taking them a little longer to go through their processes.

Another thing: it really doesn't matter who or how many people made the request to have this on the ballot. Those making the proposal followed all the proper procedures and their request was valid. The rejection of this request is what is in question, and there were simply no legal grounds on which the Board of Elections could legitimately reject it.

Congress shouldn't just shrug their shoulders about this violation, but instead should take their responsibility seriously and investigate the situation on their own and make their own determination about the legitimacy of the Board of Election's actions. They just don't get to do nothing and let this go into effect without their overt statement that such a violation is okay with them as long as it's done in the name of 'diversity' or 'political correctness.' Voters from all over the country expect their Members of Congress - in this case those on these two committees - to take their jobs seriously and not allow the voices of the people of the District to be silenced like that for no legitimate reason. Call them and tell them that, please!!!!

Very few voters in DC have expressed an interest in voting on gay marriage. It appears to be driven by a few very vocal people. Two courts and the city council have ruled that DC law forbids withholding rights, including licenses, from any group based on sexual orientation. Therefore, the people can’t vote on denying marriage equality to gay couples because one of the two possible outcomes of such a vote would violate the law.

If religious leaders in DC really want have a popular vote on the rights of gay people, they need to first get DC’s Human Rights law repealed. That’s the only way for the people to be able to vote on same-sex marriage. These people calling for a vote have made no effort to get the HR law repealed, a necessary first step. It makes me wonder if they are serious about creating the circumstances necessary for the people to vote on same-sex marriage.