Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Crossless2.0]

Damn again,
Dude he has argued and presented an opposing view on the issue. Hell this thread is of that. Well mostly the end part. It might be faster to just read the old post them for him to retype the whole damn thing. But hey he might be up for it, who knows.

Right?!  I have already made these arguments.  So here are the links which I found.

1.  http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...pid1020898  (On Homosexuality being Genetic defect to be prohibited or avoided).

2.  http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...pid1020293 (On State interest in specific relationships)

3.  http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...pid1016275  (Summary of Biological argument, Physical Harm, and Meta-physical harm made for Jenny).

(1) is a non sequitur from beginning to end.  This thread is ostensibly about gay marriage, and there is nothing in your first link that begins to make a case that denying marriage equality would somehow allow us to prohibit or avoid the postulated genetic defect.

(2) Sure, the State has interests in promoting specific relationships.  It also, at least in certain countries with certain legal regimes, has an interest in promoting equality under the law.  You fail to argue that gay adults, who are free to enter into all sorts of other contractual relationships with their attendant rights and duties, ought not be allowed to enter into marriage contracts as well or that a state's interest in promoting certain relationships overrides its interest in promoting equality under the law.

Quoted from (3):  2. Meta-Physical Harm: In regards to the subject of meta-physical harm we may simply make reference back to ethical utility. In which case our goal is to minimize the meta-physical harm imposed as:

Total Meta-Physical Harm = (Quality of Harm)*(Quantity Harmed)

While it may constitute a meta-physical harm to not allow homosexuals to act according to their inclination (just as it must cause a meta-physical harm to not allow anyone inclined to a specific conduct to not act according to their inclination, which would include heterosexuals as well as murders, rapists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etcetera). It may be said to cause a metaphysical harm to not allow persons who find homosexuality repugnant (aka icky) to condone or engage with such persons (or would you be okay with the law compelling you to condone pedophilia and to associate with such persons?). Leading to the two following questions:

Question 2: Without special pleading, how are we to argue not allowing homosexuals to act according to their inclination is a metaphysical harm while denying the same to murders, rapist, pedos, necros, and so forth is not a metaphysical harm?

Question 3: Without special pleading, how are we to argue not allowing homosexuals to act and associate according to their inclination or desire (because they do not find it icky) is a metaphysical harm while denying the populace not so inclined to act and assocate according to their inclination and desire (to stay away from icky) is not a metaphysical harm? [end quote]

I can only wonder how anyone could type that with a straight face. Please demonstrate that homosexuals, acting according to their inclination, are relevantly similar to murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.  That is, demonstrate the harm they inflict (aside from the "metaphysical harm" bigots like you experience by having to share a planet with people you don't like).  And while you're at it, tally up the metaphysical harm caused by being treated as second-class citizens for years and years, e.g., having one's sexual orientation effectively criminalized through sodomy laws (was the SC wrong to overturn those?), risking loss of employment for being openly who one is, and by being barred from entering into the most personal of civil contracts (yeah, kind of a weird locution, but you get my drift).  Indeed, if you are serious in writing, "Meta-Physical Harm: In regards to the subject of meta-physical harm we may simply make reference back to ethical utility. In which case our goal is to minimize the meta-physical harm imposed" then by all means tell me how the alleged harm suffered by the bigots outweighs the real harm suffered by homosexuals during the many years they were driven to live double lives to avoid prosecution, being fired, and possibly beaten or killed.  And don't bother speaking on behalf of the hetero population.  You've seen the same polls everyone else has.  A significant percentage of heterosexuals, if not a majority, aren't troubled by marriage equality.

[Divinity]

Why the fuck are religious nuts concerned about gay people turning people gay? It's them that's trying to turn gay people straight. You know with all their fucking moronic Pray Away the Gay Camps. Guess they're afraid gay people will be just as fucking stupid and just as fucking bigoted as them.

