You say slavery was part of the natural order. No, it wasn't.
The point is that people claimed that slavery was part of the natural order - just like people continue to claim that heterosexuality is part of the natural order. The "natural order" might not change, but our ideas about it do change.
Do you think an 'inalienable right' is supposed to change?
The men who wrote about "inalienable rights" owned slaves and denied women the vote. So, yes, "inalienable rights" do change.
We recognize the same natural law looking backwards as that which we have in the present.
I put "inalienable rights" in quotes for a reason. "Inalienable rights" means what were perceived as inalienable rights at the time. :)
Our ability to understand how things 'should be' is an ongoing process.
Which is precisely why concepts such as "inalienable rights" do change.
What should be is the natural order.
Maybe so. And when we are fully appraised as to what should be, we will understand the natural order. Until that time, we are left with our changing ideas of what "should be" and "natural order".
So, to aim in the general direction of the topic: What "should be", with regard to discrimination against homosexuals? What is the "natural order" with respect to homosexuals? What "inalienable rights" do homosexuals have?
Having a right to marriage is a bit more tricky, only because that right is denied to other folks based on the same reasoning.
But the reasoning isn't really the same, is it?
Relatives can't marry mostly for biological reasons. Since homosexuals can't have children (together), the biological resoning is moot. If anything, homosexuals should be allowed incestuous marriages too. :)
As for plural marriages, there's no "natural" reason to eliminate them. Many societies have gotten along just fine for centuries with them.
Bottom line: there doesn't seem to be any "reason" for discriminating against homosexuals except plain, old, ugly discrimination.
In that case, why can't people have civil unions as brother and sister? Benefits, the whole nine?
Why not scrap the whole "civil union" and base benefits on what the beneficiaries want?
If somebody lives with his father, why can't his father be a part of his dental plan? If somebody lives with his brother, why can't he get time off to take care of him when he's sick? (For that matter, why do they even have to live together?)
Why not divorce the whole concept of "benefits" from marriage?
Then "traditionalists" wouldn't have to boo-hoo about not being allowed to discriminate.
Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Well then be consistent. Homosexuals are not the only minority . You do understand that do you not?
I am consistent. I say let any consenting adult members of any minority marry.
Are you willing to provide that same courtiousy to those who wish to court their pets?
Pets are not a "minority".
What about theiving politicians?
Yes, thieving politicians should be allowed to marry the person of their choice, thieving or non-thieving.
I really can't believe how utterly selfish all of you are....
How does not forcing my views on others constitute selfishness?
You might as well say, I could give a damn about logic and reason. I want it my way and I intend to have it. I could care less what anyone else thinks!
When it comes to human rights, I don't give a damn about your brand of "logic and reason". Once we have decided that it is "reasonable" to treat all human beings as equals, the rest of your "logic and reason" go out the window.
I despise you and your end will be what you deserve. You've gone down to the pit.
Somewhere along the way the gays decided to claim their "civil rights" and demand equal access to straight culture.
Gay people have always wanted equal access to their rights. If you knew a few gay people who didn't want to marry, that doesn't mean they didn't want equal rights.
... I'm not a bigot because I support cilvil unions for gays.
That's like saying, "I'm not a bigot because I support concentration camps for Jews." It's separating out gay people for "civil unions" that makes it unequal. And it's supporting unequal treatment that makes one a bigot.