With you so far..So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.
That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.
I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.
That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment
I'm with ya again..To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.
So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B
You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.
I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa
But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it the polar opposite. You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected
The key in deciphering the argument is in paying close attention to the guiding parameters. I don't think I made any error in logic, or in the dichotomy. But, as a reasonable person you seem to be, and will relinquish the floor to give you a chance to rebut.
By the way, this argument really has no plce in this thread, and i wouldn't mind much if you wanted to move it and we can continue there.