Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

Endeavoring to keep legal spiel aside:

1. Same sex couples were not being denied equal rights. They were being denied additional benefits associated with state recognition of their relationship. No one has a right to benefits. The State may confer those benefits to encourage desired activities to serve a legitimate social purpose.

2. The argument of conduct being permissible so long as it is not "hurting" anyone is one I have always found to be paradoxical.

If argued in terms of metaphysical harm (so not physical or financial) than it may be argued in terms of dignity or emotional harm. In which case argument may just as readily be made that compelling conduct one does not approve of is insulting to their dignity or emotional well being. Thus there is a harm committed in condoning and condemning an action. Since either engenders harm resolution should be made in terms of quality and quantity of harm, by which the the goal is to minimize harm in accordance with utility. In terms of same sex marriage we may say 10% of the population is so inclined while 90% is not. We may even narrow down the 90% in terms of pathetic (passionate) vs. apathetic (who cares) such that the 90% is now 40%. If the quality of offense is equal (meaning in terms of dignity or emotion) than the mere quantity of those who would be emotionally harmed by being forced to condone conduct they condemn is sufficient to support their condemnation on social grounds under not harming people.

If argued in terms of physical (or financial harm). We may simply state so long as no physical harm was brought upon the 10% than there is no harm sufficient to warrant the changing of the existing condition. Argument will likely follow there is no harm in changing the condition either. However, such a statement may not be accurately made unless changing of the condition requires no physical changes. If changing the condition requires physiological change said change is a burden upon the society which it would not have to bear if it does not change. This is to say it does not hurt anyone to stay but it will cause an ever so slight hurt to change. Once again determining under the argument of not harming anyone that to remain as is shall constitute a lesser harm than to change. Regarding the subject of financial harm I would direct back to bullet 1 above.

3. Once more avoiding the legal spiel, if we are to argue permissibility of conduct solely upon a lack of physical harm, are to ignore the subject of metaphysical harm, and are to ignore the added burden placed upon society to facilitate the desired change, we would then be in a situation whereby permissible conduct is to be determined in accordance with a theory of physical harm. To which any conduct which does not result in physical harm is thereby condoned. This argument invariably leads to the permissibility of cannibalism and necrophilia (so long as the one eaten is already dead and not killed to be eaten or screwed), Assault (which does not consist of any physical contact much less harm), battery and rape (so long as the batter or raped is not physically harmed, we are ignoring emotional harm), trespass (of any type so long as no one is physically harmed), invasion of privacy (so long as no one is physically harmed in the invasion), and many other things I am sure your imagination can come up with regarding illegal conduct that does not physically or financially harm anyone.

So to argue the no one was harmed in the making of the marriage argument is invalid if we consider either/and emotional harm, if we consider increased burden as a harm, or if we consider the permissibility of many acts we consider to be criminal as a harm. Then there is a harm.