Hym "So, Vivek, you can be quoted saying that you believe religious institutions shouldn't be forced to marry same sex couples or participate in behaviors they don't agree with... Does that mean you are willing to (either) remove the
governmental and medical benefits afforded to married couples or create a same sex
alternative to marriage? If the answer to either of these questions is 'No' then isn't that a blatant form of
discrimination that needs to be ameliorated? Because that has tangible effects on the lives of U.S. voters. Their inability appease the extra-judicial authority of the church directly affects their ability to (for example) see their loved ones in the hospital or cuts their potential tax deductions in half- Ope! There it is! It's Vivek's turn to affirm your thing! You were doing so good, Jordan! You were doing so good I thought you finally managed to release the jutsu but there it is... But the problem is you have to assume your propositional ethic ad hoc or what you're saying isn't true. Does
the meaning of my life stem from a hierarchical ordering of society; the pinnacle of which is God. No. It doesn't. You're entire ethos is predicated on an a priori presupposition that you CAN'T be WRONG. Your entire thing falls apart if I reject the premise or can demonstrate that the premise is flawed. Which I have. Repeatedly."
