Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

First you are demanding discriminations remain in place or should be created for many other things. (If I might catechize you a bit) I believe at one point you said you are on disability and do not work. I am not on disability and do not work. Why are you discriminating against me? I have to earn the means by which I live according to my ability. Shouldn't you? If you are unable to secure the means by which you live by your own ability than natural law shall eliminate you. It is equal treatment. I suspect you will say it is inhumane to which I am willing to agree so long as you recognize that it is humane to discriminate. I trust you would not be so foolish as to say everyone should receive the same benefits or aid you do for your disability since one of two things will happen in such a scenario, either the limitation of resources will cause the benefits to decrease for each such that it has no beneficial result or the receipt of benefits by all shall result in no particular benefit to you equivalent to benefits to none.

They are far from unconnected. In fact one will be legally contingent upon the other.

I do not want you to anything other than understand those who disagree have reasonable reason for doing so. You may not be convinced by those reasons, but that is not to say they are unreasonable or that those who are convinced by those reasons are bigots for not being willing to accept the fallacies presented on the other side.

I think he just wants agreement from us.  Not that it would change the law in any way.  Regardless, he is not going to get the agreement he wants.

Ha ha. So you are saying that in a democracy the agreement of many will not change the law anyway? HA HA!!

Though I am not expecting agreement from anyone in particular. I empathize with you guys and your positions. I see how you got there and I see why you hold them. Though I cannot logically agree with them. I suppose what I want is for you to empathize with mine. Even if you do not agree.

I even donated money to the cause a couple of years back, so that should indicate the strength of my feelings on this topic.  Still, I was pleasantly surprised by the Supreme Court ruling.  But I do think that the ruling makes sense, for the same basic reasons that it made sense that bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional many years ago.

Ha ha. I like this. You put your money where your mouth is (though I would generally consider that a poor measure of your feelings of anything. I put a hell of a lot of money to the military through "voluntary" taxation and I am not a huge fan of war.)

<Sigh> The ruling does not make sense under the bans on interracial marriage being unconstitutional. Loving V. Virginia was about miscegenation laws and not about marriage per se. The law of Virginia prohibited interracial copulation regardless of marital status.

" local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them.
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code (they could have gotten married in the state as more than 250 couples did that same year), which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.""

I've read through the whole of this thread (and the others on this subject) and I've not been convinced of one tiny valid objection. Even the reasons we had posted from one of the high court judges in opposition read like a logical fallacy wish list.

We are in the same boat then. As I have yet to hear one valid argument in their favor which is not predicated upon fallacies. But as the one who seeks change (in accordance with Hitchen's razor) the onus of logical argument falls upon the one endeavoring to change not the one endeavor to not change.

These are all ways of tiptoeing around the fact that they hate gays and want them to be treated worse. At some points the tiptoeing stops, the facade is dropped and the agenda is revealed. Once this is apparent, it's clear their objections are nothing to do with gay marriage. It's to do with them wanting gays to be treated worse because they are worse, in their eyes.

I would not say worse. I would say fairly, which is not equally. Just as we give aid and benefits to the disabled, but no the rest of the people, we should give aid and benefits who engage in conduct which will perpetuate our society and not to those who do not.

"There is no greater form of inequality than to endeavor to treat two unequal things as if they were equal." - Aristotle