User blog comment:1dra7/Republican or Democrat?/@comment-1441098-20121016220344/@comment-1874924-20121018014439

That's not correct, Reddy. The reverse of a true statement isn't necessarily true itself, otherwise saying that you see everything you eat would also imply that you eat everything you see. In any case, although the rights of minorities are important, the majority has rights and prerogatives too. Allowing a minority to radically alter basic social institutions for its own benefit isn't "equality", it's minority rule. Also, you have to keep in mind that the separation of church and state (a phrase that doesn't actually appear anywhere in the Constitution) wasn't put in place to protect the state from the church; it's to protect the church from the state.

Your appeal to equality contains an assumption that invalidates your entire argument. The alleged equivalence of same-sex "marriage" to male-female marriage is in fact the central question of the whole debate. Because it's a point at issue, it must be proved and not merely assumed--and as the faction wishing to change the status quo, the advocates of same-sex "marriage" bear the burden of proof. Assuming away a point that must be proved is a logical fallacy called "begging the question" and automatically invalidates every point that is based on that assumption. The only way to avoid that tainting is to not make the assumption in the first place.