Kiko, you should attempt to address my post instead of rambling. Again:
What most people here are suggesting is that homosexual couples should be granted the right to marry, a legal right. You respond that because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed. Even if you are correct for arguments sake, that gay marriage is not a natural right, your point is useless.
There are thousands of legal rights created by the government that are not "natural rights." Under your reasoning, rights like the right to bear arms would not exist. Nor would one's right to an attorney. Or privacy. Etc. Clearly it is not necessary for a legal right to be a natural right for society to justify its existence. Similarly, it is not necessary for gay marriage to be a natural right for society to provide the legal right.
So stop beating around the bush and just say that you think gay couples should be denied benefits from the federal government that heterosexual couples receive, such as lower taxes. Unless that's not what you think. In which case you are just being a troll...
Except for I never responded with such a statement.... I said it was not a natural right, yet it is still covered, legal, and justified. Good lord man, if you are going to fill my mouth with words, at least quote what I've said for support. You are just making things up.
How is it an inalienable human right? Sure a church or whomever can marry you and your partner, it doesn't mean a society/state has to accept this. It is not an alienable right, such as life, liberty, et cetera.
You re-emphasize that same-sex marriage is not a natural right (i.e. an inalienable right).
Many of the things you said wrong with marriage are also deplorable, but that doesn't mean we should make it worse by allowing more things that are clearly against god's words.
You then declare same-sex marriage to be deplorable and against god's words.
Kiko, please explain to me how something that is deplorable and against god's words is justified? If you really think same-sex marriage is deplorable and against god's words, then your most recent statements about the equal protection clause are simply a retreat from your initial comments against same-sex marriage. However, if you really do believe that same-sex marriage should be a legal right and is justified, then you were simply being a troll earlier, trying to get a rise out of people.
Here's my stance: Chick-fil-a financially (in the millions) supports Exodus International, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council. All of these groups are designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They advocate, among other things, "ex-gay therapy" (electroshock therapy techniques that are coincidentally listed as torture methods by NATO), imprisonment, deportation, and execution of gays; and have also financially supported politicians in Nigeria, Malawi, and Burundi who have recently enacted anti-gay laws and Uganda is considering making homosexuality punishable by death. This is the influence of American evangelism. This is the result of people like us not giving a sh!t where our money goes as long as we get a chicken sandwich and waffle fries on demand. If you think this doesn't really affect you because you're straight, try to think about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. MLK, Malcolm X, et cetera... did the pavement work but it was JFK and LBJ who finally signed into law equal rights for blacks and other minorities (except, of course, the LGBT folks). It's going to take public support from members of the majority to fulfill the guarantees of the Constitution.
All of this. I try to avoid any conversations about politics or religion, but here I am. I have very strong and unshakable views about LGBT issues.
I've always boycotted Chick-fil-a because they are closed on Sundays. That's not because I have a thing against Christianity or Christian businesses, but because places that are closed on Sunday just piss me off in general.
My father, whom I love very much, is a retired air force major. He's also gay. He retired in 1992, prior to don't ask don't tell. As my parents marriage crumbled our family was actually under investigation and surveilance by OSI (www.osi.andrews.af.mil/). This investigation also included looking into the sexual preferences and behavior of civilians my father associated with. In fact that's how he came to their attention, someone (with a grudge) reported that he daily ate breakfast at a cafe owned by known homosexuals and was very friendly with the owner, often staying late into the evening at his residence. That, and the fact that his heterosexual marriage was falling apart... "Well Colonel, we think this one might be a queer."
Let this sink in for a second. The United States Air Force was monitoring the activity of civilians just to ferret out a possible f@%%#t in their ranks. Had my father been firmly discovered to be a homosexual he would have been immediately discharged from the service after 20 YEARS of serving. Any pension or retirement pay voided. Even in retirement he had to "hide" for a few years until DADT was passed as they could have stopped his retirement pay.
Did being gay have ANY effect on his job performance or competence? No. The United States Armed Forces probably spent 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars or more hunting down homosexuals over the years. And for what? Seriously.
They gay community is not asking for any special privileges that are not afforded to heterosexuals. Their is no valid argument what so ever to deny a homosexual the right to marriage that doesn't involve religious ideology. Further the concept of marriage was not invented by the Judeo-Christian religions, which are the religions most opposed to homosexuality in all forms and active in denying rights to LGBT people.
^ Well-written post, MB. The last paragraph perfectly sums up everything that is wrong with the mentality of the "moral majority" who frequent Chik-Fil-A. This mentality - as well as the internal witch hunt your dad and countless others have endured (at taxpayer expense, no less!) - has GOT to change. Thank you for sharing!