You don't see gay people going door to door going "Do you have time to talk about Niel Patrick Harris?" No. They fucking don't. Religious people are the ones who go door to door saying "Do you have time to talk about Jesus?"

Besides why the fuck would they need to be able to get married to turn everyone gay? It'd be much easier to get gay marriage if they already turned people gay.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well as a native american I am a protected class which happens to have black hair.

Uh oh, too bad, you're different than me, so I guess I don;t have to automatically grant you equality.  Tough luck, back a tha bus.

Up until about 50 years ago my people were treated as property of the government of the united states and were not permitted to work or live outside of the reservation or military bases.  We have not been treated equally historically and are not treated equally to this day (reservations do not have to obey state laws, but are bound by federal laws.  Reservations are not permitted to engage in international trader or have international boarders.  Reservations are not permitted to establish exclusive trade deals among one another, to educated their own children, etcetera).  Also, unlike some groups we were actually slaughtered, infected, enslaved, imprisoned, and forced into effectual internment camps (reservations), and given enrollment numbers were the majority of us remain to this day.  So I am a little familiar with preferential and discriminatory treatment.

Not sure why any of that is a problem, after all....."states interests" etc, and you're a different thing than me anyway.  

Needless to say when I hear arguments of false equivalency I recognize them to be exactly that...FALSE!

Now in regards to your questions about false equivalency I am indeed fine with excluding groups based on particular qualities.  The infantile should not be treated as the senile; the virtuous should not be treated the same as the vicious; the disabled should not be treated as the abled.  To do endeavor to do so denigrates the superior and denies the inferior; when we should encourage the former and discourage the latter.

-and black haired native americans should not be treated like me, superior/inferior and all of that.......I mean..honestly, I see no reason to argue with you on any of these grounds...........I don't need to tell you which one of us is the inferior, the little history lesson above demonstrates that plainly enough...and you won't be quibbling on that count.....right?  I think it's cute, though, that in a discussion of equality and gay marriage, you actually chose to use the terms superior and inferior. You rock my world sweetheart, lol.

It is at this point where discussion then begins in order to determine the qualities of various groups and the civic duties and privileges they should be allowed to exercise.

Well, maybe for you it does, not so much for me - I'm all set up...right shade of lipstick, proper orientation, deeply entrenched in both civic duty and privilege....you're the inferior excluder, that's your baby.  Continue?

[Crossless2.0]

Why the fuck are religious nuts concerned about gay people turning people gay?  It's them that's trying to turn gay people straight.  You know with all their fucking moronic Pray Away the Gay Camps.  Guess they're afraid gay people will be just as fucking stupid and just as fucking bigoted as them.

You don't see gay people going door to door going "Do you have time to talk about Niel Patrick Harris?"  No.  They fucking don't.  Religious people are the ones who go door to door saying "Do you have time to talk about Jesus?"

Besides why the fuck would they need to be able to get married to turn everyone gay?  It'd be much easier to get gay marriage if they already turned people gay.

The part I bolded gave me my best laugh of the day.  Thanks!

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see it now, full fruition of the gay agenda -  the police show up at your house...."how do you know you don't like cock,  have you tried it?  Put it in your mouth, it's the law now!"  
I cannot imagine what goes through these people's addled brains.

[Crossless2.0]

I can see it now, full fruition of the gay agenda -  the police show up at your house...."how do you know you don't like cock,  have you tried it?  Put it in your mouth, it's the law now!"  
I cannot imagine what goes through these people's addled brains.

"So you want to be a baker, huh? You know the drill. Bend over and spread 'em."  [Shouts to assistant]: "Sheila, get me a decorating bag, a fondant smoother, and my rolling pin!"

[Anima]

Right?!  I have already made these arguments.  So here are the links which I found.

1.  http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...pid1020898  (On Homosexuality being Genetic defect to be prohibited or avoided).

2.  http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...pid1020293 (On State interest in specific relationships)

3.  http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...pid1016275  (Summary of Biological argument, Physical Harm, and Meta-physical harm made for Jenny).

