[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
No, mine is a workable example, because in both the government is rewarding an action that is an intrinsic part of something, but those who wish to keep the benefit to themselves act as though the government is simply rewarding an action.[/quote]
But you fail to explain what the rational basis is for rewarding Muslims for their behavior. You will struggle with this, and the reason is we, as a society, elevate matters of conscience above other kinds of issues.
We don’t believe that there is a rational basis for punishing someone for their religion, it is different from other classifications you try and compare it to - and that is why we enshrined it in our First Amendment to the exclusion of other classifications.
Hogwash, because marriage serves a purpose beyond legally honoring a choice of companion. If that were the primary thrust of marriage, there would be an equal treatment argument. The benefits attached to marriage are for a specific kind of behavior we want to incentivize and control as a society - none of which arise naturally in a homosexual relationship.
So, there is, in fact, an equal right for a gay man to marry a woman, because that is the primary relationship - one that produces children - being addressed by having the public institution of marriage.
You keep whistling past the public purpose of marriage - presumably because it hurts your argument.
You also continue to make the same mistake Forlife did over and over - you fail to understand the distinction between negative and positive rights. In your religion example, the right being infringed upon is the right to not be punished for being a Christian, and the solution would be to protect that right - a negative right - by tearing down the benefits afforded Muslims.
If you submit that the Christian deserves “equal rights” to that of Muslims in your scenario, then you must protect the negative right and strip away interference with worship, getting rid of all benefits to religions (as they would all be equal), so no one gets government benefits. Or, in the alternative, you would try and elevate all religions to receive the benefits Muslims get, so Wiccans, Rastafarians, Buddhists, Pagans, in addition to Christians - all get whatever benefits the Muslims are entitled to.
And thanks for making my argument for me - under your scenario, we either get rid of all benefits for all “equal” relationships (religions) to produce equal treatment, or we extend the benefits to all “equal” relationships (religions) to produce equal treatment - and now you have done away with whatever privilege you were setting aside with government benefits in the first place, my argument from threads ago.
Congratulations - you just demonstrated how your “equality” argument can dissemble marriage into a nullity. Well done.
Homosexual relationships aren’t equal to heterosexual unions. That isn’t a naked insult - it is fact of nature and society. Society has much higher stake in preserving heterosexual unions for what should be obvious reasons: the ordering of child raising. Heterosexual unions simply matter more than all others because of their role and responsibilities.