Replies

"Yes it is. It involves the 501(C) tax-exempt corporate status of the church, public benefits, insurance rates, public health, etc., not to mention the other affects on the environment of children..."

The tax exempt status of every church needs to be overturned; it goes squarely against the idea of equal laws for everybody and the idea of the rule of law.

Insurance rates are between the insurance company and it's customers. And have nothing to do with gay marriage (certainly no more than any other private act you consider physically harmful like smoking or drugging).

Public health is not an issue; unless you plan on having sex with the gay couple too you won't be getting any disease they get.

"If a power is not specified in the Constitution, the government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to exercise that power.

The people do... and who are the people? We elect representatives, we vote..."

You really don't understand the idea of rights , do you? What you are saying is that the people can rise up and elect someone to change the private practice of two people; that IS government action. The people, in your example, ARE acting as the government through representatives and are therefore limited in what they can force others to do through the Constitution. Your Mob and the Government are in this case one and the same.

"Morality is the belief that some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.

This axiom is proof of itself. An atheist telling me I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi telling me I am a sinner. I do not bend my knee in acquiescence to the wisdom of men... "

The axiom is only true if you believe it. You believe that there are no rational reasons for your morality, but only the dictates of some higher being. How sad.

"If you don't like it, what gives you (or any mob, or any elected official representing said mob) the right to force them to stop such behavior?

The power to do so comes from the will to. The mechanism is the law, at the present, and the votes and power of enforcement is there to carry out the will of the people. "

In other words, might makes right and the Constitution be damned. The *will of the people* is the cry of the collectivist. There is no will of the people, only individual wills. The *people* have no right to force anybody to do anything when that person is not infringing their right to life, liberty, or property. The people could decide that Christianity needs to be banned; would the *will of the people* be rights then? You have no logical retort because you are already worshiping at the feet of the *people* and the mob.

"We are not talking about private behavior here. We are talking about public behavior - - which is marriage"

Marriage is a religious rite between people. There are few things in life we do that are more private and personal. If you want the mob dictating the terms of your religious rites, that's your problem.

"We have all the authority to exercise any power on this earth as a function of self-preservation and the peace of our lives. The power to shape the temporal reality in this world is physical force. If you want to make great harrowing public displays of depravity in front of my family, it is my right to protect the peace of their lives and doing so is a function of government, provided it is given by consent of the governed. "

The Taliban felt the same. A gay marriage is not a *harrowing public display* and it is not in front of your children unless you decide to go to the wedding. That you find it horrifying is not sufficient reason to ban someone from doing something. I am sure many people find you horrifying too, but the public can't make you go away just because they don't like you.

"Either we have government, or we don't. If we don't, then I just do as I please to enforce my will upon you and society"

You already championed your ability to do as you pleased above.

We either have a Constitution which limits the powers of government, or we don't. The more people who think like you, the more the Constitution and the idea of limited government will be lost.

"...the gay couple..."

How does monogamy deserve some exalted status as a matter of secular law? Especially, since homosexuals, by defintion, cannot reproduce? Being monogamous denotes a biological procreation.

Other than your religious fetish for an idolatry of perversion with human anatomy, what other informal fallacies and illogical rationale can you attempt (false cause non-causa, ad hominem to coque', etc., as you have indeed done here) to employ justification that we accept a pervert's lifestyle as some sanctified right?

You don't have a right to force others to accept your esoteric hobgoblins or pantheon of fantasies as some medium of infinitization.

I understand rights perfectly well... and they are not defined by you.

Thou protesteth too much...

Who is he that is not of woman borne?

Equal rules for everybody? Every adult has equal privilege to marry one adult of opposite gender.

Who is he that is not of woman borne?