Dustin, I still think you're being inconsistent. You state simple principles for opposing gay marriage. Being that government involvement with marriage is bad, and there's absolutely no reason to support it. Fine. And yet public roads are also bad, and yet you refuse to apply the same principles. Instead, you're suddenly taking into account factors you reject in the gay marriage topic. You say it'd do more harm then good, when before you were saying it's bad, and nothing good can come of it. You flip and flop here. The only difference between the two seems to be that one inequality already exists, while the other is hypothetical.
Flase false and false. I am not being inconsistent. I maintain that I disapprove of both. I maintain that I would oppose the governmental expansion of both. I maintain that I would support the removal of government from both, in a reasonable and correct fashion (not in the fashion you describe). I don't know what is so confusing here for you. When I say it would do more harm than good, I mean it is a very irrational way of trying to reduce the government. You have somehow come up with the conclusion that I support the public road system because I do not support a stupid hypothetical policy to reduce it. If you were to give me a stupid hypothetical policy to reduce taxes, or end marriage, I would oppose that too. I mean, making only people between the ages of 34 and 35 allowed to drive on roads or to get married would have the same effect, but would be stupid irrational policy of retraction.
I am a little surprised I have to explain the value of equality before the law to someone who claims to have an understanding of politics. Take your example of the free college tuition. I have no idea what you're talking about, but let's pretend there are laws that give some people a right to free education.
You say expanding the program would bankrupt "us", by which I assume you mean the US. Haven't you figured out that this isn't an attack on equality before the law, but an argument for it? You're acting like a Democrat who thinks that increasing taxes won't affect the economy, so the government will get a linear increase in tax "revenue". You assume a static system, ignoring the causes for change. In this case, some stupid program, if forced to be universal, would bankrupt the nation (according to you). And yet you sit there pretending that we would keep that program despite the bankrupting effect. Doesn't it occur to you that may, if the costs were so high, that they might just cancel it?
Well, let us look at it this way. We have a welfare system that gives "freebies" to some people and not to others. They may be poor or homeless or retarded, but class discrimination is no better than any other form of discrimination. On your level, you would have to support the expansion to all people, as a form of EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW. You are correct that this would never happen in our political system because it would be impossible to implement as the costs are too great. Nonetheless, you would have to support it in order to avoid being a hypocrite. You attempt to run around it by saying that if it were implemnted it would just have to be scratched altogether, but refuse to say that you would support its implementation as a form of equalizing bad law, which is what your entire argument is based on. Whether or not the results of your support are possible, your fundamental principles would have to remain the same. But, let's then start a little smaller. Some people get free government milk, cheese, and diapers. Most people do not. It is class discrimination to prevent some from getting this and others not. Would you support equality under the law in giving everyone milk, cheese, and diapers? Or are you just going to run around this and say "well, if everyone had to have free milk, cheese, and diapers it would be too expensive and the government would just scrap it altogether." That is not an answer, because the government would merely just revert back to giving it to those people who presently get it, thus making it inequality before the law again. Personally, I would oppose it as bad law, and oppose its expansion, even under the name of "class discrimination," while supporting its reduction to elimination in rational means.
I've already explained this when you talked about killing Jews. If the laws were universal and applied to everyone, don't you think that maybe there'd be more resistance to them?
I understand your point quite well. But first you would have to initially support such "equality under bad law" before you could get to that point. At the time when jews are being slaughtered, you would have to either say "I support the expansion of this bad law under the name of equality" or "I do not support the expansion of this bad law even though it is currently not being equally applied." Can't you just tell me one or the other? It has to be one or the other, why no straight answers? The applicability and probability of passage makes no difference on your philosophical support. After all, your position is to support the equal implementation of bad law. It does not matter what the consequences may or may not be (because most likely your opinion will not enable this expansion.) You are merely skirting around the issue so you do not have to answer it and show your inconsistency.