To attempt to answer your question I have to understand what your question is:
"The issue with the pro-gay marriage crowd is that they came at this topic from an emotional point of view. Their first instance was to compare it to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Well, the civil rights movement was (mainly) a movement to enforce Federal legislation against bigotry. In fact, the civil rights movement came about as a result of the Civil War, which, again, was fought over states' rights versus federal rights. The federal rights that I'm talking about were written in the Constitution as a result of the internation declaration on the rights of man, one of which was that all men are created equal."
What is the description 'emotional' doing in here. It sounds like you are telling yourself a story by using that word and shaping and distorting the issue more to your liking. Also, there need be no reference to civil rights here. The rights of gays to marry is guaranteed by the Constitution. It's the realization and emotional fear of that that is motivating the other, bigoted, side with their interest in an amendment.
"Hence, the emotions that the pro-gay advocates are relying on are based on legal-enforcement precedents."
There is nothing emotional about an appeal to legal precedent. That is cold legal analysis.
"As for the anti-gay marriage crowd, though their definitions reeks of bias, they stand on firm legal and moral ground."
Your assertion of this does not make it so.
"First off, attraction to the same sex is not unnatural."
This is confusing because in the next sentence you contradict yourself.
"In fact, though it encompasses only 10%-15% of the natural world, it is very much natural.
See what I mean. It is either natural or it isn't.
"Hence, I would call same-sex attraction a natural aberration because of its minority status and its anti-pro-creationist way of life."
You can call it anything you like, but that doesn't make your words rational. It is either natural or it is not. We both seem to agree it is naturally 'natural' but not as common as heterosexual orientation. No need to say additionally anything else especially when it introduces your bigotry. There are people who are born infertile or become that way in life. Should we describe these as natural aberrations unworthy of married life? You are again confusing breeding with love. This happens to you because you are propelled to argue in a definable direction, by your bigotry. You need to find a way to introduce a negative value judgment on being gay. Natural aberration and anti-pro creationist is flowery and cute, but a value judgment full of bigotry. There is nothing wrong with people who can't or don't have children. They can and do still love.
"Furthermore, gay animals are accepted within their group. In fact, aside from our larger brains, it is our philosophical morals and dogmas that differentiates us other animals."
Some people like to point out that all of these vary by location and time and have no intrinsic validity or reality at all, merely the delusion of the day. Others would say that all of these things are designed to return us to some previous natural state, that these things aim for a natural law. In the former case homophobia would be subjective and unnatural in the case of the second. The fact that we have philosophy, morals, and law helps you not at all.
"It is our standings (laws, religion, etc...) that makes humans less inclined to accept what is wholly acceptable among other animals."
Really? I would think it was nurture and what you've been trained away from acceptance Far from thinking this is ennobling, many would call this the ultimate in being sick.
"What many fear is while homosexuals enjoy the same declaration on the rights of man, accepting this "natural aberration" would bring us closer to the animals, destroying our morals and dogmas."
Yes, bigotry always has fear at it's root. The fear of being an animal is the fear of being yourself. We were brutalized when we were real and we won't do that again, most of us.
"If gay marriages are allowed to pass as normalcy, what would stop inter-family marriages, pedophilic marriages, inter-species marriages, or even parent-child marriages, simply because of the stated love and affection between the two? Their argument is that this would cause the breakdown of (human) society and reduce us to nothing more than those that slither or walk on all fours."
Exactly, we would just be the disgusting animals we were told we were when we were small. God save us from that. Imagine if his only begotten Son was trying to bring us back to that. Oh, man, wow!
"Is the argument fair?"
Well here is where I'm not certain what you mean. Are you asking if you have described the debate in accurate and objective terms? If so, as I have expressed where I disagree. I would ask, "Is what argument fair?". Can you be more specific about your question?
"Well, the people will decide on the legality of gay marriages and whether or not it will open the doors to other things. Whether or not the Federal government or the states should"
It is the courts who should decide the issue and the people who will decide whether they want to institutionalize their bigotry. It will still be bigotry and unjust law even of it does become an amendment.
Facebook
Twitter