I ask again my question:

Marriage is under contract law and today it is now considered a fundamental right. Under the ideas of a fundamental mental right it cannot be denied or taken away. However, if it is under contract law and considered a contract (which many court rulings have :AKA Judge Judy ) that can be dissolved, then is divorce to become illegal? What of  annulments?

Because a contract can be dissolved then how is it now considered a fundamental right if one can later on denied, (not want to stay in) and undo, (take way) the marriage contract?

It is also integrating that it is under contract law because it is the states, not the federal government, that can decide who enter into the contract, what it says, and if legal. Right now all same sex couple still must go to the county clerk’s off or some state office and ask for a state licenses. So are the states still in charge of the contract and do they have the same authority over them?

---

(July 2, 2015 at 10:45 am)Justtristo Wrote: .

The legal recognition of same sex marriages is in my opinion no "purely symbolic" issue. Because it goes a long way to convince the “rubes” (the religious fundamentalists are another matter) that homophobia is not acceptable. Reverend Lovejoy said something about the mindset of these people in the Simpsons “Once something has been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral”.

Spoken like a true religious Protestant/Evangelical: Salvation through law ;-)

---

(July 2, 2015 at 10:45 am)Justtristo Wrote: Given the fact that many young people commit suicide or are killed because of their sexual orientation. I see marriage equality as a moral imperative, because this will help to prevent countless people from either killing themselves or being killed by others.

I have heard of this sad problem occurring and do agree that it does. However, if its life that we are truly looking to fight for and save; marriage has nothing to do with suicide prevention . Many people sadly commit suicide for any number of reason of either because of a very difficult life,  terrible events as well as  get into a down slop (or become depress) for reason that may never identified

According to the American mental health organizations, the true culprit of suicide is depression it is self that occurs in the individuals to the point of self-harm. An estimated 80 to 70 % percent of suicide could have very easily be prevented. Why many suicides occur is because of either refusing to seek medical help, possible stigmata of such a sickness or lack of knowledge, to the slow time it takes for the medication or treatment to become effective.

Yes, there is no doubt many in the gay community and non-gay community have hurt badly both mentally and physically. However, it is from such hurt that depression starts to manifest heavily in the individual thus leading to a possible sad end.

The need to prevent suicide comes from the continuation by the medical profession to study this illness and discovering faster/better treatment to combat the sickness of depression.

(July 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Anima Wrote: I have not postulated a moral argument for why homosexuality is wrong.  I have postulated a biological/sociological argument for why it is detrimental (at worst) and superfluous (at best).   The general argument you have presented is to say over-consumption by an increasing population will lead to extinction of the species.  To which I have responded over-consumption will be curtailed by capitalistic forces which will subsequently curtail population growth by means of increased rates of infertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality.  

I made no mention of the impacts of various wars which are likely to spring up in competition for resources which may serve to further curtail the population by millions in very short bursts or any other social policies which may be adopted by nations to curtail population growth such as one child policies, selective abortions of females, or even illegality of procreation without a license.  Thus I have stated over-consumption itself will be curtailed by capitalistic forces and population will be curtailed by natural and social forces.  


You do not understand how capitalistic forces work.  Over time consumption per capita increases.

I am not sure what war has to do with this.
One more time for the people in the back!!
P1.  Biological extinction is bad
P2.  Non-procreative orientations are naturally disposed to biological extinction.
C1.  Non-procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.

To which you endeavor to argue:

P1.  Biological extinction is bad
P2.  Procreative orientations are naturally disposed to biological extinction.
C2.  Procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.

1.  First we may say your second premise is invalid.  Procreative orientations are not natural disposed to biological extinction.  In order to make assertion procreation leads to extinction you were required to incorporation beyond the  procreative (which is the biological argument) to include consumption of resources (this is why I said your argument is one to consumption.  Procreation is not the problem, over-consumption is the problem).  Without an appeal to over-consumption by additional population there is little if any support for your second premise; which is not the case for my second premise.  We all recognize homo does not make more homo and thus a world of solely them not being compelled to act in opposition to their inclination in anyway (no turkey baster to serve as hetero by proxy or biting the bullet), which could be construed as emotionally harmful and depriving them of the dignity and nobility of homo, would ultimately result in their biological extinction within a single generation.

