Which position is more acceptable?

[nclib]

Although I don't support either, I voted Option 1, since it is more consistent with protecting marriage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I also don’t support either, but Option 2 is more consistent with the goal of using marriage as a tool to ensure that the children born of the two parents in that marriage are well provided for.  In a gay couple, at most one of them can be the parent, it is inherently unable to achieve that.  A lot depends upon what you view the purpose of marriage is.  Is it for the partners or for the children?

[Citizen James]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

[Jake]

Both, also banning divorce in the first place works to.

[Richard]

Both should be in effect.

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

We invented marriage.

[Frodo]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

word!

[danwxman]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

4. Banning fundementalists from banning things.

[Smash255]

Both are completley idiotic

[nclib]

A lot depends upon what you view the purpose of marriage is.  Is it for the partners or for the children?

It's primarily for the partners, since marriage does not always involve children.

[angus]

logically the second is more acceptable, since 51% of all US marriages end in divorce, and about 2/3 of them go on to remarry, and since only about 10% of all human pregnancies end up giving rise to a homosexual human, the second would affect fewer people, thus it would, presumably, be acceptable to a larger number of people, i.e., the unaffected.  Hence, the second is more acceptable.

[A18]

Obviously option 2.

[??????????]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

word!

Liberals say they are for freedom. lol

[Bono]

Both, also banning divorce in the first place works to.

Oh, trying to turn the US into a Catholic state, are we?

[opebo]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

word!

Liberals say they are for freedom. lol

You can't be free until you defeat your oppressors.  I say feed the freedom-haters to the lions!

[A18]

Okay. Let's start with all the freedom-haters who want a $15 minimum wage.

[??????????]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

4. Banning fundementalists from banning things.

5. Banning fundementalists from existing.

Which would you prefer? A moderately religious nation or a communist nation? I fear you'd choose the later, obviously.

[Jake]

Both, also banning divorce in the first place works to.

Oh, trying to turn the US into a Catholic state, are we?

That's my goal

[A18]

Opposing the gay agenda is not fundamentalism. It is the only kind of rational belief with regard to these matters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Opposing the gay agenda is not fundamentalism. It is the only kind of rational belief with regard to these matters.

I laugh whenever I hear "the gay agenda". It sounds so silly.

[angus]

and conspiratorial.

yeah, I thought it was a trademark Antonin Scalia phrase, but it has come into vogue lately.

what's the "gay agenda" anyway?

[A18]

The gay agenda is the agenda of gays. For example, gay marriage, gay anti-discrimination laws, gay TV, national gay day, etc.

[ATFFL]

3.  Banning fundementalists from marrying.

4. Banning fundementalists from banning things.

5. Banning fundamentalists from existing.

6. Banning existence frm existing.

[opebo]

The gay agenda is the agenda of gays. For example, gay marriage, gay anti-discrimination laws, gay TV, national gay day, etc.

Sounds wonderful compared to the religious agenda.

[Hitchabrut]

Banning gays from marrying.

[Dave from Michigan]

Banning gays from marrying