I don't think you get it. It's about qualifications. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to change the qualifications.

If religion (or "tradition" as it has recently been referred to) gets to dictate the definition of marriage then we cannot allow our government to recognize marriage for obvious reasons. Instead civil unions would be recognized by our government and could not exclude any consenting adult couple. Churhes would still get to marry as they choose of course.

This lame and inane tactic was last tried and rejected against interracial marriage.

If we set up a law saying that people could only worship Jesus and no other religion, then likewise we would all have the "same restrictions". Both the Jew and the Christian would be subject to the same law that says we can only be Christian. Wouldn't your argument call that "equality" as well?

Just like the marriage laws say we can only marry heterosexually.

I never said a thing about religion. Do you see anything in my post about religion? No. You're confusd again Hevusa. Homo.

"qualifications" is just another way to say "discrimination".

It was a "qualification" that required people to read before they could vote, which was used against black voters.
It was a "qualification" that required people to own land before voting.
It was a "qualification" which allowed people whose grandfathers who could vote to vote as well...

"qualifications" isn't an argument.

Okay. If qualification is just another way of saying discrimination, why can't I kick the football for the Seattle Seahawks? I'm being disrciminated against and I demand my rights.

Do you ever stop to think before you open your mouth?
Marriage IS a right. Period.
It's a right recognized by the GOVERNMENT.
Rights are protected against irrational discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc...

Being a quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks IS NOT a right.
Being employed SPECIFICALLY for the Seattle Seahawks is not a right.
If you were refused a job for the Seahawks, it would be because you CANNOT DO THE JOB. Not just because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...

recurring theme of the pro-gay letters is that gay marriage is a "right." Saying so does not make it so. When carefully considered the claim does not make sense.

If it is immoral to steal, you have the right to not have your goods stolen — and should expect the state to defend that right. Therefore, you have property rights. If it is evil to murder someone, then every person — except a murderer — has a right to live. If rights are the flip side of the universal moral law, then they cannot be the flip side of a practice which is contrary to the universal moral law. If sodomy and "gay marriage" are against nature and against the universal moral law, they cannot be a right.

The liberal courts have recognized this logical difficulty and have therefore used the right of privacy to legitimize sodomy and gay marriage. They theorize an expansive right to privacy based on an imagined right to self-actualization. There are two fallacies in this approach. 1) Self-actualization cannot be achieved by doing something that is against nature — that is contrary to human design. 2) Self-actualization is not the legal basis for the western laws which respect privacy. Private property is the basis. Because we have a right to own property, we have a derivative right to use that property in privacy.

Gay "marriage" is not merely a practice in the private home. It is a demand for public recognition. To grant this recognition is to confuse an honorable institution — marriage — with a dishonorable liaison — gay coupling. This would confuse the concept and diminish the honor of marriage.


Gay "marriage" is not a "right"

Yet another spot ignoring the truth of the argument.
MARRIAGE is a right. Period. Unequivocably.
MARRIAGE, as a right, is protected against discrimination which does NOT have a Legitimate State Interest. If a right is discriminated against without a legitimate state interest, the discrimination must be removed.

Plain and simple.


Well, since sodomy and gay couples are FOUND IN NATURE, then obviously this argument falls...

"Universal moral law"??? MOST Americans DO NOT WANT sodomy laws.
And as I keep pointing out, majority rules IS NOT a justification for discrimination. If it were, NO right would be protected.
Next lame attempt?


ROFLMAO!!!
OMG. We are in PURE strawman argument b.s. at the moment.
This author actually thinks he has presented an argument that poses "logical difficulty"?
It has NO LEGAL FOUNDATION. NONE of what he just said regarding sodomy and gay marriage.
if he had half a brain, maybe he'ld check what the rulings said on gay marriage and try to mimic that.


Actually, the issue is whether or not people CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what they want to do in a free society and not have some moral self-righteous schmuck try to tell others how to live because of what they claim is "universal moral law"...


This guy doesn't stop to think either...
If "private property" is the basis, then HOW do we get a variety of the rights for privacy we do have?
Wire-taps aren't about private property, but they ARE a right to privacy issue.
If I step outside my door and a policeman wants to search me without cause, I can say no. Because it's MY BODY.

This guy has NO clue what he's talking about.

It is not natural. It is abnormal behavior. Deal with it.