Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

The very point is to say we already value people for numerous reasons. Commonly people value people in accordance to their sentimental attachment to them. I think many of us would agree if I had to sacrifice my mother or person X I would sacrifice X. Simply because in our view mother > X. Now I am saying this is common, but I am not advocating this is how we deal with the issue of persons with disabilities or deficiencies. Hence, the very reason I say I will not determined my views of law, biology, society, and teleology on my sentiment. In previous post I already showed how gay inflicts a metaphysical and physical harm.

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?

Indeed they are. We have sought to cure most of them (both my cousin and fiancee continue to receive psychiatric help for their PTSD and my other cousins have been through surgeries, training, and rehabilitation for their various physical disabilities). Those who could not be treated have been integrated into society to the degree their disability or deficiency allows. For example my cousin who is blind is employed in the technological field using speech software. But he is horribly discriminated against and denied the dignity of state recognition of his motor skills by being denied a drivers license. The rest of have been ostracized in accordance with that disability or deficiency. My cousin with cerebral palsy is further discriminated against because though she wants to work she is not permitted to work due to her disability.

As said before. Society seeks to cure, if not cure than integrate in accordance with the society and the limitations imposed by the disability or deficiency, and finally if they cannot be integrated they are to be ostracized. This is what we do with people right now throughout the world. It is the very reason why if we cannot rehabilitate criminals (cure them) and reintegrate them back into society we must keep them imprisoned.

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?

A change in terminology I see. I take it you wish to contend that parity is not the same as equality or equivalency, which is why you introduced the term stating equal rights only confers parity. In either case I am sure the persons in question will be happy to hear you state they will be given "parity" only.

Now in regards to this parity I recognize (and have already iterated) that people have certain rights as humans. I also recognize that for the sake of society those rights may be overridden, restricted, or denied. I further recognize the false equivalency of stating all humans are deserving of parity of rights regardless of the quality of humans.

It is with little difficulty that I think we may recognize an entire class of humans who should not be allowed to exercise a given right. For example the members of NAMBLA may not operate a business by which they produce or distribute videos in line with their members tastes. But why not? What happened to their parity of rights to engage in business (which has been determined as existing under the 14th due process clause liberty section as well)? They were born that way, they are not hurting anyone (the boys are well compensated and parental consent was granted, even if their parents are another member of NAMBLA). Why can't they exercise parity in the rights to engage in business. Are there any other such examples we may come up with?

There is no need to ask me for a specific breakdown of disability to rights withheld (particularly if this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam where you would say since I cannot give one than there should not be one). In general we need only look to the inability brought about by the disability or deficiency to determine which rights should be withheld. If the disability results in a mental condition not befitting "sound mind" to contraction than the party in question should be denied the right to enter into contracts. If the disability or deficiency results in a disposition to molest children than they should be denied the right to work, engage, or adopt children (as much as the law may do so).

In short we do not give all humans parity of rights. I know that we all know this to be the case (though some of us seem to overlook all of the persons with disabilities and deficiencies who we do not give parity of rights to and would not give parity of rights to in order to special plead this one group.)

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.

Regrettably your argument is more of a non-sequitur. To argue that gay does not make gay, but are human is not not one supporting why they should be afforded parity. It is also no different than arguing murders do not make murders so they should be given parity as well since they are humans. Murders existed before laws against or for them, murders are born of non-murders a lot of the time. And there are many times where society has come to accept murder committed by murderers (even calling them heroes). So we should not deny them parity of rights to liberty, dignity, and security? No.

Naturally we recognize the deprivation of parity of rights in regards to a murder is contingent on the qualitative aspects of the murder and the murderer. That which murders the enemy in great number to the benefit of a given society at time of war is a hero; that which murders their allies in great number to the detriment of a given society in times of peace is a monster. To the former we heap praise and grant rights in excess of parity with the common as reward; to the latter we heap condemnation and denial of parity of rights as punishment.

