MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Anima]

Now if the petitioners had lost.  Would you get over it because the decision would not change?  No?  Do you suppose you would say the law made a mistake (which based on precedence it would not have, where as it has in this case).  Do you think you would try again to get the ruling you thought was right?  Do you think those who are opposed to this ruling are that different than you?

I'm fine with the arguments and I certainly voice my opinion regarding cases I disagree with. What I struggle with is the fervent zeal with which some pursue denying fellow citizens participation in common social institutions. It's a clear example of attempting to use the power of the state to enforce a religious prohibition. Trying to get the ruling right is a bit bothersome for me in this case because it is a clear example of religious intrusion and obviously maliciously discriminatory, legal wrangling aside.

I believe your fealty to precedence is a matter of convenience in this particular case unless you're prepared to argue that the court got Brown wrong when it overturned Plessy.

First I do not think the argument equating persons engaging in a volitional act to race which is neither a volitional (and in nearly all cases) an apparent condition. I know many on this site do not believe acts may be volitional (as they do not believe there is free will) and do not find such argument either compelling or tenable (since no act is volitional than no act is consensual and thereby no actor requires consent, so rape is indistinguishable from sex). I further consider acts of homosexuality as a preference which one may act upon or may not. I am aware there are those who argue homosexuality is a genetic condition. To those it may be said if it is a genetic condition it is not akin to race but may be consider an adaptation, inconsequential, or a defect. As genetic determination will be made according to the biological benefit conferred by the genetic mutation. In which case homosexuality would be considered a defect as it contains no biological benefit to the particular person or the species as a whole and is a condition which greatly interferes with the biological aspect of our humanity which is procreative. It is in this regard I recognize they are inherently not equal and may not be equated to race which may be considered equal from a biological standpoint and if treated as a genetic mutation would be considered an adaptation.

Second my zeal for denying fellow citizens participation in common institutions is that in arguing a fallacy of false equivalency one harms both the superior and the inferiors. In the former case we denigrate the importance of the superior for the sake of equality and in the later we deny inferiors much needed aid to bring about fairness because providing such aid is not equal. In which case I would ask what is your zeal in including all citizens in things even when they should not be included? I see your desire for equality for the homosexual but I do not see it for the necrophiliac or the cannibal. They are literally not hurting anyone so why are we not protecting them? Could it be because we recognize that false equivalency is just that; FALSE; and that people of different qualities are to be treated differently according to some societal utility? Again this I readily recognize and will not ignore simply for the sake of including people for inclusions sake.

Finally as argued in the other thread (which I know you have read since you have commented) my disagreement with this particular issues stems from many aspects including but not limited to law, biology, sociology, teleology, and (since I know you are dying to hear it) theology. I am not such a simple person as to be simply a walking mass of religious fervor (in fact as a realist I subscribe to the ideal of the golden mean, which is also in keeping with theological foundation of virtue being founded on temperance and thereby always work to keep my fervor in check). Furthermore I recognize the separation of church and state. And thereby do not view the biology or sociology of this issue in religious terms. As a catholic church houses church property. And I am not concerned with homosexuals attacking the Church (which unlike other religions is a Sovereign Nation and member of the UN with numerous international treaties). However, as I have pointed out I have yet to hear an argument in their favor which is not based upon the fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, or appeal to pity. Thus I do not agree they should be granted equality in all things though I am willing to say they should be granted equality in somethings.

However, I will ask as I have in the other thread, what is your argument in their favor that is not a fallacy? Biological, sociological, teleological, theological or otherwise. I would like to hear it if you have one.