Its not just marriage. Evangelicals take a belief usually made up by someone in the church at some point in history and it becomes an inarguable fact. Marriage means man and woman, the earth is only 6000 years old, America is a christian nation, etc...

That is why evangelicals should be ignored on everything because when it comes to deciding policy they've proven they've no ability for critical thought.

Of course there has. A common misconception in our culture is to assume that history is only about 10 years or so. Prior to it, there is no history. People forget to include the approximately 200,000 years that humans as smart as us have been around, though in tribal form. The key point to make about tribal lifestyle is that each one is different, and in the hundreds of thousands of years of TOTAL human history amongst all the cultures that have come into existence many of them have recognized same gender couples as the head of their families.

"But he is right in that marriage has always involved at least one male and one female."

You inclusion of the qualifier 'at least' is telling, and it also invalidates the point of the whole issue. Warren's claim about the definition of marriage is wrong.

Nonetheless, even without the qualifying 'at least' you'd still be wrong. In human history, all of it, every manner of familial arrangement has been tried.

Here you go: http://www.everyculture.com/index.html

And to save you some time digging, here's a quote from a specific article: "Woman-woman marriage, found among Nandi, Kipsigis"

Thats from: http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Nandi-and-Other-Kalenjin-Peoples-Marriage-and-Family.html

Chances are such examples will be dismissed by people unwilling to hear it as 'savages!' nonetheless they are human and they practice same gender marriage.

Its not because she's pretty. I like that part. Its the blatant obviousness that she features her lovely cleavage in EVERY shot. At first it was a nice bonus but then after watching a few times it dawned on me that her cleavage was so ubiquitous that I began to feel it was a little manipulative so naturally I began to resent it. (I don't like bad manipulation. Its insulting) Silly I know and I'm probably making more of it than I should but that's how I felt.

Evolution doesn't occur in a void. It is a dynamic process that occurs in response to organisms in competition. the pressures applied by competition cause the effects of evolution to manifest themselves.

Our global human culture is about one thing if nothing else: If anything on this planet competes with us for resources or by competing in someway limits our growth it will either be completely wiped out or neutralized in some way as to render it impotent with regards to us.

Despite all the excuses, when you exclude the ones that are based on an imaginary person there is no other reason to deny a class of people a civil right that won't actually affect you in any way, except that you're a prejudiced bigot.

I do recognize political satire when I see it. And "Barack the Magic Negro," ain't it! That's pure race baiting.

Although, now that I think of it, perhaps for the RNC race baiting is political.

I think Mrs. Walsh, that the main problem your detractors had with you is that it was apparent to many of your readers that it wasn't any of the things you listed as much as it was that you simply really liked Hillary to the point that despite her many numerous flaws, revealed throughout the campaign you continued to support her. You claim to have underestimated mainstream middle America. Is that a valid reason for supporting one candidate over the other? What about your personal views and preferences. Don't pass the buck to the public, Mrs. Walsh. For whatever reason (I think it was misguided sense of feminism) you actually liked Hillary over Obama. Fess up to it.

(The one I wished someone in congress has asked)

Mr. Greenspan, you say that you assumed that 'self-interest' would cause banks and other financial institutions to take the proper steps to protect themselves and their investors. I'll grant you that that is a fair enough assumption. However as an 'economist' and in carrying out your responsibilities as the Fed Chairman what research do you do or rely on in order to confirm that your assumption was correct, before you allowed your belief in your assumption to guide your decision making process in making policy?

I once asked an investor why the expectation, long-term, was for the market to always go up? Like you I thought it was an inherently flawed expectation. The answer I got was: Because the population keeps rising. The base of investors keeps rising. Thus the value can keep rising. As far as your google example goes, throw in a few stock splits (double the amount of shares and cut the price in half.) and the stock can keep rising as long as their are more investors.

Still sounds like a bunch of hooey to me, but thats the reasoning.

Sorry but at 6 billion plus people and climbing there is no strategy that if everyone followed won't be as damaging as any other strategy in the long term. The problem isn't how we eat, nor is it that some of us don't eat. The problem is 6+ billion people wake up everyday ready to consume in a global environment that thinks the only solution is to make sure technology feeds us all. Its not that there is too little food, nor poor food habits. There are simply too many people. Period.

As long as the GOP keeps losing general elections by pandering to the religious right and the racist right its all good.