"Marriage is a public act... and the original topic of discussion you initiated... "
No, it is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ACT.
"Your ad hominem is an informal fallacy in logic, among others you have attempted. I also do not attempt to rationalize with such inductive arguments as you have (appeals to false authority, among others). "
That you can say that with a straight face only shows what a hypocrite you are. You have repeatedly used ad hominy attacks against me ("your religious fetish for an idolatry of perversion with human anatomy, Thou protesteth too much)
As to appeals to false authority, that would be you. I appealed to reason and the Constitution, you to some unidentified higher power who tells us what to do. Or to the will of the mob. When I called you a mindless sheep, I was just telling the truth. You really can't find one rational, non-mystical reason for any of the axioms that make up your moral code.
"The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power"
The 1st amendment says that we have the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. You have repeatedly asserted that marriage is a religious rite, yet you want the government to regulate it. You have also claimed that this religious rite is somehow *public*, which is absurd. Like any other religious rite it is a private matter. You keep confusing what is private and what is public.
Since marriage in and of itself does not harm anybody else (your disgust with it is not sufficient claim to harm), it is outside the bounds of civil authority according to the Constitution. The fact that the Court has ruled otherwise in no way changes the fact that laws regulating marriage are an unconstitutional infringement on religious expression. The Court is not infallible. It has recently ruled to uphold campaign finance laws too, which are another obvious 1st amendment infringement. Your false claim to the authority of the Court doesn't change the text of the Constitution. Dred Scott used to be used as case law precedent too. Unlike you, I do not yield blindly to the authority of the Supreme Court.
"It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of deductive argument and the use of logic, something you have made overt demonstrations to avoid."
Would that be like how you avoid almost every question I have given you?
"Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together"
I already crushed this one. It matters not if you insist on rewriting the definitions of what monogamous is, or what sex is. Your definitions are not the accepted definitions, they are just your creation. Saying A=B does not change the fact that A=A. Sex is not just intercourse.
" Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. "
I also showed this to be false to, but of course you never answered any of my points. The Constitution does not *grant* us our rights. Our rights do not have to all be enumerated in it. The Constitution in affect says what privileges the government has, and says that if a government power is not enumerated, it is not legitimate. Licenses for practicing law and medicine are only meant to protect existing lawyers and doctors from competition, it's a big racket. They have no constitutional merit. Private certification would work just as well or better, and would get the government out of the legal and medical business.
"Who is he that is not of woman borne? "
Here we return to your other big obsession (your main one is your obsession with the sex acts of others. I take your choice of a FR name as an example of your fetish with acts you find depraved and perverted). I don't care who is not of woman borne. It doesn't have anything to do with the constitutionality of the regulation of religion and marriage. Which is why you add it, to change the subject.
Again I say, we don't need a Christian taliban in the USA.
Again I say, we don't need a Christian taliban in the USA....Pssst... I'm an atheist... ad hominems are the art of the smear, typical Marxist, as you are...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
No, it is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ACT.
We don't need a religious Taliban in the U.S.A. inserting the esoteric pantheon of fantasies that establishing a religion, as with the idea of homosexual monogamy incorporated into law, is in any way a secular, biological attribute of human existence.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
You really can't find one rational, non-mystical reason for any of the axioms that make up your moral code.
I have no "morals." Again, morals and all of the associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Any atheist saying someone is immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner...
I just gave you your non-mystical logic on that...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Why as a matter of secular law, should homosexual monogamy be sanctified and exalted by government for reception of tax dollars, Social Security, tax deductions, etc.? It is an establishment of religion in the law (violating the 1st Amendment) since it is not a reproductive biological component of the human species.
Thou protesteth too much... (more Shakespeare)
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
Surely, the angel that thou must serve would have told thee... that thou was't borne of woman...
Sex Education, Biology 101:
Lesson #1... Human Beings are mammals
Lesson #2... Male + female = baby
Lesson #3... Female gives live birth to baby
Lesson #4... Baby is either male or female
Lesson #5... Baby becomes adult, finds a mate of opposite sex
Lesson #6... It all starts over with Lesson #2
I'll de-mystify it for you in more basic terms...