I re-iterated my previous point. So: what, if anything, is your quibble?

Why do you strawman like you fell out o' the Wizard of Oz? "Don't bother, it was rhetorical..."

Slightly different point than I was pursuing.
It's one thing to quote scripture among those, Roman Catholic or otherwise (I'm of the Baptist variety) who hold it authoritative.
It's quite another to quote it among those for whom the Bible is just so many words.

Do you mean like they did in 2012?

But do remember part of exegesis is the 5Ws of the text. Especially "to whom". Because if you expect that somebody who rejects the authority of the word is going to heed anything you care to cite, well, that's just a teeny bit daft.

Sure, on the face of it. There is an inside/outside Beltway point one could bring in, but I'll leave that to you.

Read as: you got nothin'. So, thanks for nothin'. May it comfort you in your dotage.

Sure. Of course, the whole left/right dichotomy is bollocks.

Exactly the same? Exactly the same? They have exactly the same opportunity to do exactly the same things that any heterosexual couple does.
I understand that you're exercising "the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption".
I understand that, mathematically, you're saying 2+2=5, for small values of 5, and if I don't toe your line, => I <= am some kind of socially reprehensible bigot, and I'm supposed to feel all bad and stuff about being Politically Incorrect, and any evil things that happen to me are my fault for refusing to buy your ersatz gospel.
My only ask of you is for the development underlying 2+2=5. On my way to the gallows for defending the truth, I should like to peruse your proof for form not following function.
No H8, just idle curiosity.

Well, this is certainly not a social conservative website, and thus comes off as more libertarian to me.

I guess if you think #OccupyResoluteDesk is conservative, then you probably think Bernie Sanders is right of center. I'm curious if you could offer an example of a "sane" web site.

I'm asking for a philosophical proof that you're more than a simple accuser. Stand and deliver, or not.

Untrue. You cannot name a specific context, people, or right which I have sought to deny anyone at any time.
But don't let facts interrupt your bullying effort, which is pretty much how I view this soapbox of yours.

So, you don't offer any basis for your bigotry accusation, and you laugh at the idea of revisiting the tax code, even while demonstrating an area of glaring inconsistency.
I can only assume you're a guardian of the status quo.

I can't hang out on Townhall.com unless it has fountains of reliability such as yourself on tap.

I'm asking you to show me the development behind your opinion that there is some equivalence here. You're offering nothing but an accusation. Rather telling: you may not actually have an argument here.
Rather, you may be pointing out that the government is over-extended, and attempting to force an equality, in the service of papering over some other lousy policy. And I mean the tax code.
Standing by for more accusations as a substitute for a cogent argument.