It's a tad more than just that, Junobet--actually read the decision--it discusses many things that my tax dollars go to fund. Also, the social engeneering aspect is normalizing behaviors that are deviant to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" referenced in the DoI from which the inalienable rights idea is presented. Natural Law can easily show that same sex coupling is contrary to the Laws of Nature--particularly the Aristotelian perspective (which is the most respected perspective concerning Natural Law Theory). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ Actually, that is the only reasonable thing to do now that SCOTUS has f-ed up by giving a decision based on emotion rather than logic. It leaves us with you wrong because I have not ascribed any emotional stuff to you at all except perhaps a lack of humor. Consider, perhaps, avoiding making unfounded assumptions. In reasonable discussions, one should not have to defend against the other's fallacious unfounded assumptions. It's a waste of time. Look specifically at section III and all the "longing," "urgen[cy]" and "cherish[ing]" and self "affimi[ing]" and personal "pride."
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to self defense, the right to associate, the right to free speech, the right to property which can be considered your labor and your right to choose what you labor at. The right to migrate. There are more but all of these exist without government and should exist with it. They can be taken from you by government but that is considered oppression and tyranny.
Clearly you're not in a position to render a judgment on its meaning, seeing you evince no comprehension of it, only an instinctive aversion which impels you to distort it to try to save face.
Equal protection of the laws is a right. Why is this posted in the religion section? What does it have to do with religion?
Ironically Aristotle had no problems with the active part in homosexuality (as opposed to the passive part which he saw as unworthy for a free man and as reserved for slaves, probably because it was associated with the female part which the ancient Greeks saw as inferior), but never mind. I hate to be the one who breaks the news to you, but God isn’t much of an issue in a secular states jurisdiction these days. And even if He was, we’d still argue about what exactly is the natural law that He gave us. I for instance would see it as ‘self-evident’ that while God created all humans equal, i.e. endowed with equal rights, he did not create all humans the same. For example He created me a Caucasian looking heterosexual woman, whereas He created a good friend of mine an Asian looking homosexual woman. I have no reason to believe that my sexual orientation is any more "natural" than hers, nor do I have reason to believe that biological nature is what constitutes “natural laws”. Au contraire: I fear such a distorted view of “natural laws” could easily lead us to the social-Darwinist ideas that have dominated my country during the Nazi-regime with its breeding facilities for tall blonde ‘Arians’ and concentration camps for homosexual ‘deviants’. IMHO that can’t have been the will of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, who - as your article points out – according to the Bible and Aquinas gave us the master rule of “universal love, that one should love one's neighbor as oneself.” And now we as Christians with opposing views on Same-Sex-marriage can continue to argue about how to best love our homosexual brothers and sisters ... . Well, suit yourself. But this somehow reminds me of a kid throwing away its lollipop only because a kid it doesn’t like got one, too. A very very emotional and illogical reaction on your side, if you ask me. Seeing that you spent the last few posts with accusing me of being emotional I find this comment incredibly funny. Sorry, but I shall continue to make as many assumptions as I like, just as I – I assume contrary to you - shall continue to be open to the possibility that my assumptions are wrong. So far they obviously weren’t. Erm, in these bits section III merely describes how the State of New York came to accept same-sex marriage. It’s a matter of fact description with no evaluation. Windsor and Spyer did indeed long to marry, that’s why they traveled to Ontario. And quite obviously certain people including you “cherish” the belief that “marriage between a man and a woman” is “essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization”, while others including me see “the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight.” You may not like that “New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and (that) then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. (And that) New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. “ But here you go: these states did decide that. Fact. Just as it is a fact that other states did not decide to do that, which is also pointed out. So with all due respect for your opinion concerning Same-Sex-marriage: take a chill pill. You are getting utterly ridiculous if you spot a “fallacious emotional argument “ here.
I don't remember posting it in this section so maybe the mods moved it. - - - Updated - - - As much as the sun is a construct of man. There are some absolute truths in existence and one of the reason unalienable rights are also called absolute rights.
Ridiculous. Logic and Philosophy are tools/ideas developed by humans, and humans applying those tools is the origin of the concept of "unalienable rights". If your going to make absurd statements like the above in lieu of making an argument to support your position, then there really is no point trying to discuss the issue with you. Because you say so? Then I hold it to be an absolute truth that some people are so limited by their perception of reality that they cannot entertain any idea that challenges that perception. Seems like there's a good reason this thread ended up in the Religion forum.
It's less and less relevant to try and discuss anything with you due to your "techniques" aforementioned--you go off topic and don't discuss the issue and actual statements. Good day.
THis is also the Philosophy section which this question should fall under. Some times I think people forget about that.
Seems like you don't discuss anything, only disparage. Not my problem. - - - Updated - - - Can't handle the truth eh? Evidently the truth "is" a personal attack on you.
In other words: Youve realized that your own techniques of distraction have failed and youve run out of arguments for why your and Juliann Robertsons (81) and Kenneth Hickeys (91) marriage should be eligible for the federal governments acceptance and protection (funded by Edith Windsors and Thea Spyers tax dollars by the way) while Edith Windsors and Thea Spyers marriage should not be. Not that you had any arguments to begin with other than that you happen to disapprove of their sexual orientation. But never mind. Our discussion in this forum has never been relevant. The relevant discussions are taking place elsewhere, most recently in the Supreme Court.
Marriage is an euphemism today for temporarily living together, tho. No Fault Divorce is part of the contractual agreement between parties. This is NOT church marriage since Divorce is forbidden. Christians need STOP fighting Gay Marriage, and start fighting Divorce as part of their own Rites. They need sign Marriage pre-nuptial agreements which assure such horrible settlements should no evidence of adultery be submitted that the party suing just can not afford to lose everything. Otherwise, no marriage should be recognized by the church/church members and the people should be treated as if living in sin.
