Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

You don't have to agree with anything. But you can't say no to other people about things that don't concern you. It's not about beliefs, ideas, or views). You can think whatever you want about it. So long as you're not harassing anyone or trying to deny them rights that you have. You must feel pretty special to think anyone gives any fucks about your beliefs. We don't. No cares what you believe so long as you're not using your beliefs to restrict someone else's rights.

I do not think Ace is referring to religious "belief" in their quote.  I think he is referring to a sentiment of correctness in a given course of action where there is insufficient evidence to verify the sentiment is proper or the course is correct. Thus, one believes their sentiment and acts according to it; even though there is no or insufficient proof their sentiment is correct or the subsequent course of action followed because of the sentiment is correct.  For example the idea of equal rights.  

It is very easy to argue equality of rights is incorrect or why it should not be believed as an ideal.  Many great minds have done so including Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Locke, and Neitzche.  It is further observed in human history (and in US history in particular) that we do not consider all persons equally, much less as having equally rights.  You BELIEVE this to be a blemish upon society, but that belief is unfounded when you considered that discriminatory treatment is also why we are more lenient on the infantile and insane; we are more considerate of the protection of women and minorities; and we are inclined to the assistance of the elderly and disabled.  The issue is not discriminatory treatment or inequity of rights.  That is just the catch phrase or characterization being utilized.  

However, if you would like to stick with that I would like to know how it is not a fallacy of False Equivalency?  

Ha ha!!  You are right!!  You CAN think whatever you want about things, but when you decide to act based upon those thoughts the rest of us are affected (you know just like when religious nuts act upon their thoughts).  Thus we may readily say NO to certain conduct and YES to other conduct; especially when that conduct involves "innocence" such as an unwilling victim or children (I take it you are in staunch opposition to same sex adoption or surrogacy, which be definition involves an unwilling person who may be hurt by the conduct in question.)  As such it seems the the question, once again,  is how do we determine the rights given in general as well as in particular to persons or groups.  To which it may be said the more general natural rights may be determined according to adaptability and benefit of biological factors (Biological Teleology); while the more particular civil rights may be determined based on ethical utility (Social Teleology).  

So what are your arguments for their adaptability/biological benefit and ethical utility of same sex orientation and subsequent action?