Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Longhorn]

Um. cool. But homosexual sex doesn't actually hurt anyone, as opposed to everything else you've listed.

[robvalue]

Apparently it does hurt us because of post-calamity extinction prevention contingency plans... Fuck me, I'm going to scoop my eyes out with a teaspoon, brb.

[Anima]

Would you exterminate all homosexuals Anima, if it were in your power to do so?

As I have already stated in a previous post. I would endeavor for all non-desirable conditions or traits to:
1. Correct, prevent, or eliminate if possible (by this I mean humanely possible)
2. If not possible I would integrate to the degree reasonable (by this I mean to provide aid to integrate into the society as is and not to change the society for a very small minority).
3. If integration is not possible than I would incarcerate, ostracize, and if necessary exterminate (if it is a threat which cannot be contained or left alone then it must be exterminated less.)

I would assume they may be dealt with in steps 1 or 2. But if it were necessary I would not preclude step 3. Though I loath to do so.

[robvalue]

Wow. OK...

We've hit the jackpot ladies and gentlemen.

[Jenny A]

Homos are born that way and cannot change.  So be it.  So are murders, pedophiles, necrophiles, abusers, psychos, sociopaths, and so on.  Just because they are born a specific way does not mean society or the state needs to be accepting of those actions.

You're making a rather odd comparison here, the behavior we punish murders, pedophiles, necrophiliacs (I'm thinking about the mourners here), abusers, psychos, and sociopaths for injures other people and it's that behavior that we punish.  The behavior of homosexuals does not (except perhaps your sense of propriety and taboo).

[Anima]

Homos are born that way and cannot change.  So be it.  So are murders, pedophiles, necrophiles, abusers, psychos, sociopaths, and so on.  Just because they are born a specific way does not mean society or the state needs to be accepting of those actions.

You're making a rather odd comparison here, the behavior we punish murders, pedophiles, necrophiliacs (I'm thinking about the mourners here), abusers, psychos, and sociopaths for injures other people and it's that behavior that we punish.  The behavior of homosexuals does not (except perhaps your sense of propriety and taboo).

In this regard you would be correct under they are not hurting anyone. But as I have argued throughout this thread the determination of harm is to be objective and not subjective. In this regard I presented the argument #1 in accordance with biology to show the orientation leads to action with a particular result that is harmful and a universal result which is also harmful. This is to say they result in an objective harm biologically speaking.

Now if one wishes to argue a subjective determination (which I would not advise) we have also provided this argument in terms of physical and metaphysical harm. Neither of these arguments have been refuted and are logically sound. The best response as of yet is the harm should be tolerated, without really giving a reason why.

Furthermore the argument to not hurting anyone is predicated on an argument to ignorance. I am sure we are all aware of anecdotal evidence of their harm to others. Even when they "come out" to their parents. Do we think those are tears of joy or anger of happiness? No. They are physical manifestation of a metaphysical harm. This is where special pleading comes in by which it is argued to deny them the right to express is a metaphysical harm that should be avoided while the metaphysical harm of their expression is just ignored or written off as bigots suffering because of their bigotry (an ad hominem attack). So we know their orientation results in a subjective harm and thus we are compelled to move to the objective determination in order to avoid special pleading.

[robvalue]

I wonder who would be next after all the homosexuals have been "dealt with" and the world somehow still has problems?

Old people. Let's kill some old people. Or young people. I don't know. Let's put a blindfold on and run down the street with some garden shears.

[Anima]

Wow. OK...

We've hit the jackpot ladies and gentlemen.

Indeed you have. But not for the reason you think.

I know you want to paint me as a monster. Others have done as much childishly by referring to me as Animal. Thankfully I am not as much of an animal as nature has no compassion for the disabled or the homo.

I on the other hand am willing to try to fix their ailment if it can be fixed or to integrate them into society to the degree their disability will allow. It is only when those two methods fail that I am willing to considered confinement and ostracism (you know what we do with mental disabled and criminally inclined now). Only after all of these measures have failed and they cannot be tolerated would I say to exterminate them or anyone else for that matter.

It is easy to say they should be embraced only and anyone who is not willing to do so is a bigot. It is easy because you are already assume certain people will be excluded from this ideology. You empathize with the one you want and fail to empathize with the one you do not. While I am considering the one I want, the one I do not, and the one I do not really care about either way. From that I endeavor to determine the general rule to be applied. You know... Like an irrational monster.

[Anima]

I wonder who would be next after all the homosexuals have been "dealt with" and the world somehow still has problems?

Old people. Let's kill some old people. Or young people. I don't know. Let's put a blindfold on and run down the street with some garden shears.

So you are saying they cannot be cured, integrated, or ostracized/contained?

I would think we may contain the elderly and young quite readily. As both are lacking in mobility.

Do not treat a last resort as a first.

[Iroscato]

Would you exterminate all homosexuals Anima, if it were in your power to do so?

As I have already stated in a previous post.  I would endeavor for all non-desirable conditions or traits to:
1.  Correct, prevent, or eliminate if possible (by this I mean humanely possible)
2.  If not possible I would integrate to the degree reasonable (by this I mean to provide aid to integrate into the society as is and not to change the society for a very small minority).
3.  If integration is not possible than I would incarcerate, ostracize, and if necessary exterminate (if it is a threat which cannot be contained or left alone then it must be exterminated less.)

I would assume they may be dealt with in steps 1 or 2.  But if it were necessary I would not preclude step 3.  Though I loath to do so.

I was wondering when the veil would finally drop.