Fair enough. But that does not make me wrong. Don't play smart because you read wikipedia.
That being said, as I noted above, I want this to be friendly and constructive, so lets please quit with the semi-insults.
No...I paid attention in rhetoric; not to wikipedia.
The argument I want to refute is: Heterosexual marriage is currently a right. Homosexual marriage is currently not a right. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated under the constitution. Same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. Therefore same sex marriage is a right too.
As stated earlier, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal contract. Moreover, marriage is essentially freedom of association, a natural right. You need to review Enlightenment philosophy on natural rights. Contracts are a component of the social compact and some rights are derived from that as well. There is, in fact, a well developed body of law regarding contracts. Since contracts are enshrined in law, that means the 14th amendment applies to them. QED, gays have the same rights to enter the same contracts as straights, including marriage.
It's not a strawman fallacy, as I didn't declare this to be the other sides position and didn't try to refute this position.
It was still not the position of gay marriage supporters. That said, it was meant more as a preemptive declaration of fallaciousness to prevent its use later in thread.
It was a reminder, that the side that demands a right, has to back that up with more than declaring it a right.
Which has been done more than sufficiently. You just appear to not like the facts.
It is a fact, that it's not your right in america to get anything you want.
Indeed. Some people want their bigotry and religion enshrined into law.
"There's no such thing as gay or straight marriage, only marriage." - In saying so, you have the burden of proof.
Already demonstrated it is so-see above and earlier posts.
Not the other side. It doesn't want a change. Your side does.
The public, for example in California, voted on what marriage is and what not.
Natural rights exist regardless of public opinion. Where the social compact defines rights...those rights exist as well regardless of public opinion (with caveats). Marriage contains elements of natural rights and those created by social compact (specifically the Constitution and the 14 amendment).
Your side must show that there is no difference to be able to revoke that vote.
Declaring so is not enough.
Asked and answered.
I'm not. The right to the privilege of marriage.
No. Some of the benefits given to married couples by the state are privileges (e.g., tax breaks). Other are rights given to them as a part of the social compact. However, marriage itself is a natural right as a part of the freedom of association. Again, you demonstrate that you don't fully understand the arguments you're making.
A consenting adult is similarly situated if there is no legitimate state interest in regulating his right to equal privilege of another individuals right, that is not regulated by the state.
This makes absolutely no sense in any way whatsoever. I'm trying to parse it, but it looks like you're saying people have similar situations if the state shouldn't be regulating his 14th amendment right to equality before the law when it is not regulated by the state. That makes no sense at all.
I accepted that this does not matter to this discussion.
Well. The 14th amendment does in fact apply to this discussion because we are talking about matters of law, natural rights, and rights accrued through the social compact.
I don't appeal to tradition.
You yourself appeal to tradition. Let's leave that out of it.
Yes. You did. "Traditional marriage." The implication is clear--marriage has a tradition and your arguments make clear you want to keep it that way but without giving reasons the tradition is superior. That's the heart of appeal to tradition.
By the way, your second comment is a You Too fallacy (i.e., you did it too so I'm not wrong) compounded with a no evidence that I had.
I'm saying, that in wanting a change from the current situation, your side has the burden of proof.
Amply demonstrated viz., contract law, natural rights, and the 14th amendment.
Your side wants a change. Your side has to prove there is a right, to be able to overturn numerous state propositions, as in California.
Asked and answered; see 14th amendment.
Your side has to prove that your definition of marriage is more valid than the other sides[sic].
Define valid and the other side's definition and we'll talk. Otherwise, you can make a goalpost argument without me knowing the goalposts. However, I will note that you can replace "gay" with "interracial" and you get the same arguments used by the segregationists and other bigots in the 1950s and before for banning interracial marriage.
I disagree. Gays want something different.
They have the same right. They are not excluded from heterosexual marriage for being homosexual.
A statement of opinion as fact does no equate to it being a fact.
Indeed it doesn't. You say it's different; I tell you how it's not and you keep repeating the claim; it's a fallacy I like to call argumentum ad repetitum (argument by repetition). Merely repeating a statement makes it neither more nor less true than before. You need to state how it is different. Moreover, I've defined marriage as being between two people who wish to commit to physical and emotional fidelity with one another, regardless of race or gender.
You seem to think it's acceptable for people to live a lie.
They already have the currently granted right. They want something else.
In declaring your definition more valid than the current majority definition, you have the burden of proof.
Wrong. They are being denied their natural right of freedom of association.
According to you, which kind of "different marriage" is the same, and which is different?
Where does the line go?
This makes no sense with respect to what I wrote. Try again.
Same sex marriage, heterosexual marriage, and getting a car are all positive rights, the state does not just have to tolerate them, but give you something.
Where is the difference?
Well the difference is that no one right now received a car from the state for free "just because." To compare the restriction of a natural right for one group to receipt of a commercial good is ridiculous beyond comprehension and indicative that you are inexperienced at argumentation or mendacious.
I don't have the burden of proof. I don't want my personal minority definition of marriage to be regulated by the state. Your side does.
Yes you do apparently (i.e., heterosexuals only).
To clarify, because you asked: Person A gets right A from the state. There is no reason for the state to deny person B or person C a right to equal privilege. Person B demands right B. Person C demands right C. All as equal privilege to right A. They have to back their demands up.
You really don't know how to construct an argument do you. Let's clarify some variables.
Right A = marriage to loved one
RIght B = new car from state
Right C = right to smack idiots upside the head
Person A = heterosexuals
Person B = gays
PA currently has RA. Under the Constitution, PB must also receive RA. However, neither PA nor PB has RB nor RC. Moreover, there are legal and financial barriers to RB and RC that prevent implementation. Neither of the barriers truly apply to RA.
My spelling has nothing to do with my arguments. - Your fallacy.
Quit with the-semi insults.
Spelling would be a minor concern if it wasn't a pervasive problem throughout the post. However, your arguments are poorly constructed and worded; a much more major issue.