2.  Second, considerations of our conclusions it to be made.  By my conclusion non-procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.  This is to say any non-procreative orientations not naturally disposed to biological extinction are not bad.   However, the very fact the orientation is non-procreative means it naturally has a greater disposition to biological extinction (due to lack of procreation engender in the orientation itself) than one which is procreative.  Your conclusion states procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.  Once again holding any procreative orientations not naturally disposed to biological extinction are not bad.  In this case we may readily say procreative orientations have a natural disposition to avoid biological extinction (due to the procreative nature engender in the orientation itself).  So it may be said our conclusions both exclude the same thing; orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction (which is to say all non-procreative and some procreative.)

3.  Now you may argue I have built a straw man of your argument (as you did of mine) and say (as you did) my argument is that it only takes an example of certain kind of individual in society (along with extending factors beyond that individual) which would lead to extinction thereby holding the thesis and anti-thesis as bad.  To this I hope bullets 1 and 2 have given clarification in regards to what the orientation engenders rather than to any non-orientation argument such as consumption.  (By which one may readily make the argument when the zombie apocalypse happens survival of the uninfected will be in low population areas.  Therefore anything which leads to higher population in a given area; procreation, secure housing, economic security, jobs, is bad.  Ignoring such is a problem of zombie infection rather than population density.)

I have a better understanding of what your actual point is now.  But this is becoming circular.  When you talk about being naturally disposed to extinction, the counter is "We have IVF treatment"  This is why we got into this stupid game of insane scenarios.  Also if you felt as though I were strawmanning your argument, you needed to tell me that when I asked you to affirm your position.

(1) More specifically, you don't get to ignore the effects of procreation when you are talking about if procreation is good or bad.  The effects of procreation are exactly what we use to determine if it is good or bad.  Consumption is one of those effects.  You suggest that your premise does not have any additional claims.  It however does.  It makes the claim that IVF treatment would be unavailable.  This requires additional assumptions beyond that naturalistic ones you are attempting to make your argument about.  The premise I gave you is still valid, regardless of if you like it.
(2)  Most of the mistakes here are because of your earlier mistakes in (1).
(3)  Most of the mistakes here are because of your earlier mistakes.





You mistake my previous last sentence.  I expressly stated it does not take all kinds.  It only takes the right kind.  I do not mean this to say it takes a right balance of kinds (right, wrong, and negligible).  I mean this in the same vein as a redundancy argument, to say that which is right is needed, that which is wrong is not, and that which is negligible is effectively not.

Once again I have not provided a moral framework.  I have provided a biological (which supports a sociological) framework.

Ha ha.  Moot.  Would you believe I had never even heard that word until I was about 22 years old.  I digress.  Moot it is not.  So would that render the moot statement moot?  Can moot be a double negative?

If I mistook your previous statement, it was because I thought it made sense.  Your position now does not make sense given the conclusion presented.  I also don't care what kind of framework you call it.  You have made a normative framework, regarding what we ought to do that is incoherent.  

I'm just going to throw this one out there.

Even if some huge catastrophe happens and we have an urgent need to repopulate as quickly as possible, why is it important that any surviving gay couples are not married? How does that help with repopulating?

It doesn't. All these arguments are not about marriage, they are about trying to demonstrate homosexuals are somehow inferior and less important. By allowing them to marry we are letting them rise to our level. What is really being suggested here is generally oppressing and ostracising them, with stopping them getting married being just one of the objects you can throw at them. How even that helps with potential under population scenarios is unclear. Let's face it, it has nothing to do with it. Gay men and women can have babies just as well as anyone else. And since "gay" is not hereditary, there is no risk of the population becoming "over gay".

(July 3, 2015 at 2:40 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm just going to throw this one out there.

Even if some huge catastrophe happens and we have an urgent need to repopulate as quickly as possible, why is it important that any surviving gay couples are not married? How does that help with repopulating?

It doesn't. All these arguments are not about marriage, they are about trying to demonstrate homosexuals are somehow inferior and less important. By allowing them to marry we are letting them rise to our level. What is really being suggested here is generally oppressing and ostracising them, with stopping them getting married being just one of the objects you can throw at them. How even that helps with potential under population scenarios is unclear. Let's face it, it has nothing to do with it. Gay men and women can have babies just as well as anyone else. And since "gay" is not hereditary, there is no risk of the population becoming "over gay".

It is ridiculous anyway, as the idea that we need more people to reproduce is very far removed from the world as we know it.  I say, gay couples are better for us than heterosexual couples, because they are less likely to accidentally reproduce, and we already have way too many people.  If anything, we should encourage homosexual behavior.  It won't get people like me to change, but the idea that homosexuality is a problem because it does not produce children is just idiotic.  That is a virtue in our world, not a vice.

