Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

This thread is endless.  I'm not combing 70 pages to figure out what biological harm.  Tell me.  Harm to the voluntary participants doesn't count.  Neither does hurt feelings, that icky feeling some people get imagining gay sex, or lack of fertility (there is no shortage of people on the planet).

I. So let me try to provide a summarize for those who are late to the game. Current argument being presented is in terms of biology and takes the following form of intent/orientation to action to particular resultant to normalized universal resultant:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

By which it is exhibited the orientation leads to an action with a negative particular resultant that remains negative if made universal; as such we may say the orientation is harmful from a biological perspective. Verification of the logic utilized is made by supplanting of same sex with another orientation in this case murder viewed in biological terms:

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


Once again it is exhibited the orientation leads to an action with a negative particular resultant that remains negative if made universal; such that it may be said the orientation to murder is harmful from a biological perspective.

II. Regarding the subject of not hurting anyone we provided two arguments in regards to Physical and Meta-Physical harm as follows:

1. Physical Harm - The argument of condoning activity which does not result in physical harm is invalid prima facia. It is readily exhibited that abuse, molestation, rape, child pornography, fraud, perjury, assault, larceney, trespass to land, trespass to chattel, conversion, etcetera are all acts prohibited by law or socially unacceptable while being acts which may or are commonly done in such a manner as to not result in physical harm to another's person. It may be further argued that any crime which does not result in a permanent harm to the person of another does not constitute a physical harm (So nothing short of mayhem - the intentional disabling, disfiguring, or dismembering of another. or murder - the act of homicide with malice aforethought. would constitute a physical harm.

Should one wishes to contend a physical harm is manifest as a burden upon a person than the argument shall become one of ethical utility in which we endeavor to minimize burden overall as:

Total Burden = (quality of burden)*(quantity burdened)

In which case it is readily argued that it is a greater burden to impose a change upon 90% of the population for 10%. I would like an answer to the following question?

Question 1: What is the physical harm cause to homosexuals which marriage will rectify?

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?

We do not prohibit things because it upsets mommy and daddy.  If we did, not changing religions, keeping the family business alive, going to med school because daddy really wants you to and mommy scrubbed floors so you could, would be moral imperatives.  They aren't.

Uh... Actually we do prohibit things because it upsets mommy and daddy. In fact the law commonly defers to parental judgment on the raising of children.