I prefer not to use the word 'gay' to describe an activity that is clearly self destructive and intrinsically disordered.
I agree with you, but I think we've lost that battle. In objecting to the word "gay" i think we're probably flogging a dead horse.
Marriage between man and woman has been respected and given social preference and support from the beginning. THIS is self evidently true.
Well, it's certainly historically true. It's probably anthropologically true. But I don't see that it's self-evident. "All triangles have three sides" is self-evident. "All black cats are black" is self-evident.
To suggest that there is or that there must be a rational basis for everything is first and foremost to deny God...
No, it isn't.
...secondarily, it is to deny free will
No, it isn't.
Pretending that marriage between man and woman is not what society has freely chosen as something beneficial and given privilege to does not make such any less self evident. Nor does pretending the converse; e.g. homosexual couplings are beneficial to society; make such an absurd claim any less self evidently absurd.
As to denying God --I guess it depends upon what the meaning of is is? I would suggest that denying God as a premise for opinion in public discourse IS denying God.
The judge wrote, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and women for denial of a marriage license."
I now work on developing and refining an 'argument' that establishes a rational historical basis for marriage between a man and woman being valued by society. It is but a skeleton of an argument that will require fleshing out which I may do here on this thread -hopefully with input...
It is premised somewhat upon the natural law concept and as well upon the nature of the individual and mankind to pursue beneficial rather than destructive self interests -possessing the inherent unalienable right to self determination and pursuing such historically as evidenced in culture, custom, common law and written law.
It as well is premised upon the concept of the economic free market system -with a twist -call this twist the moral free market system...
Looking at the economic free market system it is a complex system that takes into account the inputs of any number of variables and opinions of participants and provides a real time self correcting output value for goods or services that is considered always right. Price and value determined by the economic free market really has no rational basis one can point to ever having been determined before the fact. What is the rational basis for automobiles with four wheels? What is the rational basis for choosing a meat diet versus a vegan diet? What is the rational basis for flat screen televisions? Further developing on this theme -why is more value given a SUV vehicle than an green electric powered vehicle? Why is more value given a nice steak than a bowl of rice?
Now look at the moral free market -why is marriage between man and woman valued? Is this value assigned to marriage due to some arbitrary, bigoted, and irrational reasoning? Is this a novel idea -experimentation? Historically is this not the case -that society has placed value in marriage between man and woman -this determined by the moral free market as something good by society -something assigned value -something protected, , something advanced, provided privilege, and something rewarded.
Now -who are these people that in essence suggest 'homosexual marriage' is of equivalent value to society -what is their rational basis? If 'homosexual marriage' was a value then where exactly is this evidenced historically? It would seem society has already dismissed the innovation as a failed construct.
What one could surmise is that the homosexual agenda advocates advance a product with no societal value and intend to force society to buy it.
Anyway, I am going to stop here with these initial thoughts -maybe pick up later...