i ' ll take Mr president or SMS 2 xoxo <| sep |> I live in the upper peninsula . My grandpa used to drive me out on bays of Lake Superior to ice fish all of the time . I see cars and trucks out on the ice quite often every winter . <| sep |> The song . About Jenny . 8 6 7 5 3 0 9 <| sep |> To catch them when they fall . I think your best chance for the Ellis Classified line making it in was Dark Heart . Sorry . <| sep |> What you ' re asking for is categorical discrimination . Literally . Giving the government , state or federal , the power to discriminate against categories of people is dangerous and backwards . No , this makes no sense . The government discriminates based on category all the time . We don ' t give welfare to rich people , we don ' t give social security to young people . Every piece of legislation discriminates against categories of people . If you think it ' s fundamentally not ok to discriminate against people based on anything when it comes to marriage , surely kids can get married ? animals ? Siblings ? And before you do the faux outrage LOL YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALS ARE LIKE ANIMALS ? !? No , what I ' m saying is of course we have to decide what counts as a marriage and what doesn ' t . There are objective reasons to not include samesex couples in the definition of marriage . I ' m not sure why you think your definition is 100 % right and mine is 100 % wrong when in the grand scheme of things they ' re pretty similar and we ' re arguing about details . But let ' s not pretend like yours is some all inclusive compassionate definition . You exclude all sorts of possible definitions of marriage . Not to mention your logic is STILL flawed , because post menopausal women , usually 50 are biologically , naturally unable to reproduce . They are a very easy to categorize group of people . Are you saying that those women , 5060 , should have no right to marry ? A woman who finally found love at 60 should be barred from marriage because she can ' t produce children ? You would give the government that kind of power ? It ' s amazing how consistently make this obviously incorrect argument . Or at least it ' s obvious to anybody who has thought about the topic and talked it over . What you ' re doing is comparing a binary categorical difference to a continuous scale of fertility that is not consistent across people and also not reliable . Furthermore , that ' s just an extra layer of scrutiny . First filter same sex or hetero ? If it ' s a hetero couple , second filter are they fertilie or not ? So even if you want to make the case that infertile couples shouldn ' t be allowed to marry , that ' s still not the same as the question of homosexuality , which is not as granular . You can always get more and more specific with these questions .