Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Esquilax]

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.

Which is a completely irrelevant point, because I don't then conclude that therefore strangers should have less rights than my immediate family. I don't look down on strangers because they have no personal attachment to me, nor do I go looking for reasons why they're lesser than I am. You just got through agreeing that gays are somehow worse than straight people, the difference between that and how you'd view a stranger is stark.

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.

And are any of these people in the receiving end of the "you are worse than me," conclusion that you've just agreed to regarding homosexuals? Are you arguing that they should be offered less rights than you or I get?

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.

Which is, again, a completely irrelevant point since equal rights merely confers parity. If you see no possible way to accept that a given condition is not preferable (in this instance I'm entertaining your claim that being gay is worse than otherwise) but that the person is still a human being deserving of equal rights, then you have a serious problem there. Do you have a ranking system, for what threshold of disability corresponds with which level of arbitrarily stripped rights?

Because to be clear, the argument you're making right now makes your conclusion completely arbitrary; there is no connection between "being gay is disorderly," and "therefore you can't get married," any more than there's a connection between "cerebral palsy is a bad condition," and "therefore you don't have a right to a fair trial." If this is really what you're going with you cannot reach the conclusion that equal rights are excluded somehow, because that conclusion is a total non-sequitur.

Gay marriage doesn't "propagate" homosexuality; gay people existed long before gay marriage did, not having gay marriage did nothing at all to quell the spread and social acceptance of them, they're born of straight parents a lot of the time... you just have no argument here, and it took you two paragraphs to get there.

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);

Wow.

My wife is physically disabled, you horrible person.

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).

Still not getting why you think that lesser physical or mental capabilities should lead to unequal rights.

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).

So do you just have no empathy at all, or what? What is actually wrong with you?

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?

No, see, I made the mistake of thinking that I was talking to a real human being and not, y'know, a cartoon evil robot. I figured it would be fairly trivial to point out the hypocrisy of your position, but it turns out your position is consistent, and as a consequence infinitely more vile than I could reasonably have imagined at the time. Subsequently, I see no point in even offering an argument to someone so grotesquely warped as you; the chances of you having anywhere near the same values as me are so low that I might as well take up the conversation with an emotionless insect. Maybe that species of wasp who lays its eggs in a tarantula. Seems less vicious than you.