Interesting argument, but you can see the unstated assumptions and "a priori" throughout it ... if you really wish to take a look at it honestly.<quoted text>
And what has this has to do with what I previously stated? I posted that the gay marriage had nothing to do with equal rights. It had to do with getting rid of a marriage restriction.
Segregation has to do with equal rights. A black man who cannot marry a white woman also has to do with equal rights because it has nothing to do with getting rid of a restriction. Since the dawn of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. History has also shown that people of different races have married. However, nowhere in history has marriage between people of the same sex ever taken place because that had ALWAYS been a restriction of marriage.
The gay activists is really trying to get rid of a restriction. It never had anything to do with equal rights because they already have the right to marry. They simply want to get rid of a restriction to marriage....a restriction that has been placed there since the dawn of mankind.
Analyse your own argument. What are your unstated assumptions? What hidden arguments are you expecting your reader to accept as assumed or a matter of course?
You want to be "scientific"? BE scientific. Re-examine your assumptions.