I am not asking how democracy works, nor did I suggest that the minority be allowed to rule the majority. All I asked is whether you consider majority rule, as it applies to spending other people's money, to be fair. If the answer is "yes", as it seems to be, then we have reached an impasse.
Yes, it is fair. We all have a say. If you don't like the government spending your money to support one lifestyle over another, and if you don't like the government telling you how to live your life, you are welcome to start or join a political group around those ideals.
You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.
There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.
In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.
I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Whether it is a federal or state matter has no bearing on your original question as to why same-sex marriage should be legal, nor does it in any way detract from my question as to why the majority should be allowed to dictate how minorities live their lives and spend their money. As I understand it, all of the states of the USA are democracies themselves, so the level at which that mechanism operates is hardly pertinent.
It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.
If the right to marry whomever you please was truly an inalienable right, it should be in there. But such laws granting true equality to all fetishes and desires are unworkable. Such a broad right would allow incest, child marriages, bestiality, and society must set its limits somewhere.
No, that isn't the matter at hand. The question you asked was:
Why should gay marriage be legal?
My answer to which is:
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
And your answer was rebuffed with examples of where the government does have business regulating our personal lives.
Certain things are seen as detrimental to society. Drugs, for example, at first glance may only seem detrimental to the individual, and one is tempted to say that it is their own business for anyone who wants to live as a druggie. But as a whole the problem of drugs fosters violence, addiction, job loss, family issues, and is all around bad for society. Are you to argue that the government should not attempt to control drugs in society?
But even on the topic of gay marriage, the topic is moot. The States have already tolerated gay unions for many years. They called it Civil Unions. It allowed gays to celebrate their love and get a piece of paper in recognition. Under a Civil Union their love is celebrated and acts as an officious document which unites two people.
Civil Unions did not come with the financial benefits of a heterosexual marriage, but that was the best the State could offer. No one was preventing gays from being together. Gay love was recognized. But then gays started demanding the full title of marriage, will all of the rights and privileges thereof.
So yes, the homosexuals are absolutely demanding money for being homosexuals, and are not merely seeking a recognition of their love. It is purely a power play. Since we were already giving homosexuals recognition, celebrating their love, and all of those happy things, the question is why do you believe that the government is trying to "regulate lifestyles" on this subject?
We then danced around in circles for a while, with you dismissing every answer I provided and then asking the question again with some slight variation on the wording. Now we have the question you just claimed to be the one posed all along, which is asking about a case most people would not attempt to defend.
Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere along the line, let me remind you that I agreed with your point that providing marriage benefits to same-sex couples is unfair, but only to the extent that it is also unfair for mixed-sex couples. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is even more unfair than spending other people's money, so for as long as that unfair policy exists, it should be applied to same-sex couples as well.
Your argument that none of it is fair and no one should get any benefits is simply outside of the scope of discussion. That is not the reality. The reality is that the state already recognized gay unions, but now the gays want money for it.
Your answer that all government benefits should be abolished, and democracy as a whole is unfair, is like answering the question of how the US should respond to an attack on the Naval base Perl Harbor with an argument for how we should all live in peace and harmony and why we should abolish our military completely. That is an argument outside of scope, outside of reality, and does not provide suitable resolution to the matter at hand.