The title of this thread is giving me a headache

(June 30, 2015 at 11:53 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: No steralization means taking away someone's physical ability to have kids. Promoting contraception, introducing higher taxes for people with more kids and even China's One Child Policy (although yes, there are other problems with this) aren't "sterilization", it's encouraging people not to overpopulate the world.

Out of curiosity what is the result of sterilization? Could we say the policy of encouragement above lead to a similar effect as sterilization (though admittedly not the same means)? If so may we say the encouragement so stated is "effectively" the same as sterilization without actually being sterilization?

(June 30, 2015 at 11:53 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: Something has to be done to curb our population growth without killing or steralizing people. It's not ecologically sustainable to have this many people.

Correction. it is not ecologically sustainable to have this many people consume as people in the United States and Europe do. So our options are to change our consumption (fuck that!) or to decrease the amount of people who will consume as we will (by encouraged effective sterilization). So be it. But the nature of life is it is a numbers game!! Always have been and always will be.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:53 am)Yeauxleaux Wrote: China's One Child Policy has a lot of issues that need to be worked on, such as female infanticide, it's far from a perfect system and there are good arguments to call it overly austere. But what you can say for China is that at least it has recognised the problem and has made some attempt at addressing it.

Wait! What is wrong with female infanticide? The women have the right to choose the children they want and decreasing the amount of females in the world will be far more effective at decreasing the overpopulation of the planet than decreasing the amount of men.

Also as expressed to me by my Chinese co-worker. People do not understand the chinese one child policy. What it means is one child has everything paid for by the government while any others are at the parents expense. Unlike in the united states where every child is at the parents expense, including the first child.

(June 30, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Yes it requires two parties to make babies.  However the sexual orientation of the two parties does not matter.  The notion that it is wrong to have homosexuals marry because they can't have children is false.

I had this debate with a gay man a few years ago. So I will say you are correct the orientation of the parties does not matter. So long as their activities are those of heterosexuals As said earlier you may hope they will do what they are not inclined to do. Or encourage those already inclined to do more of what they were already predisposed to do. I wonder which method would be more effective? hmm...?

(June 30, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: So are you now saying:
Homosexuality is wrong because they are worse human beings because they don't want to procreate by having sex.  This is wrong because if 99% of the world were to die off, all the medical facilities, and all the power in the world were destroyed, if we had too many homosexuals that were unwilling to have sex with someone else to keep the population going, then we might go extinct.

From a social and biological argument you could say this. As the social value of even an utterly useless person in nearly any other regard at least lies in their potential to create offspring of value. The biological value of organism lies in their ability to procreate (it is the reason why we are male and female, as well as why the great majority of organisms on this planet live just long enough to procreate).

From a moral standpoint the argument would be more in accordance with the teleological purpose of the act. While it may readily be argued that any number of activities may be done for purposes not in accordance with their teleological purpose (sex for pleasure, perversion, torture, authoritative dominance, etcetera) we would say be better suited to argue that an act may be determined in terms of its teleological end (meaning if the end itself is bad the act is bad) and then arguing if the means by which the end is accomplished is of a moral quality. Generally we may state if an act fails to satisfy the former than the latter does not matter. If it satisfies the former than any particular actor may be said to act immorally if they fail at the latter.

Anima, got never answered me. What does same sex marriage hurt anybody?

(June 30, 2015 at 4:16 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Anima Wrote: (I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)

And I'm still telling you it's diminished capacity to consent: Children as a class do not have the same ability as adults to determine what is in their best interest, and the state has a compelling interest in making sure children aren't exploited, sexually, monetarily or otherwise.

More importantly: even if you are absolutely 100% convinced that this isn't a proper distinction, it doesn't matter, because every Judge in the United States will say it is.