(1) is a non sequitur from beginning to end.  This thread is ostensibly about gay marriage, and there is nothing in your first link that begins to make a case that denying marriage equality would somehow allow us to prohibit or avoid the postulated genetic defect.

First this argument was presented when someone asked who am I to say that homosexuality is a defect.  What is presented is the argument for why it is a defect and under such a thing our tendency or desire as a species is not to propagate that defect.  

Though it may be readily argued that granting marriage rights will lead to an argument that homosexuals have a right to IVF at the expense of the State.  In which case the state may readily argued that homosexuality is a genetic defect it does not seek to promote.

(2) Sure, the State has interests in promoting specific relationships.  It also, at least in certain countries with certain legal regimes, has an interest in promoting equality under the law.  You fail to argue that gay adults, who are free to enter into all sorts of other contractual relationships with their attendant rights and duties, ought not be allowed to enter into marriage contracts as well or that a state's interest in promoting certain relationships overrides its interest in promoting equality under the law.

Actually this was argued at length near the beginning of this thread.  And may be summarized as follows:
1.  Marriage is not a fundamental right (even after Obergefell ruling, which identified a Due Process Clause right to dignity not an Equal Protection Clause right to marriage) (as explained by Chief Justice Roberts and may be understood from the ruling)
2.  The state may discriminate under rational basis scrutiny and exclude homosexuals from the privilege of marriage.  The state has a legitimate interest and its discrimination was reasonably related to that interest. (as explained by Chief Justice Roberts).
3.  The states legitimate interest is in regards to procreation of offspring/populace for the state.
4.  Inclusion of the infertile and senile in the definition of marriage is a result of overinclusivity by which the definition for marriage given by the state includes 100% of the desired group (fertile opposite sex couples) and some undesired; which does not constitute a violation of equal protection.
5.  The state prohibitions on same sex marriage were not a violation of equal protection as it was applicable to all genders and orientations (as explained by Chief Justice Roberts).
6.  States may define what parties may enter into specific contracts such as must be of legal age, sound mind and body, and of opposing biological genders.

I would recommend reading the beginning of this thread for the legal arguments which were made.  Equal protection had nothing to do with it.  So I think it is very funny how you guys keep saying equality when there was no equal protection justification.  Even in the ruling Kennedy simply writes one paragraph where he states there is some mystical relationship between the Due Process and Equal Protection such that if there is a right in Due Process then there must be one in the Equal Protection clause.  Something we know to be utterly crap as there are rights secured in one which have nothing to do with the other.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34211-po...pid1015253

I can only wonder how anyone could type that with a straight face. Please demonstrate that homosexuals, acting according to their inclination, are relevantly similar to murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.  That is, demonstrate the harm they inflict (aside from the "metaphysical harm" bigots like you experience by having to share a planet with people you don't like). 

Ask and be it not gold tis granted.  Demonstrating homosexuals acting according to their inclination are similar to murders:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)
4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

As may be observed each acting according to their orientation engage in an act which has a negative particular result, that when normalized has a negative universal result.  Orientation to act to particular result to universal result.

And while you're at it, tally up the metaphysical harm caused by being treated as second-class citizens for years and years, e.g., having one's sexual orientation effectively criminalized through sodomy laws (was the SC wrong to overturn those?), risking loss of employment for being openly who one is, and by being barred from entering into the most personal of civil contracts (yeah, kind of a weird locution, but you get my drift).  Indeed, if you are serious in writing, "Meta-Physical Harm: In regards to the subject of meta-physical harm we may simply make reference back to ethical utility. In which case our goal is to minimize the meta-physical harm imposed" then by all means tell me how the alleged harm suffered by the bigots outweighs the real harm suffered by homosexuals during the many years they were driven to live double lives to avoid prosecution, being fired, and possibly beaten or killed.  And don't bother speaking on behalf of the hetero population.  You've seen the same polls everyone else has.  A significant percentage of heterosexuals, if not a majority, aren't troubled by marriage equality.

