Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Are you often in the habit of ranking human lives and deciding their worthiness for human rights based on that? Do you extend the same standards to other "burden" classes like the homeless and disabled, or does this ruthless utilitarianism of yours only extend to groups your religion already has a history of special pleading against?

1.  Are we not all in this very same business?  We recognize that those of close familial relation are of greater importance/value to us than strangers.  But why?  Procreation is an antiquated argument that does not matter (or so I hear).  The strangers are not hurting us where as our immediate family often does.  But we readily establish the stranger as lower in value of person to us than our immediate family based on our own emotional attachment; our familiarity with family vs strangers?  As I said earlier my sister is a lesbian; I have a close personal relationship with her, but I will not determine my views on law, biology, society, and teleology based on my sentiment of my sister.

2.  Now in regards to your particular question the answer is yes.  I have many family members who suffer from physical (blind cousin, cousin with cerebral palsy) and mental disabilities (cousin with dyslexia, cousin with downs, cousin with epilepsy).  I even have close persons to me who have acquired mental disorders due to traumatic events (cousin and fiancee with post-traumatic stress disorder), as well as family members who have become homeless addicts.

With that said I would not equate them (any more than I would a homo person) to persons who do not have these various disorders or deficiencies; such would readily be a false equivalency which does not recognize the apparent superiority and inferiority of the conditions.  Furthermore I would most certainly not construct the law or social policy to promote or propagate these disabilities, disorders, or habits particularly if they are genetic defects which impede biological or sociological teleology.

Now I imagine the crux of your question is what I would do for those who are present.  As I said earlier I am not saying round them up and execute them on the spot.  However, I recognize they are an unnecessary burden upon society which any given society must deal with.  Some societies may choose to deal with it by means of execution (it is a reasonable solution); other societies may ostracize them (you know like we do with our elderly in old folks homes or our disabled in special care facilities); still other societies may endeavor to cure them (through medical or psychological treatment); a few societies endeavor to integrate them (to some degree.  None do so fully in recognition of their inherent inability or inferiority).

No matter what manner of treatment they receive from the given society two things may be said.  First they would be seriously mistaken in commanding a specific treatment from society unless they may give argument for why they deserve such treatment (which I have yet to hear) as execution of them is a viable social solution (unless they are essential to society).  As a friend of mine once told me, "We are here!  We are queer!  Deal with it!"  To which I responded, "It does not get to decide how I deal with it.  So I am going to kill it.  I have dealt with it."  Second, the manner in which society (or I personally) deal with them unless compelled by argument is subject to social whim at any given time.  In which case we may say a la the Princess Bride, "Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

My personal method of dealing with them would be a combination of ostracism, partial integration, and treatment/curing.  Those who can be reasonably cured should be cured.  Those who cannot be cured must be further evaluated as socially functioning or non-functioning.  If they are socially functioning (meaning they may function in the society as already defined) than I would integrate them to the degree their disability allows.  If they are non-functioning (meaning they require substantial changes to society as defined or cannot function in any society) then they are to be ostracized in various manners in accordance with their disability (special care, asylum, prison, island of Elba, even execution)

3.  With all of that said may I take it your lack of argument in their favor is that there is no argument in their favor?  Is the support for their position only logical fallacies of False Equivalency, Argumentum ad Novitatem (Appeal to Novelty by not being on the wrong side of history), or Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity for them)?  I confess, try as I might, I have not been able to come up with a better argument on their behalf.  I hope we may find one otherwise as inequality will become known, what is new will change, and pity runs out...

Furthermore, it may be readily argued that one who condemns the view points of others based on their own views which are predicated entirely upon logical fallacies are in truth the bigots.  The shit kicker may not know much, but he knows false equivalency when he sees it; and he is not a bigot for seeing it and letting others know he sees it.

WoW Anima! Hmm?

Interesting in the use of the disabled humans/citizens that have physical or mental illness in determining how much integration they are given into society.

One can view this in education with students that are learning disable. All schools, (now legally required by the federal disability act), must provide learning center's with a certified staff to help learning disable students. Prior to this law many were unable to achieve any type of decent education.

If one were to say, “I with a learning disability demand to be treated equally in everything in every element in education.” Not only is such a statement extremely irrational and non-logically correct but, will actually hurt the learning disable more than help. The average student does not need aided or a setup of a special facility to study the material, write papers, or take tests. Those with disabilities will be subject to conduct their studies like the average student and treated completely the same without any aid with their studies. One would think that such aids may not be so important but, if one were to look at some examples it becomes very clear that this statement is untrue

Only hearing impaired students are in need of a sing language interpreter for the classroom. Not the average student.

Only a person with dyslexia is in need with software programs to help read all material and help write papers, extra time to take test and do papers, a scribe for writing. Not the average student.

Only those who are wheelchair bound need access to wheelchair access ramp to a building. Not the average student.

Only a blind student is in need of a cane, alternative format of reading material to braille material or a Seeing Eye Dog. Not the average student.

Even today may argue that such aids for these student are actually not aids but benefits and that any degrees that are achieved by them should have an asterisk on it stating aid was used. Unlike the average student that did not use any aid while studying their degree. For many non-learning disabled these aids given to these people are seen as special exemptions for these students and are not fair to the average student.

Another way to say this is that all citizens are equal no matter their age, race, or economic situation. Therefor all are subject to all the laws and the punishment if such laws are broken. So if a child commits the act of killing, they must therefore be tried as an adult, ( sadly this  actual occurs in this country ) and are subject to the fullest extent of  the punishment. Thus, if a murder, the child is to be given life in federal prison and to be served along with adult males.  (For separation of facilities is not equal (Brown v. Board of Education)) (Currently the youth is sent to Juvenal detention and then transported to the adult prison.) I fear this practices could end and my scenario will be reality. We try them as adults so we are already half way there, whats the difference in taking another step

Lets take the child element out. There have been many cases were the killer was an adult but only had an comprehension of a 5 year old. Are they to also be punished like the average citizen? Knowing that they are  truly not the average adult do to their low level of  mental capacity? NO!!

And should cannot be allowed! We do not treat children and adults the same, nor do we do so with individuals with major mental/physical disabilities or the elderly and they should never be!

But different treatment does not mean that the individuals are they to be treated inhumanly? No!  (even though historically many have been and are to this day). Are any less a person? No! Should have no rights? No! In fact, many laws and rights have been specifically made for them them and are not open to all average citizens, which thus dismiss the concept that all are treated equally in this country or should be.


Ha made me think something different there Anima. Good one