The argument I am making is to say parity of rights are not to be accorded to humans simply because they are human without any consideration for their qualities as human. Now in regards to the particular subject of marriage it may be said our society (or a given society) which deems certain conduct or proclivities as disorderly or bad may either in consideration of the inabilities imposed by that proclivity exceed or deny parity of rights or may take steps to diminish or eliminate this conduct from its society by means of denial of parity of rights. (Please note this is what humanity has and is currently doing now!! And is not some fanciful ideologue view of a world of false equivalency or for the sake of argument or an exhibition of my own dastardly nature. Different things need to be treated differently; that is the reality! As pointed out by Ace.)


“Many have dreamed up republics and principalities that have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation.”(Niccolo Machiavelli)

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.

I am sorry to hear that she is physically disabled. And wish you and her the best in dealing with her disability.

With that said I do not recant my previous statement as I do recognize the rational validity behind the humane execution of persons with disabilities rather than to allocate a greater quantity of scarce resources, than required by one without such disability would require to function in a given society. This is not to say I am an advocate of such a solution, but I am aware of the rational and reasonableness of it over leaving one so disabled to naturalistic consequence by which their physical disability shall negatively impact their chance of survival and lead to prolonged suffering and death.

My fiancee is not physically disabled but suffers from PTSD to such a degree that it is rather debilitating. I would be lying if I said that her mental deficiency did not consume an excessive amount of time and resources that would be better spent on one without such deficiency. While I am emotionally attached to her, and thereby willing to invest such time and effort, I can see the logic behind it being better if she did not have that problem or in society dealing with that problem in the most efficient objective manner possible such as termination.

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

Due to the inherent inabilities manifested by those lesser capabilities. As pointed out by Ace I may provide accommodation due to those inabilities that I do not provide to those without those inabilities. I may likewise deny privileges due to those inabilities that I provide to those without those inabilities. The two are fundamentally not equal and it is great disservice to endeavor to treat them equally. Doing such would deny aid to those who need it and grant privileges to those who should not have them (I imagine you readily recognize the first, but do not agree with the latter. To which the saying was, "why is it that people are so foolish to believe that because we erred too far in one direction we can never err too far in the other?")

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

Indeed I have empathy to such a degree that it extends beyond my personal sentiment, whims, wants, and relationships. When it comes to winning the battle or the war I intend to win the war. It is for this reason that I do not let me sentiment define law, biology, society, or teleology. While such would be satisfying to me, it may not necessarily be said what is preferable to me is preferable to all or more to the point advisable to all.

To this end I recognize that your inquisition to empathy is argumentum ad misericodiam (appeal to pity) and that an appeal to pity/mercy is an inherent injustice (as mercy is to give more than is due, justice is to give what is due, and spite is to give less than is due). Now I do not think you want me basing my decisions of social conduct solely upon my empathy. However, if you argument is that I should and that I am of the utmost deplorable of monsters for not doing so I would quote the following:

“He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason” (Marcus Tullius Cicero)

“Democracy arose from men’s thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely.” (Aristotle)

"It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope”(Niccolo Machiavelli)

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.

Ha ha. To quote Neitzche:

"The power of moral prejudices has penetrated deeply into the most intellectual world, the world apparently most indifferent and unprejudiced, and has obviously operated in an injurious, obstructive, blinding, and distorting manner... If, however, a person should regard even the emotions of hatred, envy, covetousness, and imperiousness as life-conditioning emotions, as factors which must be present, fundamentally and essentially, in the general economy of life (which must, therefore, be further developed if life is to be further developed), he will suffer from such a view of things as from sea-sickness... now let us set our teeth firmly! let us open our eyes and keep our hand fast on the helm! We sail away right OVER morality, we crush out, we destroy perhaps the remains of our own morality by daring to make our voyage thither--but what do WE matter. Never yet did a PROFOUNDER world of insight reveal itself to daring travelers and adventurers, and the psychologist who thus "makes a sacrifice"--it is not the sacrifizio dell' intelletto, on the contrary!"