Ok, and? You disputed that it is discrimation; which is ludicrous. It is clearly discrimination, which needn't entail that it is wrong- but the fact that it is unjustifiable discrimination (as the offered justification is completely inadequate) does.
Note that I'm using "discrimination" in a technical sense, viz. something akin to "selective." I'm not sure what instance of discrimination you're claiming is "unjustifiable" either. As I mention in the blog post, disallowing a man to become a member of a women's debate club is, in a technical sense, discriminatory, yet this discrimination has a
rational basis, namely, that the club exists
for the purpose of accommodating to women, not men. Likewise, if marriage just exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then there is a
rational basis to disallow, say, two men or two women to "marry," namely, that marriage exists
for the purpose of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Obviously, the supporter of same-sex "marriage" must disagree with the antecedent of the relevant conditional to be consistent and so he must hold that marriage exists for
some other purpose, that most popularly being "to recognize loving commitments" or some such supposition. Yet that is enormously problematic for a number of reasons.
Well, you can't really claim your argument stands until you do so. And the fact that one only needs a sentence or two to point out how and why your argument is not sound is sort of instructive; your argument hinges upon some extremely dubious if not patently false claims, claims you have not substantiated (and we shouldn't be holding our breath here, either).
Again, your "objection" missed the point, but I'm not interested in discussing the syllogism with you. There is some more foundational discussion that must be grasped first before we can even go and assess that argument.
Also, you're giving yourself too much credit here; you aren't making very many arguments in your blog entry, and I've pointed out why your argument from your thread is unsound. For instance, this is not an argument:
"Yet the contemptible social movement for the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" that many a "tolerant" teenage ignoramus is eagerly ready to defend on his Facebook against "bigots" by adopting a mathematical symbol as a profile picture just is, for the most part, the by-product of the wholesale accepting of a thoroughgoing materialistic and naturalistic worldview and the rejecting of truths about the nature and applicability of morality, metaphysical truths of all sorts, and certainly the existence of God and the nature of the human individual."
This is all smoke and no fire, but it is unfortunately par for the course. The first few pages of your post drones on and on about how it could, in principle, be just or acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals- but never really gets around to arguing that it is just or acceptable, much less showing that.
Of course its not an argument; it isn't meant to be -- that's from the "Greetings" post which is merely there to serve as a sort of preview, not as an in-depth argument against ssm, atheism, naturalism, etc. I do being to develop a case against ssm in (surprisingly enough) the posts entitled "Building a Case . . ."
Also, if opposition to SSM stems from belief in "truths about the nature of morality", "metaphysical truths", "the existence of God", and the outdated and untenable worldview which naturalism has replaced- so much the worse for opposition to SSM.
I'm referring here to Aristotelian-Thomism, which I find myself committed to. And no, one needn't embrace Aristotelian-Thomism nor theism to be opposed to ssm. Abandoning Aristotelian-Thomism, however, has resulted in the rejecting of the obvious and patently true, I contend. But this is not entirely relevant on the matter at hand (though if you're interested feel free to ask).
And, at the end of the day, you're left without any credible answer to the knockdown argument for SSM I mentioned; its a win-win scenario in which many people stand to gain something (freedom, happiness, equality, tax/adoption/inheritance benefits, etc.), and nobody stands to lose anything (since moral indignation does not count as losing something).
The ssm marriage movement is in the end an effort to redefine marriage and change its public purpose. Separating procreation from marriage and sex even further will only lead to the increase of the sorts of awful social pathologies that have plagued the last 60 years or so of Western thought ever since (and, to be sure, before) the sexual revolution. Moreover, implementing ssm will, instead of
attaching children to their mothers and father,
institutionally detach children from their mothers and fathers. Changing marriage cannot fail to be of enormous consequences to the future of the social order. And ssm represents nothing but a slew of terrible consequences.
But please, do tell us why discriminating against homosexuals is a good idea (and perhaps you'd like to argue for apartheid and segregation as well?).
Besides my having written some 4 posts or so on the matter of apartheid, abortion, etc., you still haven't gotten the point.
Regarding "discriminating against homosexuals," you hold to an absurd view of marriage that furthers no public interest (namely, that it is merely a "loving commitment" between individuals and that its public purpose is just to recognize these "loving commitments"). Once again, if marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, then we are no more "discriminating" against homosexuals by disallowing them to "marry" someone of the same-sex than we would be "discriminating" against men by disallowing them to join a women's debate club, or disallowing blind individuals from obtaining drivers' licenses, etc., etc., etc.