I'm not playing sophistry. Everything I post is exactly what I intend to post. What I ask is exactly what I intend to ask. If you'll respond to what I write without trying to get out in front of the discussion or to read between lines—if you'll answer the question I ask instead of a question...
The Declaration of Independence is the first law in the US Code. The US Code is where the laws of the United States of America are codified. You can read the US Code here: https://uscode.house.gov/
The right to same-sex marriage is not an agreed-upon standard; the right to pursue happiness is. Again, we need to keep focus on the standard, not on any subdivision of the standard.
In application, taking Mr. Johnson as an example, if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with...
I offer no such explanation because, appealing to the standard, government has no authority to deny him the right to marry Mr. Chasten, assuming Mr. Chasten also consents to the union.
Absent any lawful judgment that might disqualify them as candidates for adoptive parenthood (equally as it...
That is not correct. This is the the relevant agreed-upon moral standard: "…all men are created equal... [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [among which] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Found in the US Code...
Humans do agree on moral standards across ideological boundaries. There would be no societies at all if this weren't the case. A society's demise comes when it starts subdividing or abusing the agreed-upon standard, creating favored and disfavored factions.
Whether or not homosexuality is a...
I would offer that each one of us should expect to be judged, hated, etc., because we're interacting with imperfect people. If we expect negative feedback, it will be less likely that we'll be crippled by it. And it always comes.
There are always right and wrong ideas (not sides) to support with one's vote, but discerning which idea is right and which idea is wrong requires a clear and agreed upon moral standard against which to measure the ideas. A significant contributor (perhaps the greatest contributor?) to...
If I understand correctly what you're saying, the conversation might look like this between employee and employer: "Employer, I do the same work as X but he/she gets paid more than I do. I want equal pay." Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?
Interesting thoughts and causalities there. I found the link between government and suffering sadly amusing. Surely the link isn't a foregone conclusion, but we sure do struggle to establish government without it ending up just being a suffering dispensary, don't we?
So you're not saying that suffering is necessarily inevitable at a given moment, but that we may, individually, reach a point at which it is wholly evitable for us?