Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Remember we are endeavoring to be logical here.  In which case there is not reason why we should be opposed to discrimination.  It is a nice platitude to say we should not discriminate, but as Neitzche states, "30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them."

I'm fine with the discrimination, but discrimination based upon sexuality given the over-consumption scenario is ridiculous. All other discrimination would have to deal with traits and characteristics that have nothing to do with sexuality. I seriously don't think you're going to be able to rescue this.

You may want to read some of the older posts.

I would agree that discrimination based on over-consumption is ridiculous. That was not my argument but rather the argument of Aristocatt. However, this argument was already made throughout this thread.