Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Cato]

Anima,

Heterosexuality:
a :  of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex

b :  of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heterosexual

Please explain what IVF has to do with sexual desire or intercourse.

BTW, the equivocation reply was in a direct quoted response from Ace.

[Anima]

Anima, you remind me of Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, or even Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective, if you'll excuse my enormous reach to grab an obscurity like that to craft the simile.

Ha!! Ratigan!! I love the great mouse detective!!

What I mean to say is: When this thread started I enjoyed reading what you had to say, though I disagreed (vehemently) with it. We argued legal points on an intellectual level. You were a respectable debater.

I thought I would give both Neitzche's proposition and the general argument applied by others some effort. Which is to say I would argue without concern for the offensiveness of the nature of the comments and would through a little pathos into my tone. I am sorry to disappoint, but I am pretty sure I did not stray from logical precepts or support.

But when the opposition started to increase, and more people started challenging you, and - especially, it seems - when the Supreme Court made it's Obergefell ruling, the veneer started to crack, and the niceties and politeness you observed disappeared under pressure.

There was no crack in the veneer. Rather there was shift in the subject of argument as requested by Robovalue. People were getting lost in the legal terms and the request was to make an argument that was not legal that could be supported biologically or sociologically if possible. This is what was done.

It was never about the legal arguments. You just plain don't like gay people, and you decided to use whatever tools you had at your disposal - in this case, legal tools (by virtue of your education) - to try to advance these views in a way that wouldn't be immediately dismissed. For a while, you succeeded, but you couldn't keep it up forever.

Personally I do not really think gay people are of any more concern to me one way or another than any other person I do not know. My oldest sister is a lesbian and her girlfriend is very nice and fund to spend time with. But I would not say my sister's orientation did not hurt people or that her choices following that orientation do not hurt people.

However, as a realist I do not subscribe to individual sentiment in anything overriding the reality of the situation. So I consider homosexuals not in terms of my personal experience with them, but rather in more objective terms of law, biology, sociology, and teleology. With that said, we debate the legality of the subject and the SCOTUS has made a ruling on the matter (which I and Chief Justice Roberts feel is severely lacking in legal support). I do not agree with the ruling made in Lawrence V. Texas either, but I recognize it has legal support in the 4th amendment privacy rather than the 14th equal protection under dignity of Kennedy.

I have given much thought to the subject of biological arguments in the favor and have found none (I did not even argue defect, ineffective, or adaptation of a natural mutation yet, though I have at length with a gay co-worker of mine). If you happen to have one please let me know what it is.

In regards to the social policy I once again am hard pressed to find any social benefit related to their orientation. I recognize there is benefit to the existence of their person as much as their is benefit to the existence of any persons, but this is not the same as to say there is a sociological argument in their favor. Furthermore I think the social policy of the nation should be in the best interest of the State and majority of the populace even if it is at the expense of the individual. (I utterly detest the idea that the greatest good always has my good in it.)

I am in no way an advocate of murder or rape but I may even determine social benefits to having killers (as soldiers or executioners), rapists (as torturers or punishment), but I do not see any social benefit to same sex activities that is not readily filled by other persons more suited to the task. I would be interested to hear one if you have one, as I am not aware of one.

Finally in regards to the teleology of the action I must ask what is the end of the action. I do not see much to same sex activities beyond mere pleasure, emotional satisfaction, or happiness. In this regard I am in agreement with Kant or Aristotelian happiness which is not the same happiness commonly referred to. In either case I see no teleological justification for support or encouragement of same sex couples either as adoption of happiness as a goal unto itself permits a broad range of conduct that is unacceptable.

In fact the only argument I hear which remotely supports them is an unconditional argument to equality. Clearly we recognize that not all things should be treated as equal even if they are alike in many aspects. So it is apparent to me quite readily that an argument to equality for equality's sake is insufficient to support their position as well.

Now I believe it was Hume who said, "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." I am open to being convinced if someone may give me an argument in their favor. I have not heard one and I have not been able to conceive of one myself. The best I have heard is they are not hurting anyone (when in fact they are) and a pathological call to equality of love (which is severely wanting as a logical argument). I have read many arguments in opposition to them based on logic that holds true for many other things to which they may be considered a subset.

If we are to argue that certain conduct which is not of legally, biologically, sociologically, or teleologically benefit should be discouraged and if possible eliminated (we would say such for murders and rapists even though they do have a sociological benefit) than I am compelled by logic to state the same for those of same sex orientation. This is not to say I am advocating rounding them up and executing them on the spot (after all I recognize they have value as persons who may produce for the State). Rather this is to say I see no reason to burden the rest of the populace on their behalf with increased burdens to try to grant equivalency to that which is not equivalent.

Well, I can't either. I'm going to read what you wrote above one more time, to make sure I've given you every benefit of the doubt, and then I'm going to go vomit.

