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."
