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."