I know how you feel. I have felt the same when I read comments like reproduction does not need procreative intimacy, humanities survival is not dependent on procreation, and homosexuality is better than heterosexuality for humanity. I could not believe when I read these statements. I understand the effort to make equivalency where there is none to win an argument, but to denigrate the natural reality to a point where we do not even want to recognize the simple truth in order to justify something is beyond me and rather sickening.

[Anima]

Anima,

Heterosexuality:
a :  of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex

b :  of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heterosexual

Please explain what IVF has to do with sexual desire or intercourse.

BTW, the equivocation reply was in a direct quoted response from Ace.

Apologies for responding to your comment to Ace.

Heterogeneous: composed of parts or element that are of a different kind; diverse in character or content
Homogeneous: composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind; not heterogeneous

Heterozygous: A diploid organism is heterozygous at a gene locus when its cells contain two different alleles of a gene.
Homozygous: A cell is said to be homozygous for a particular gene when identical alleles of the gene are present on both homologous chromosomes.

Please note I said IVF is a hetero activity. Meaning it is heterogeneous as well as heterozygous. Now if we wish to argue heterosexual than the argument may simply state the teleological purpose of procreation is satisfied by means of heterosexual copulation meant to bring the ovum and the sperma together. Until recent times such was the only viable way to bring ovum and sperma together. As such it may be stated an act designed to bring ovum and sperma is of a heterosexual nature.

[Ace]

Pardon? Equivocation? I believe I expressly stated those with an inclination to kill are of greater social benefit and utility than homosexuals, if directed properly. Killing is something society needs for various reasons. Same sex is not something society needs for any reason (you may want to argue it has a use for torture and punishment through rape, such as in prison. But this is effectuated by heteros in prison or inanimate objects).

, the veneer started to crack, and the niceties and politeness you observed disappeared under pressure.

It was never about the legal arguments. You just plain don't like gay people, and you decided to use whatever tools you had at your disposal - in this case, legal tools (by virtue of your education) - to try to advance these views in a way that wouldn't be immediately dismissed. For a while, you succeeded, but you couldn't keep it up forever.

Well, I can't either. I'm going to read what you wrote above one more time, to make sure I've given you every benefit of the doubt, and then I'm going to go vomit.

Wow it is sad when I see people start to get to emotional and start to judge an individual only on their position in an argument. An agrgumeent mind you that is on a damn discussion board at that.

This should not be called a discussion board but a "reeducation of oppositional ideology" board. Just like the camps that were set up in communists nations to "reeducate" the peoples who had opposing communists ideologies for capitalist free nation.

This board's discution was set to discuss homosexuality, FOR FUN !!!, after the Superm Courts ruling. It was ALSO ASKED in what position should the argument be set as, and it was agreeded to be on the social/biological.

This was done by Amina in a rational and organized argument. He has NOT, at all, ever said any words of persional attack or hate to anyone debating him. Yet, many on this board have to him.

Interestingly it not for his use and knowledge of the law, not for his lacking in organization of his idea, or lack of rational or logical structure of his argument, no!! But is only for his arguments position!!

I do not understand this country as to why people have taken started to incorporate their own personal emotional feelings into a discution that is opean for anyone to engage in and dare I say, speak their mind.

Do the people in this counrty not know how to debate or have an ideas on how to have a discution with out becoming persionaly invalved?

Simple summery of speech/ debate class:
1. Topic is X,Y, and Z.
2. What position do you wish,
a) for or opposed,
4. Topic is to be argued in. . .
a) political
b) biological
c) social
--- and so forth
5. Each side have time for stament and respond.
6. And go.


I have said it before and I will say again. To oppose an idea dose not initally mean hate, meanness, treachery, or even vedictovnes. It is only an oppositional idea to the argument nothing more.


This action is both sad and very dangerous to everyone who is not with the days new trendy idea. This makes Ideas, discusstion and debate die becuase of persional offense?!

Maybe I am wrong and we need to do ways with such stupid oppositional ideas, of how the world is flat, global warming is real just like dinosaurs are. All change and achievement should also be stopped
If we all just accepted the majority view of things homosexuality will still be illegal, atheism unheard of in non Communist country's

What has happened? these who were were opposed of have become the opposers ?
What happen to the argument to humanity, freedom, rights, individual thought?

[The Grand Nudger]

All of that shit sounds mighty sinful Ace.  

[Cato]

Please note I said IVF is a hetero activity.  Meaning it is heterogeneous as well as heterozygous.  Now if we wish to argue heterosexual than the argument may simply state the teleological purpose of procreation is satisfied by means of heterosexual copulation meant to bring the ovum and the sperma together.  Until recent times such was the only viable way to bring ovum and sperma together.  As such it may be stated an act designed to bring ovum and sperma is of a heterosexual nature.

Are you seriously asking me to believe that in a discussion of homosexuality your intended use of the truncated prefix hetero was invoking heterogeneous or heterozygous? This comes off as intentional obfuscation.

The purpose of procreation is also satisfied via IVF so I don't think this teleological avenue will get you far. The last sentence is an absurd rationalization.

