Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Anima, you remind me of Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, or even Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective, if you'll excuse my enormous reach to grab an obscurity like that to craft the simile.

Ha!! Ratigan!! I love the great mouse detective!!

What I mean to say is: When this thread started I enjoyed reading what you had to say, though I disagreed (vehemently) with it. We argued legal points on an intellectual level. You were a respectable debater.

I thought I would give both Neitzche's proposition and the general argument applied by others some effort. Which is to say I would argue without concern for the offensiveness of the nature of the comments and would through a little pathos into my tone. I am sorry to disappoint, but I am pretty sure I did not stray from logical precepts or support.

But when the opposition started to increase, and more people started challenging you, and - especially, it seems - when the Supreme Court made it's Obergefell ruling, the veneer started to crack, and the niceties and politeness you observed disappeared under pressure.

There was no crack in the veneer. Rather there was shift in the subject of argument as requested by Robovalue. People were getting lost in the legal terms and the request was to make an argument that was not legal that could be supported biologically or sociologically if possible. This is what was done.

It was never about the legal arguments. You just plain don't like gay people, and you decided to use whatever tools you had at your disposal - in this case, legal tools (by virtue of your education) - to try to advance these views in a way that wouldn't be immediately dismissed. For a while, you succeeded, but you couldn't keep it up forever.

Personally I do not really think gay people are of any more concern to me one way or another than any other person I do not know. My oldest sister is a lesbian and her girlfriend is very nice and fund to spend time with. But I would not say my sister's orientation did not hurt people or that her choices following that orientation do not hurt people.

However, as a realist I do not subscribe to individual sentiment in anything overriding the reality of the situation. So I consider homosexuals not in terms of my personal experience with them, but rather in more objective terms of law, biology, sociology, and teleology. With that said, we debate the legality of the subject and the SCOTUS has made a ruling on the matter (which I and Chief Justice Roberts feel is severely lacking in legal support). I do not agree with the ruling made in Lawrence V. Texas either, but I recognize it has legal support in the 4th amendment privacy rather than the 14th equal protection under dignity of Kennedy.

I have given much thought to the subject of biological arguments in the favor and have found none (I did not even argue defect, ineffective, or adaptation of a natural mutation yet, though I have at length with a gay co-worker of mine). If you happen to have one please let me know what it is.

In regards to the social policy I once again am hard pressed to find any social benefit related to their orientation. I recognize there is benefit to the existence of their person as much as their is benefit to the existence of any persons, but this is not the same as to say there is a sociological argument in their favor. Furthermore I think the social policy of the nation should be in the best interest of the State and majority of the populace even if it is at the expense of the individual. (I utterly detest the idea that the greatest good always has my good in it.)

I am in no way an advocate of murder or rape but I may even determine social benefits to having killers (as soldiers or executioners), rapists (as torturers or punishment), but I do not see any social benefit to same sex activities that is not readily filled by other persons more suited to the task. I would be interested to hear one if you have one, as I am not aware of one.

Finally in regards to the teleology of the action I must ask what is the end of the action. I do not see much to same sex activities beyond mere pleasure, emotional satisfaction, or happiness. In this regard I am in agreement with Kant or Aristotelian happiness which is not the same happiness commonly referred to. In either case I see no teleological justification for support or encouragement of same sex couples either as adoption of happiness as a goal unto itself permits a broad range of conduct that is unacceptable.

In fact the only argument I hear which remotely supports them is an unconditional argument to equality. Clearly we recognize that not all things should be treated as equal even if they are alike in many aspects. So it is apparent to me quite readily that an argument to equality for equality's sake is insufficient to support their position as well.

Now I believe it was Hume who said, "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." I am open to being convinced if someone may give me an argument in their favor. I have not heard one and I have not been able to conceive of one myself. The best I have heard is they are not hurting anyone (when in fact they are) and a pathological call to equality of love (which is severely wanting as a logical argument). I have read many arguments in opposition to them based on logic that holds true for many other things to which they may be considered a subset.

If we are to argue that certain conduct which is not of legally, biologically, sociologically, or teleologically benefit should be discouraged and if possible eliminated (we would say such for murders and rapists even though they do have a sociological benefit) than I am compelled by logic to state the same for those of same sex orientation. This is not to say I am advocating rounding them up and executing them on the spot (after all I recognize they have value as persons who may produce for the State). Rather this is to say I see no reason to burden the rest of the populace on their behalf with increased burdens to try to grant equivalency to that which is not equivalent.

Well, I can't either. I'm going to read what you wrote above one more time, to make sure I've given you every benefit of the doubt, and then I'm going to go vomit.

I know how you feel. I have felt the same when I read comments like reproduction does not need procreative intimacy, humanities survival is not dependent on procreation, and homosexuality is better than heterosexuality for humanity. I could not believe when I read these statements. I understand the effort to make equivalency where there is none to win an argument, but to denigrate the natural reality to a point where we do not even want to recognize the simple truth in order to justify something is beyond me and rather sickening.