Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[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.