Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

I await an argument in opposition to #1.  It has been demonstrated they represent an increased burden and they inflict a metaphysical and physical harm.  So what is your argument they do not?

As I stated earlier I have yet to hear a single argument in their favor.  If you know one please share it.

Are you often in the habit of ranking human lives and deciding their worthiness for human rights based on that? Do you extend the same standards to other "burden" classes like the homeless and disabled, or does this ruthless utilitarianism of yours only extend to groups your religion already has a history of special pleading against?

1. Are we not all in this very same business? We recognize that those of close familial relation are of greater importance/value to us than strangers. But why? Procreation is an antiquated argument that does not matter (or so I hear). The strangers are not hurting us where as our immediate family often does. But we readily establish the stranger as lower in value of person to us than our immediate family based on our own emotional attachment; our familiarity with family vs strangers? As I said earlier my sister is a lesbian; I have a close personal relationship with her, but I will not determine my views on law, biology, society, and teleology based on my sentiment of my sister.

2. Now in regards to your particular question the answer is yes. I have many family members who suffer from physical (blind cousin, cousin with cerebral palsy) and mental disabilities (cousin with dyslexia, cousin with downs, cousin with epilepsy). I even have close persons to me who have acquired mental disorders due to traumatic events (cousin and fiancee with post-traumatic stress disorder), as well as family members who have become homeless addicts.

With that said I would not equate them (any more than I would a homo person) to persons who do not have these various disorders or deficiencies; such would readily be a false equivalency which does not recognize the apparent superiority and inferiority of the conditions. Furthermore I would most certainly not construct the law or social policy to promote or propagate these disabilities, disorders, or habits particularly if they are genetic defects which impede biological or sociological teleology.

Now I imagine the crux of your question is what I would do for those who are present. As I said earlier I am not saying round them up and execute them on the spot. However, I recognize they are an unnecessary burden upon society which any given society must deal with. Some societies may choose to deal with it by means of execution (it is a reasonable solution); other societies may ostracize them (you know like we do with our elderly in old folks homes or our disabled in special care facilities); still other societies may endeavor to cure them (through medical or psychological treatment); a few societies endeavor to integrate them (to some degree. None do so fully in recognition of their inherent inability or inferiority).

No matter what manner of treatment they receive from the given society two things may be said. First they would be seriously mistaken in commanding a specific treatment from society unless they may give argument for why they deserve such treatment (which I have yet to hear) as execution of them is a viable social solution (unless they are essential to society). As a friend of mine once told me, "We are here! We are queer! Deal with it!" To which I responded, "It does not get to decide how I deal with it. So I am going to kill it. I have dealt with it." Second, the manner in which society (or I personally) deal with them unless compelled by argument is subject to social whim at any given time. In which case we may say a la the Princess Bride, "Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

My personal method of dealing with them would be a combination of ostracism, partial integration, and treatment/curing. Those who can be reasonably cured should be cured. Those who cannot be cured must be further evaluated as socially functioning or non-functioning. If they are socially functioning (meaning they may function in the society as already defined) than I would integrate them to the degree their disability allows. If they are non-functioning (meaning they require substantial changes to society as defined or cannot function in any society) then they are to be ostracized in various manners in accordance with their disability (special care, asylum, prison, island of Elba, even execution)

3. With all of that said may I take it your lack of argument in their favor is that there is no argument in their favor? Is the support for their position only logical fallacies of False Equivalency, Argumentum ad Novitatem (Appeal to Novelty by not being on the wrong side of history), or Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity for them)? I confess, try as I might, I have not been able to come up with a better argument on their behalf. I hope we may find one otherwise as inequality will become known, what is new will change, and pity runs out...

Furthermore, it may be readily argued that one who condemns the view points of others based on their own views which are predicated entirely upon logical fallacies are in truth the bigots. The shit kicker may not know much, but he knows false equivalency when he sees it; and he is not a bigot for seeing it and letting others know he sees it.