Originally Posted by YelloJeep
This, is because it has been presented as normal by the media and political correctness. It is treated to be at the same level as race and religion. It simply is not. These are not "civil rights" issues.
I imagine this is a fundamental disagreement.
What compelling interest does the public have in regulating the interactions between consenting adults? On any issue other than sexuality, the conservative answer is "None". The public has no interest in the private affairs of individuals. Is there any difference when we start talking about sexual relations? Why?
We tolerate certain public displays of affection. We tolerate hugging and handholding and certain kissing. We tolerate the spouse of a returning soldier running across the airport terminal, jumping on her husband or boyfriend, and engaging in a deep, passionate kiss. We do this, even though our more puritanical brethren find such conduct wildly offensive.
As far as marriage and civil rights, "This is the way we've always done it" does not imply that this way is actually fair or justified under our constitution. It just means it's the way it's always been done. Today, in several states, heterosexual couples receive numerous privileges that are not afforded to single people, non-married couples, and homosexual spouses. Why? Why does this specific class of people deserve this set of privileges, to the exclusion of all others?
We have a fundamental, inalienable, individual right to pursue happiness. For the public to interfere with that right, they need a clear, compelling reason that is justified within the powers granted by the constitution, and not prohibited by the restrictions ("Bill of Rights") of that constitution.
What interest does the public have in granting certain privileges to married heterosexual individuals that it does not offer to others? To make things fair, we could remove all the privileges in question, or we could extend them in a manner justified by the powers of the constitution and not restricted by that same constitution.
On another note, here's three photos:
Let's remember that the last four people in these photos are in committed relationships, and all four have consented to the interactions depicted. What is it about these four people that is so offensive?
If you read the backstory on the first photo, you'll discover that the sailor was accosting a number of women while walking down this street. He'd grab and forcefully kiss ladies he didn't know and had never met. For me, the "most offensive" photo in this panel is actually the famous VJ-day photo, as it depicts what would - and should - be considered a minor assault today.