Quote Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy View Post

The bottom line is, you must define WHY gay people should not have their natural right to be with one another, their natural right to be parents (there are plenty of gay parents) their natural right to adopt children (what if a person did not prefer either gender, or were bisexual? Should they have no right to adopt?) or to simply be with their beloved in a hospital, or claim their deceased loved one's property simply because a few people in our culture are not tolerant and welcoming of them.
I wont respond to the other points because they simply are not my arguements. However I will address this point. How are these natural rights being denied? I dont know of any laws that say individuals who are gay can not be a natural parent to a child that they helped to concieve. Can you actually show a state in the United States of America that has such a law/

As for adoption, again I know of no law that states a gay individual can not adopt a child, can you site a state that has such a law?

Now once again there is a simple way alreadly established that allows an individual to be with their beloved, same as with having a claim to the property of the deceased.

You do realized that common law marriage couples also have this extact problem if they do not establish power or attorneys and wills because they have no proof of a marriage certificate from the state.

So once again I must ask what right is being denied to a gay individual?


You either come up with a rational, fact-based argument which shows that gay people are somehow unworthy of equal treatment, or you swallow the fact that they deserve equal treatment under the law, equal to straight people, equal to other parents, equal to other married couples, equal to other potential adoptive parents, equal to other widows and widowers.
The same can be stated with your arguement here, come up with a rational fact-based arguement about why the process to have same-sex marriage should not be done by the legislative body or the constitutional process. This is the point of Strike's arguement and even my own. Courts can only rule on the constitutionality of the law - its up to the people throught their representives to formulate the law through the legislative process or the constitutional process.


The problem here is that some have arrived at a viewpoint, and are attempting to rationalize it after the fact using the legal code and using religion and using rhetorical devices to convince others to agree with them, whereas the opposing side has examined the evidence, looked at the arguments, and can conclusively prove that neither the religious arguments nor the precedence arguments nor the slippery slope arguments or any other argument presented thusfar can justify continued unequal treatment of gay people versus straight people.
Not really true, religion has no base desire to have laws done by the constitutional process through the legislative body or the amendment process. Again demonstrate to me where the indivdiual rights are being violated?


No amount of reasoning or proof will convince you, you've made up your mind. But you're still objectively wrong on this point, and even if you have the votes, even if you had the constitution, even if you had precedent, even if every religion agreed with you, and even if you employ a slippery slope argument, you're still objectively wong.
Strawman arguement about his position - he has clearly stated that his desire is for the change in the marriage laws should follow the constitutional process. Stating that a civil right is being denied without actually providing the proof of the violation does not constitute proof. State sanctioned marriage is by definition a communal process, which does not necessary imply that it is a right.

The natural rights of mankind do not bend to anything as simple as religion, law, or personal opinion, and especially not to bad logic and post-facto justifications. They simply are, and no amount of rhetoric can change them. Since they are supposed to form a basis of our laws, ethics, and moral code, I cannot see why anyone would oppose them. But we will have to simply disagree.
Where does it state marriage by the state is a natural right?

Some will champion equality under the law based on natural rights, and others will argue their reasons for opposing that equality. In a hundred years, and perhaps significantly sooner, society will not look kindly upon those who impeded moral and social progress. Some of us are just impatient for history to make it's judgments, and would prefer to arrive at a socially equitable system of laws today instead of tomorrow.
again good rethoric but does not demonstrate where marriage is a natural right.


Like civil rights for African Americans, when it comes to rights for gays, tomorrow just isn't good enough. Natural rights must be observed now, by everyone, and our legal code must conform to those rights. Only then could we claim to have a fair and rational system based on an ideal, rather than an Enlightenment-Era document which only began to address the question of justice, and did not live up to it's professed idealism.

Again what right is being denied to a person because they are gay? I hear this a lot, but very little substance is added to the rethoric of it. Since marriage is not an individual right - the state has the ability to establish what types of partnership's it desire to recongize. If the definition is desired to be changed then it should follow the constitutional process that has been established by the people.

Or do you not believe in the system of laws and due process that is established by the document that you so strongly seemly protest against.