The real harm of leading double lives to avoid persecution?  What the heck are you talking about?  Being persecuted is a real harm.  Leading a double life to avoid persecution is by definition the avoidance of a real harm.  Again you are talking about possibilities as if they are realities and you even recognize those realities were entirely avoided by just keeping you sexuality to yourself.  OH THE PAIN!!  OH THE SUFFERING!!

Blacks WERE slaughter, captured, castrated, beaten, enslaved, bred like cattle, and had their children taken from them.  Native Americans WERE infected, slaughtered, enslaved, imprisoned, an interred.  But gays...They had to pretend to not be gay because if they did not they could be possibly fired, beaten, or killed.  We have cases of the former occurring in the hundred thousands and millions.  How many gays have been fired for being gay?  How many have been beaten?  How many have been killed for it?  Especially considering they could avoid it by just pretending not to be gay.  If only blacks and natives could have pretended to not be black or native.

Now in regards to ethical utility.  As stated in my link (which I do not think you read):

2. Meta-Physical Harm: In regards to the subject of meta-physical harm we may simply make reference back to ethical utility. In which case our goal is to minimize the meta-physical harm imposed as:

Total Meta-Physical Harm = (Quality of Harm)*(Quantity Harmed)

While it may constitute a meta-physical harm to not allow homosexuals to act according to their inclination (just as it must cause a meta-physical harm to not allow anyone inclined to a specific conduct to not act according to their inclination, which would include heterosexuals as well as murders, rapists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etcetera). It may be said to cause a metaphysical harm to not allow persons who find homosexuality repugnant (aka icky) to condone or engage with such persons (or would you be okay with the law compelling you to condone pedophilia and to associate with such persons?).

You see the ones who do not agree with you now have to lead a double life to avoid persecution.  What you considered a real harm.  Because if the do not they could possibly lose their business or be fired; they will be beaten and assaulted; and they could possibly be killed.  But unlike you they do not make up 10% of the population they make up a much larger majority than that.  So by terms of utility the quality of harm may be said to be the same while the quantity harmed shall be greater.

Total Meta-Physical Harm = (Quality of Harm)*(Quantity Harmed)

Thus resulting in a greater meta-physical harm than the one imposed on same sex persons.

Finally how does marriage resolve any of those possible harms. Marriage does not protect a person from being beaten or killed, marriage does not protect a person from being fired, hell marriage does not protect a person from having to lead a double life.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, what the gays need to do, to justify equality..is get the shit beaten out of themselves, get themselves infected with deleterious disease, and just generally endeavour to make their lives as shitty as possible...and then you'll be satisfied that they've suffered through adequate introductory rites....

Legit, provided that I get to pick the incense and chants.  I'm still loving these terms as much as when we began. Continue.

[Divinity]

Oh no, some fucking bigots might lose their business. Serves them right for being bigots.

Newsflash: It's not persecution to not want to do business with someone or hire someone because they're an asshole.

[Anima]

-and black haired native americans should not be treated like me, superior/inferior and all of that.......I mean..honestly, I see no reason to argue with you on any of these grounds...........I don't need to tell you which one of us is the inferior, the little history lesson above demonstrates that plainly enough...and you won't be quibbling on that count.....right?   I think it's cute, though, that in a discussion of equality and gay marriage, you actually chose to use the terms superior and inferior.  You rock my world sweetheart, lol.

Ha ha. Now you are getting it. You see history has already determined who was inferior between the two of us. Living in your own filth and the plagues in Europe helped to weed out the inferiors.

Well you see nature has already determined that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality. That is why one is an evolutionary trait leading to the broad diversity of species which populates this planet (until di-hybridism we have about 4 billion years with just two types of bacteria. Then you get di-hybrids which lead to every other species that exists or has gone extinct since those first two). And the other is a defect which is constantly limited from propagation by its own inclination.

Now why was it that they are equal?