Same-sex marriage

constitutional law is based on a philsophy, whatever that may be. you act as if it isn't... which is clearly a flaw on your part. you have your demarcations, i have mine, others have theirs. you act as if there's some objective way to demarcate these things... but the reality is that there isn't. i'm not even trying to claim "objective" based on "natural law" per se. i merely try to use the undevianced natural world as my demarcation as i see it being most objective... it's the best way to deduce something being more objective than something else. you have not yet given your demarcation, except a vague refernce to "natural order" as you said at the end. you need a little more substance to your definitions for me to be able to poke holes in them properly than just that. you did reference to man's activity earlier. apparently you think man made invovlement is unnatural... i see us as a part of nature. computers i argue are natural, they are part of nature, we are animals, we are nature. why is what you call natural natural, and what i call natural, not? the better demarcation is as i said... it's all "natural" even homosexuality and gay sex etc... but we're recognizing the undevianced norm, and our purposes therein can only be recognized when it's an undevianced norm. to say computers are unnatural would be like me saying the human involvement element in gays getting together makes it unnatural... it doesn't follow for me to say that, jsut like it oesn't follow for you to call computers unnatural. the key distinction in constitutional law, or what "ought" to be regardless of what is constiutoinal... is asking whether the stiuation is fulfulling the purposes we've set for society based on an undevianced norm. at the end of the day it is somewhat arbitarary, the demarcation. i say the undevianced norm is best, because inherent 'sacred' etc etc... fundamental values... norms are respected, and in most cases childbearing in a normative way etc is encouraged. there might be gay swans who sometimes, probably rarely mind you, care for the kids... or some animals. for humans it is a deviation from normative. and what if there are animals who hump inanimate objects? should we accomdate humans who do? it's not like the inanimate object really has any rights, unless you argued inherent right against it... but one could just as easily argue man's dominion over objects in one's vacinity. and how would you constitutionally or otherwise, say he couldn't? unless you would go for that too, then props for a semblence of conistency? based on what you've said . you haven't explained why a completely infertile incestuous man and woman coudl'nt get married, or incestuous males etc. i simply see it as a deviance natural order and so demarcate against it. for purposes of marraige... not civil unions. it seems you'd be willing to have multiple people get married. i see it as the against the norm of a male and female raising kids, as his historic in humanity, and the norm... as it is in the animal kingdom. i'd be okay with unions. you would be forced to include the incestuous nonproducing couples to have any semblance of being consistent. not that you haven't or wouldn't admitted it... i'm just pointing it out. marriage doesn't hinge on one's ability to reproduce and i haven't said so. males and females are inherently the only ones who could, though, make kids, and that is all that matters when making a paring that is recognized by the law.