Of course gay couples can still adopt but their relationship never amounts to anything more than a civil union.

Look guys, all laws and statutes are essentially discriminatory. Young people can't buy alcohol for example. Men can't work at places like hooters (as waiters).

The reason it's very important to add a new amendment is to avoid persecuting Christians and other religions. We know the SC decision will open up the floodgates for litigation against clergy and other organizations if they refuse to wed same-sex couples in their places of worship.

Also this whole spiel about love and it doesn't harm anyone is just bunkum. If that's the main reasoning then a man can marry a tree for example. It doesn't harm anyone right? The guy is in love right? The line has to be drawn.

If people start winning those litigations then I'll become concerned but not before.  The idea that the government has to allow gay couples to get legally married now should not have any effect on what religious organizations decide to do as they aren't part of the government.  

The line is drawn at any number of individuals with consent.  That negates animals, objects, and children.  

well there is a point somewhere in his "argument".  reproducing IS important for the state, and giving extra benefits to people who reproduce is totaly fine. but you cant just say man and woman are allowed the rest isnt.the fertility of the couple is important too! it would be unfair to give extra benefits to a couple that cant reproduce just because they are man and woman

Fun facts:

When the Constitution was written, there was no:
1) Automobile
2) Computer
3) Republican/Democratic Party
4) X-Ray/MRI
5) Electric Power
6) Telephone
7) IRS/Federal Reserve
8) Internal Medicine
9) Airplane
10) Pledge of Allegiance
11) Television
12) Internet
13) Abolition/CRA
14) Women's Suffrage

In hindsight, treating a document that was written 230 years ago as sacrosanct seems like a great idea!

Three things:

1. Treating any document as sacrosanct during any time is not a very good idea.

2. Your implication is a non-sequitur because none of these things alter fundamental human nature.

3  The U.S Constitution "legally" codified the creation and institution of the federal government. Hencely the "social contract" that is government is the same as the constitution. Unless you posit that a breach of contract is just, where do you believe government derives its powers? (I personally take the stance that it unethically derives it from force btw. ) 

Anyone saying the Constitution is outdated doesn't understand the concept of Amendments.
Anyone saying the Constitution leads to abusive laws doesn't understand that the Constitution only gives the government authority to create laws.
Anyone saying the Government needs to rewrite the constitution doesn't understand that the Government IS the Constitution in Action, replacing a Government requires creating an entirely new Social Contract.

1. I wholeheatedly agree.

2. I have to disagree; many of the things I mentioned fundamentally changed our human awareness and, by extension, our nature. Most of the universe (macro and micro) was presumed to be known and still remains largely undiscovered and, consequently, unexplored. That fundamentally impacts the context of our human awareness and ability to reasonably fashion any social contract, at any time. Adding to the context are the things mentioned that denote a contract fashioned by a largely homogeneous group that excluded a vast majority of people (women and minorities were disallowed from contribution). The ideas of wealthy, white, albeit educated, men is insufficient to comprise the full spectrum of human nature.

3. The government derives its powers from the power it can leverage, typically consolidated through a system of currency with an appropriated, sometime agreed-upon value. Through history, it has taken the form of salt, land, real estate, gold, money, et. al. Most stable governments tend to rely very little on force to control their populace and use the market and associated social structures to foster compliance. The law is the law, and right is right, but coincision is never guaranteed. When the law is purported to be wrong, the right course of action is to question the law and not its questioner. The Founding Fathers knew this and wisely provided the provision for amendment. Problems tend to arise when "conservative" parties are unwilling to open themselves to question, because antiquated and/or anachronistic laws are a source of their power.

2. I disagree first with your suggestion that persons in the enlightment era believed they knew most of the world. This wasn't called the age of reason and empiricism without proper substance. I secondly disagree with your use of the phrase "human nature." When one speaks of human nature one is only speaking of the qualities that are common to all or almost all human beings. The rights to life, liberty, and the estate summarized this human nature well in 1791 and today in 2015 just the same. So when a document is constructed to protect the corollaries of said rights, it does not hold any less valid in 2015 than it did in 1791. The various inventions have not affected the intent and logic behind the codification of rights. 

3. I was speaking of the origins and ends of governments. The monopolies you alluded to would not exist without the backing of force. Whether it is the framers presupposing how the other ten million Americans and future Americans want to be governed, a mobocracy in which the individual is at the whims of a majority absolutely, a king who thinks of persons as his property, etc etc it is all substantiated by the use of force to secure monopolies in law, power, money, defense, and a plethora of other goods and services. That is the nature of government the use or threat of monopolic force.

The UN should come up with a Constitution (or whatever you want to call it) and it should be a prerequisite for a nation to use as its own if it wants to be a member. That would be a good step in getting nations on the same page regarding human rights and it would nerf the influence of nations which would rather isolate themselves than join the modern world.

2. My contention focused on their awareness, or lack thereof. If a document is to be a fully-informed expression of human will and desire then it most certainly should be lacking the input and insight of the majority. If the document is a reflection of the prevailing sensibilites (which it was), then it is a reflection of the sentiment that women and blacks (amongst other minorities) are incapable of sophisticated decision-making. That precept was and is inherently flawed, yet it guided the rationale behind the drafting. From the outset, the character of human nature that is prescribed therein is incomplete and insufficient. This is only exacerbated by the fact that these elite, white men were not simultaneuosly integrating the female (for obvious reasons) perspective or "nature." No matter the enlightenment fo their perspectives, they were doomed to a myopic characterization of human nature that was an incomplete data set. Ergo, a document constructed to protect "the rights to life, liberty, and the estate "can very easily be "less valid[sic] in 2015 than it did in 1791." The fact that the primary precepts of the constitution have been largely sufficient speaks volumes to their forethough and wherewithal, despite the aforementioned limitations.

3. I think this comes down to a matter of semantics, with regards to perceived force. If one controls the means of production, they can "force" those who need their products to meet their demands. All of this can be dome without any physical exertion or construct: their power can be intrinsically linked to privately held, necesary knowledge (trade secret) to produce. This is why I belive that power is the true prerequisite, because it is inclusive of force. "Force" just seems to lack the appropriate depth and breadth, in my opinion, to capture the multitudinous ways one can exert control.

Conceptually, I do not believe that are that far apart.