[robvalue]

This thread has become a showcase of bigotry.

Let's see if I can follow this reasoning:

1) Homos are somehow "worse" than heteros.

2) In a situation where we had to choose to save either homos or heteros, we should choose heteros.

3) Therefor, we should be free to ostracise, persecute and annoy homos any chance we get.

Sensible people do not make everyday judgements based on hypothetical and nonsensical scenarios. Plus, for all this increasingly obvious bigotry, point 1 has not been demonstrated at all. I'm done reading this foul bilge.

[Ace]

All of that shit sounds mighty sinful Ace.  

Hahahaha SIN!!!

On an atheist board?! hahaha

Is it even passable??!!


No i stand by what I have said and am very much aware that it is not accepted, (interestingly and surprisedly ) among those in the gay community. But when one closes a topic for the un-wanting  of being offended, angered, or frustrated then all should fear such thinkers for they are killers of thoughts.

To fear, dislike and disagree with opposition is easy to do with a simple dismissive jester with the wave of the hand and name calling, (bigots, haters, or races, sexiest) to solidify it.  


l see your sin and rase you a dogma.

Such thinkers  become Dogmatist, those who hold their ieads as Infallible to an opposition or is byond disput. To speek against such  held iead/belief is blaphesfumass in which the offender must be punisnished to the fullest by excamunication.

but if one is truly an open-minded indivdual who seeks truth and annalege, they back the  any challeng to their own thoughts, belifes, and ideas  by ensuring that that they remain open to critical review and are not seen as fixed and final, beyond all possibility of further thought but truly for free thought.


“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” —Nelson Mandela

[Anima]

Anima,

Heterosexuality:
a :  of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex

b :  of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heterosexual

Please explain what IVF has to do with sexual desire or intercourse.

BTW, the equivocation reply was in a direct quoted response from Ace.

Please note I said IVF is a hetero activity.  Meaning it is heterogeneous as well as heterozygous.  Now if we wish to argue heterosexual than the argument may simply state the teleological purpose of procreation is satisfied by means of heterosexual copulation meant to bring the ovum and the sperma together.  Until recent times such was the only viable way to bring ovum and sperma together.  As such it may be stated an act designed to bring ovum and sperma is of a heterosexual nature.

Are you seriously asking me to believe that in a discussion of homosexuality your intended use of the truncated prefix hetero was invoking heterogeneous or heterozygous? This comes off as intentional obfuscation.

The purpose of procreation is also satisfied via IVF so I don't think this teleological avenue will get you far. The last sentence is an absurd rationalization.

Indeed I do. You see the explanation in its entirety is as follows. In the billion years or so of di-hybrid procreation (be it internal or external fertilization) the act has required heterosexuality (meaning different sexes or as your definition provides "of or relating to" opposite sex) to provide the ovum and sperma that would lead to the heterogeneous combination of genetic material resulting in the heterozygous creation of numerous creatures of similar type but not simply clones of one another.

Furthermore at this present moment 99.9999999999999999% of the di-hybrid creatures that have been procreated and are currently being procreated on this planet at the present moment were created by heterosexuality providing the ovum and sperma leading to the heterogeneous combination of genetic material and the heterozygous creation of those creatures as similar but not mere clones of their parents.

This is known as a definitive correlation. Which is to say you may define one in terms of the other. Thus we may define the act of procreation as a heterosexual act leading to the combination of heterogeneous ovum and sperma resulting in a heterozygous creation of offspring.

You seem to want to limit heterosexuality to the act of sex (which I imagine the homosexual would not like to hear as I believe they feel homosexuality is more than just who they have sex with). By that argument if a heterosexual individual engages in "homosexual" sex than they are a homosexual and if a homosexual engages in heterosexual sex they are heterosexual (regardless of their self definition).

Also, as I already wrote, IVF is far from a ready replacement to natural heterosexual procreation. First, it is to be noted that IVF was developed as a treatment for heterosexual infertility and was not intended for homosexual use. Laws originally barred single and same sex individuals from utilizing IVF methods of fertilization and many countries still have those laws in place. Second, you act like anyone can get it any time any where. But the mere cost of $70k-$60k means it is not available to the majority of people for financial reasons. The required equipment for storage, preparation, and insemination are also extremely expensive and not readily available throughout the world. Finally, even with IVF one does not escape the reality that procreation is brought about by the heterosexual combination of genetic material and is thereby a heterosexual act to create heterogeneous combination leading to heterozygous offspring. Aka it is a hetero act!

[Anima]

This thread has become a showcase of bigotry.

Let's see if I can follow this reasoning:

1) Homos are somehow "worse" than heteros.

2) In a situation where we had to choose to save either homos or heteros, we should choose heteros.

3) Therefor, we should be free to ostracise, persecute and annoy homos any chance we get.

Sensible people do not make everyday judgements based on hypothetical and nonsensical scenarios. Plus, for all this increasingly obvious bigotry, point 1 has not been demonstrated at all. I'm done reading this foul bilge.

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.