Now that the activist scotus has decided, let's open the door to marriage equality for all. Why redefine marriage for one group and not redefine it for bigamists and polygamists? Is that next? This is also going to open up assaults against the freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, no church or any other religious institution, or no person who opposes gay marriage on moral or religious grounds should be forced to recognize it.

You are right A Theist, no one is forcing religious people to recognize same-sex union/marriages - The only legal obligation is tolerance - You can't stop people from marrying whoever they want - This is not an infringement on religious freedom - That would be forcing churches to marry gay couples, but that isn't going to happen as churches are independent from the government's control. I'm all for freedom, so if you don't want to bake cakes to gay weddings be my guest, just know that it can hurt your business and you are morally responsible for the economic consequences of refusing to serve a gay couple.

(July 4, 2015 at 7:07 am)Dystopia Wrote: You are right A Theist, no one is forcing religious people to recognize same-sex union/marriages - The only legal obligation is tolerance - You can't stop people from marrying whoever they want - This is not an infringement on religious freedom - That would be forcing churches to marry gay couples, but that isn't going to happen as churches are independent from the government's control. I'm all for freedom, so if you don't want to bake cakes to gay weddings be my guest, just know that it can hurt your business and you are morally responsible for the economic consequences of refusing to serve a gay couple.

Quote:so if you don't want to bake cakes to gay weddings be my guest, just know that it can hurt your business and you are morally responsible for the economic consequences of refusing to serve a gay couple.

Glad you raised that point. That's another issue of concern. Bullying and harassment of business owners who disagree with gay marriage. In response, shouldn't it also be equally fair for those who oppose gay marriage to organize and return the favor to businesses who support it?

How do you propose that happening?

(July 4, 2015 at 7:22 am)Dystopia Wrote: How do you propose that happening?

The same way the left does. They're far more organized than Conservatives and their propaganda machine is definitely effective. Unlike the cowardice that's displayed by Republican office holders, the radical left isn't afraid to wrestle in the mud and sling dirt. They've had years of experience slinging dirt and at bullying and intimidating those they disagree with. The left also makes good use of electronic networking, through twitter and facebook, i.e. Circulate online petitions the same way the left does. Recently when Trump made controversial comments against a particular group of illegals the left was all over it through online petitions and intimidating businesses and tv networks who did business with him. The right should retaliate in the same way, respond with organized boycotts of businesses like Macy's for caving in to leftwing intimidation. Electronic networking is probably the best and fastest way to start an organization process. Also, being vocal and public is another way to get media attention. The media loves controversy. Take advantage of speaking at city council meetings and other public forums. Those are some ideas.

(July 4, 2015 at 7:20 am)A Theist Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 7:07 am)Dystopia Wrote: You are right A Theist, no one is forcing religious people to recognize same-sex union/marriages - The only legal obligation is tolerance - You can't stop people from marrying whoever they want - This is not an infringement on religious freedom - That would be forcing churches to marry gay couples, but that isn't going to happen as churches are independent from the government's control. I'm all for freedom, so if you don't want to bake cakes to gay weddings be my guest, just know that it can hurt your business and you are morally responsible for the economic consequences of refusing to serve a gay couple.

Quote:so if you don't want to bake cakes to gay weddings be my guest, just know that it can hurt your business and you are morally responsible for the economic consequences of refusing to serve a gay couple.

Glad you raised that point. That's another issue of concern. Bullying and harassment of business owners who disagree with gay marriage. In response, shouldn't it also be equally fair for those who oppose gay marriage to organize and return the favor to businesses who support it?

It is against state and federal laws for any business considered a "public accommodation" to discriminate, that is to prevent majority groups from buying up all public accommodations in an area and squeezing out minority groups. If you want to start a business and enjoy the benefits of the infrastructure then you must abide the laws. If a business owner wants to make a statement against gay marriage then they will have to deal with the court of public opinion which could negatively affect their bottom line and in the same way people are free to support that business. I have absolutely no problem with people protesting a business who serves the public, when that business owner is publicly supporting any form of discrimination.

In regards to the church being forced to perform gay marriages, it's not, this a line regularly used as a scare tactic to make it seem like religious freedom is under attack. Churches are not required to perform gay weddings nor are they required to hire gay clergy, they are protected under the 1st amendment they way they have always been.