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.