It is my position that the Supreme Court of the United States of America cannot base its ruling on the repercussions it might have on someone's afterlife. Outside their jurisdiction, you see.
So yes, you need something in the mortal realm that I can actually assess.
Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.
Please answer the question.
Because the government doesn't have the authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman without indicating that doing so is "substantially related" to an "important state interest," else the measure in question is unconstitutional. The same would hold true for a business contract or a prenuptial agreement or a will.
I will, when you name a specific, tangible impact same-sex marriage has on your life. I asked first, you still haven't answered.
"I am unable to answer" is an acceptable response. At that point I will answer your question.
Advocates of traditional marriage use all sorts of awful words to describe homosexuals and those who support them. My concern is not for namecalling or who is bothered by it.
The courts are working to uphold the constitution.
I am unable to come up with an answer meeting your criteria (which does not mean that one doesn't exist, it may or may not). Although I challenge the need for those criteria, thus my question.
Where in the constitution does it address marriage?
Well for one, pushing for marriage. That is part of the agenda that contributes to the "lifestyle". I didn't know I had to explain that. It seems pretty self explanatory.
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.
Google is your friend.
It makes their being unfulfilled.
My "socially unacceptable" comment was not directed at ssm only. I think you missed the point of my post. The point is that there are arbitrary limits to what is acceptable as marriage. It is no more discriminatory to exclude gay marriage than it is to exclude polygamy, or any other arrangement that people could consent to. Therefore allowing SSM does NOTHING to remedy discrimination, it only moves the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
I'm not morbidly self-centered. As such I don't restrict my concern to matters which directly affect me.
Encouraging people in grave immorality is harmful to them, as such impedes their fulfillment of their telos.
Straight people buy houses, cars, go on vacation, raise families, go to PTA, take their kids to soccer and dance class, mow their lawns, take out the garbage, go to church, do community service, etc etc etc.
Can you please tell me how the 'gay lifestyle' differs?
Does it (the term marriage) belong to polygamists? Does it belong to straight males who want to marry one another for monetary benefit? Does it really belong to everyone for any reason?
Google is your friend.
It makes their being unfulfilled.
two words: Societal norms. You are making my point. Arbitrary lines for socially acceptable behavior exist everywhere including in law. The push for SSM is not a push to remedy discrimination, it is a push to change social norms. If it were about discrimination all non traditional ideas of marriage would be in play, not just ssm.
Why not? Why is it wrong to recognize the traditional role that the church plays in marriage? The vast majority of Americans believe marriage to be a church / God ordained activity.
Is it your position that only those statements of fact which can be empirically measured or tested, are true?
Yes people are objecting to a specific form of discrimination, and in so doing are calling into question the character of those who oppose their point of view. Using terms like "bigot" to impugn the character of advocates of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, others are undergoing discrimination without anyone giving it a second thought. Why? Because as you said all discrimination is not equal. How do we decide? Social norms. Therefore the traditionalist is no more bigoted than the social liberal that does not believe that polygamy should be allowed. The courts are not ruling on the discriminatory nature of excluding consenting parties from marrying. The courts are actively working to adjust social norms for the benefit of a certain class of individuals.
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.
More clear thinking. Wow.
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?