Haha .. awesome.

Hello!

1. You first started out with three possibilities. These possibilities were under the assumption that whatever caused the inalienable rights to exist then that cause dictates who gets those rights.
              1.1 Something created our inalienable rights.
              1.2 The 'it' in 1.1 dictates the control of the inalienable rights.
2. There are three possibilities, three 'it's' that created our inalienable rights.
              2.1 The God of the Judeo-Christian faith is the first possibility
              2.2 Natural Selection (I.E. Genetics, "instincts") is the second possibility.
              2.3 Man (Human Mind) is the third possibility.

This is what you state.

Now we need a legal basis. The constitution is the obvious choice. I hope I don't have to spend my time debating why the constitution is the obvious choice.

Who wrote the constitution? Many people. Our founding fathers to be exact. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution

The constitution outlines our inalienable rights by way of The Bill of Rights.

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

As far as the U.S. constitution says about gay marriage, not much.  In fact, is has no virtually no writing on the subject at all.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

Legal view point summarized:

3.1 Man created the legal inalienable rights for the United States.
3.2 The Constitution will have not pass a law favoring a religion, or religious idea.
3.3 States decide what the constitution does not.
3.4 The constitution does not dictate anything about gay marriage.
  3.41 Because 3.3 the state decides laws on gay marriage.

Legal view point crossed with what you said:

  1.1 Something created our inalienable rights. - True
  1.2 The 'it' in 1.1 dictates the control of the inalienable rights. - True
   2.1 The God of the Judeo-Christian faith is the first possibility - Irrelevant because of 3.2 (Unless a state constitution has no such decree, like the constitution does.)
   2.2 Natural Selection (I.E. Genetics, "instincts") is the second possibility. - ...
   2.3 Man (Human Mind) is the third possibility. - Yes, our founding fathers by way of the constitution.

What we have now are the following:

4.1 Man created our inalienable rights. (Founding Fathers.)
4.2 The constitution dictates our inalienable rights.
4.3 The constitution will not bear a law that is in favor of a religious belief.
4.4 The constitution does not define civil unions in terms of sexuality.


1. God has nothing to do with this issue.
2. It is entirely up to the state to decide.

Please refrain from putting God in Law. They don't mix well. As far as I am concerned, marriage is an old ritual that is meaningless to anyone outside of the marriage.

Civil Unions on the other hand affect all of us.

How do you figure that the Constitution will not pass a law favoring a religious idea? How is that in the Constitution? If that's the case, we should let murderers go free, because "Thou shalt not murder" is a religious idea (oh, wait, we already DO let abortionists--I mean murderers--go free, but that's another topic).

*piranha or piraña - either are correct (=


if humans have free will, isn't it possible that they also have the ability to understand morality on their own without the help of God?

this question applies to indigenous tribes, anyone raised an atheist, or anyone that has no conception of Christianity (or other religions that claim their God is the sole source of morality).  these sorts do exist, yet their lack of religious awareness would indicate that they must be total heathens without any true concept of right or wrong. 
just because someone is Godless doesn't mean they are 100% amoral; it really bothers me when Christians imply that they are or that the Godless must derive their morality from religion without being willing to admit it.


just some thoughts (=

I've noticed that most of the smartest people I know are atheists (uni professors, friends that are grad and post-grad students), and there seems to be a correlation with atheism and some of the most intellectual, influential people in history.

I am definitely curious about the study you refer to. (=


however, in the interest of returning to the issue of gay marriage (and homosexuality in general), and putting aside the occasional mispronunciation and grammatical offence, I offer this video:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89XduVIVkFw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89XduVIVkFw</a>

this was created by a theist whom often defendss his beliefs on youtube. 
despite the bible not stating in clear, irrefutable terms that being homosexual is a sin (and despite the fact that equivalent language is difficult in this case), theists continue to insist that it is nonetheless God's word.
the bloke that made this video shares my viewpoint on homosexuality, despite our other differences of opinion; what do you think?

it shouldn't; it's about the denial and allowance of rights to some or all humans.
allowing gays a legally-recognised commitment should not take religion into consideration where the State is concerrned, because a person's choice to be committed to another and ability to receive the same rights other humans do is not a religious issue but that of HUMAN RIGHTS and equality.


also, i'll see if i can find the stats.

Religion stole "oughts" and "shouldn'ts.". Marriage is a primitive ritual that combines two people together in a religion. A civil union is a legal term that combines two, or multiple people (depending on the state or the country.) to special legal rights.

Religion didn't come up with "thought shalt not steal", that is a reputation moral that cavemen have been following for many, many years before modern religion ever came about.

Religion doesn't supply us with our morals, it steals morals and then tells them that we should follow them. If you are, or aren't religious, you are still going to follow the same basic morals.

And from a philosophical point of view, religion is NOT "a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their life doing"

It is ONLY "a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things". It is nothing but pure speculation about the world with no evidence at all, hence faith.

You are fooling yourself if you believe that religion actually supplies you with morals. Remember, marriage isn't a moral. Our ancestors, before religion, simply stayed with each other because they needed to take care of their kid/kids. We see it all the time in nature for some animals. A male and female want to reproduce, they do, and then they stick around because the kid can't take care of themselves.

In some animals, this isn't the case. In some animals, the kid can take care of itself after it is born.

A civil union simply binds people together to gain special legal rights. A civil union can technically be between 5 men, 7 women and 4 animals, depending on what religion is most dominate in the area. That is what we are fighting for. If you want to believe in your religion, fine, but don't force it into the lives of everyday man.