Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It doesn't harm anyone, regardless of what people might say. And how they might justify their prejudice and dislike.

Nobody is harmed, not society, not societal structures, not liberal democracies, nobody. Giving equal rights to people who were unjustifiably prevented from having those rights is not a detriment.

Actually you are going to see a ton of law suits fly into the courts.  The ruling that was just made is in contradiction to all of the legal precedence that exists (you know what those social structures use).  Current cases pending in the courts concern state payment for IVF (about $70k per treatment, usually 4 or more treatments are needed), state payment for sex changes (about $30k), law suits regarding parental rights (at the expense of the state, some of which result in the child being given to a non-biological parent against the will of the biological parents), suits regarding extensive renovation and reconstruction of prisons to accommodate to name a few. Those rights were not being unjustly withheld from those people.  They were being with held in accordance with the just authority of the States granted by the constitution (honestly read the ruling!)

None the less I am always a fan of the "not harming anyone argument".  Without making any equality between the following and same sex people are we willing to abide by that argument.  Are we to legalize anything that does not "hurt anyone"?  What do you mean by hurt?  By that do you mean the term cognizable injury at law?  In which case there must be a physical injury as evidenced by need for professional treatment or that results in a continuous change of condition degraded to that of the normal condition.

If so this ruling in itself cannot stand.  No one was hurting them by not granting them added benefits.  Or are we going to say denying them added benefits or recognition hurts them?  In which case denying all of us who are not married or without children is hurting us.   No one was hurting them by not giving them public recognition of their relationship.  If they were doesn't that mean we are hurting anyone who wants public recognition of their relationship or activities who is not getting it?

In fact by granting or denying any group any benefit or recognition not conferred to everyone is harmful.  I believe this is the argument to equality is it not?  But we know we cannot stick to strict equality in all things regardless of the quality of all things lest we legalize assault (fear of harm is not harm), cannibalism, necrophilia, prostitution, any human activity with non-human entities or things (trespass to land, trespass to chattel, trespass to anything since trespassing is not hurting anyone, and so forth).  If it does not result in cognizable injury than it should not be illegal.

Sounds stupid?  Good!  Because that is effectively what the recent ruling just said.  It argues people have a constitutional right to dignity and that by not granting legal recognition to their chosen activities the rest of us are denying them dignity.  I wonder who could possibly sue using that argument?

Legal spiel aside (I am not a US resident, neither am I a lawyer), granting equal rights to marry under the law to those have been unjustifiably prevented from marrying harms nobody. And what do I mean by 'hurt' or harm? I have no idea really. What do you mean? You seem to be 'hurt' by the idea of two men or women having their marriage viewed as being equitable to that of a man or a woman. Why is that? I'm not. My marriage to my wife doesn't feel devalued or threatened by it.

Let's cut away the nonsense and stick to brevity. What, exactly, is the problem in letting two men or two women marry, to you? You have an objection, fine, but I'm not going to sit through and read a myriad of legal discourse which may or may not be relevant at all to the question in hand.

There are many points in your reply I take issue with, but I'll stick with the bold. What exactly is the link between allowing homosexuals and/or LGBT's to have marriage rights equal to those who are straight who marry link to, say cannibalism? Why is that equitable to two legally consenting men/women marrying each other? if people want to fuck a corpse, or engage in prostitution, then I have no problem with that aside my personal dislike of either. I'm not going to advocate a ban because I dislike it.

I just don't see any reasonable justification for an objection aside 'well, if you let the gayz marry, then pretty soon people will be marrying their dogs'. 1. So what? 2. Not equitable at all, in any way.