Or, hell, they'll find some other justification for it.  I'm sure that a proper search in the process of writing an opinion would reveal all sorts of justifications. My point is that your insistence on this as an "issue" simply demonstrates that you're living in text-book, law school land, not the real world.  Judges aren't going to look at Obergefell, say "wait, this allows child marriage!," and start overturning Obergefell.  What they will do is say "obviously, child marriages aren't legal," and then use Obergefell and the rest of US law to tell you exactly why.  Whether you agree with their reasons is matter of opinion and interpretation.

TL;DR: legal realism

Ha ha!! You are going to argue legal realism based on the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges?! Did you read the ruling?? It really has no basis in the law. The majority completely ignored the law as it has always been understood going back to English common law (which is where US law runs when it does not have an answer). They ignored two centuries of legal precedence deferring domestic issues to the states. Ignored Washington v. Glucksberg in determination of a substantive fundamental right. Ignored the intentions of the ratification of the amendment in contradiction to two centuries of constitutional interpretation. Under some BS argument to dignity, which nearly every group with a law against it may now argue.

You may be right in that judges will rule that way in contradiction to the very ruling of Obergefell v Hodges. But do not insult it by calling that realism or even in calling it justice. Ruling in such a manner would mean there is no consideration for the rule of law, but rather the judges are ruling according to what they solely think it should or should not be. Even the Chief Justice John Roberts states such when he said the court in ruling as they did has just re-entered a time similar to Lochner V New York. I know many on this site think it is a slippery slope that will not happen. To this I would say go to law school, read all the cases, and marvel at the slippery slope that always happens. Hell marvel at the slippery slope of Lawrence V Texas that lead to United States V. Windsor and to Obergefell V. Hodges all under the argument of Dignity!

Iroscato

I agree with you fully and dislike the method I am using to replay. I have requested help before on how to format correctly but, have receive no answer to my request. So until I can figure this out we are stuck with my shitty method.

I am all ears who ever wishes to aid me on this issue.

As Stated By Chief Justice John Roberts:

"In the decades after Lochner, the Court struck down nearly 200 laws as violations of individual liberty, often over strong dissents contending that “[t]he criterion of constitutionality is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good.”...By empowering judges to elevate their own policy judgments to the status of constitutionally protected liberty,” the Lochner line of cases left “no alternative to regarding the court as a . . . legislative chamber.” "

Eventually, the Court recognized its error and vowed not to repeat it. “The doctrine that . . . due process authorizes
courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely,” we later explained, “has long since been discarded. We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.” Thus, it has become an accepted rule that the Court will not hold laws unconstitutional simply because we find them “unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”

Hmmmm

(June 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: They can't make kids, therefore their relationships are worth less. Fuck them and their desire to live a normal life. Making kids is too fucking important and it is somehow detrimental to the couples who do make kids if the couples who don't make kids have a legally recognized relationship.

From a societal stand point there relationships are indeed worth less due to the lack of the ability to provide future citizenry.

It my understanding the same sex plaintiffs in Obergefell V. Hodges claim denying them the benefits of marriage cause them material harm. As such it may be said marriage confers upon that couple a material gain which deprives other couples or non-married persons of that which they subsequently gain. Allocating resources to promote and support the procreation of children to those who do not have or do not support children results in as cognizable harm and loss of resources to those couples. Providing to couples a material gain from the general public results in a cognizable burden and harm of the general public, however, such burden and harm should be endured by the public when said coupling shall or may confer upon the public a social benefit, which would not be facilitated without their coupling. Aka offspring.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: no. I'm saying is like to know what your problem with same sex couples is. How do their  marriages affect anyone else and why should you care? What's the harm?

As you may or may not realize our survival isn't based solely on making kids. The basis of our continued existence is cooperation.

The survival of a single generation is not based solely on making kids or necessarily cooperation, though cooperation does not generally hurt. The survival of our species (which is taken to last many generations) is quintessentially dependent upon us having kids, cooperation not withstanding.

The survival of our species is dependent on us having fewer kids, so that the Earth doesn't become catastrophically overpopulated by the end of this century.