Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

And even if they are, they won't win, because our arguments don't apply to them.

Please explain how it does not?
What they do, according to them is love. They should have the right to chose to be with who they love.
Pedophilia is an innate orientation that the medical community has tried to distinguish it by court order castration or medication, but all has failed.

- pedophilia is getting more stigmatised in our society, not less.

Lawrence V Texas
Law can not be made on moral ground

You are denying gay people the right of marriage under some false pretense that you give a fuck about children.

Just some words to keep in mind next time.

Proud Parent

I'd like to see where you have actively campaigned for welfare and financial help for single parents living in poverty. I'd like to see where you have donated and/or got involved with charities that help impoverished and/or abused children. Finally, I'd also like to see you come forward and say all the shit you're belching out now when a real case of child abuse happens.

Just some words to keep in mind next time.

Inner City High School Teacher

. . .  you can get out my face with this holier-than-thou attitude like . . .

It is not a good idea to attack personal another person you do not know anything personally or intimately about. So please, do not present yourself be extremely  foolish  by placing your self as The Devin Power Of Knowledge of others, because we both know anyone who believing that such power of divinity exist is extremely foolish.
[/quote]

[Regina]

Well if I believed in God I'd pray for your school pupils, no shade

Pedophilia "love" is one-sided, making it manipulation at best and rape at worst. A man might claim that he "loves" a grown woman he raped, that's still rape. It's not the rest of the world who are failing to see the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, it's you, you're the one saying this shit. If you ask me, I think you're a little too interested in the subject for my comfort.

And I'm sorry but what I said is true whether you like it or not. I stand by what I said earlier (which you failed to even address). I'll believe your concern is true when I see some real evidence that you have devoted a lot of your spare time (not "being a teacher" which you do primarily to make a living), energy and money to helping kids who are really abused. Lots of parents and teachers are assholes btw, not saying necessarily that you are, but just saying being either doesn't mean you're a champion of childrens' rights.

[Anima]

Gay marriage and polygamy are not analogous, you are using a slippery slope argument, its fallacious and tired. There are reasons that polygamy/incents/pedophilia/beastiality are illegal that have nothing to with gay marriage. In order to make your argument work you would have to establish with evidence that the cost/benefit analysis of legalizing gay marriage is the same as those other forms of relationships. The laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis and for different reasons. You cannot just use factor that are the same in the relationship, you must also weigh the differences.

Okay. Once again let me help you out here:

1. There is no homo marriage law, hetero marriage law, polygamous marriage law, and so forth. So I do not know what your are talking about when you say the laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis. The closest you can get to this is all persons of a specific class, but homosexuality is not recognized as a distinct class from the general populace at law. Now under that you would be saying different laws apply to different people and there is no equity of law. This is not even counting the simple fact that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH EVERYTHING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. To do so would result in no consistency in the rule of law and would amount to nothing more than a purely relativistic system.

2. Cost/benefit analysis? I have asked multiple times over multiple pages for an argument in their favor. No one has given a single one. In accordance with cost/benefit I can give you a simplistic one for hetero people. Heterosexual procreation creates more population for the State, which shall serve as its tax and production base. Based on this benefit the State chooses to incur a cost to promote heterosexual unions. In this regard alone it is readily shown that homosexual relationships do not provide the same benefit, much less a benefit of sufficient value for the State to incur an addition cost on their behalf. So clearly this was not the criterion by which the State granted homosexuals couples marriage.

Even if I were to give you different laws for different relationship types (which is not the case in the law) I would not give you different evaluation criterion and methodology. Such would remove any possible consistency in the evaluation of the law.

However, I would love to here your cost benefit argument between hetero and homos such that they convey equivalent benefit to the State for the State to incur equivalent costs on their behalf.

[Anima]

The age of consent was 7 in Delaware in 1895.  During earlier times there was no minimum age of consent in America, especially in the South.

They were wrong to do things that way.  That is why they changed it.

Now I am lead to understand one may not make a baseless claim on an atheist board. So I am going to need to know how you know it was wrong to do it that way and proof it was changed because of the wrong you specify.

[Redbeard The Pink]

However, I would love to here your cost benefit argument between hetero and homos such that they convey equivalent benefit to the State for the State to incur equivalent costs on their behalf.

The same ways any average American citizen might, you bigoted shit-stick. What about being homosexual stops them from contributing to society by working, paying taxes, and being otherwise productive members of society? Not a damn thing. Fuck off with that shit...Christ on a cracker with tartar sauce...

 

[Iroscato]

However, I would love to here your cost benefit argument between hetero and homos such that they convey equivalent benefit to the State for the State to incur equivalent costs on their behalf.

The same ways any average American citizen might, you bigoted shit-stick. What about being homosexual stops them from contributing to society by working, paying taxes, and being otherwise productive members of society? Not a damn thing. Fuck off with that shit...Christ on a cracker with tartar sauce...

 

It astonishes me that you still have the capacity to be disappointed in this virulent gay-basher, Red...impressive

[Mr.wizard]

Gay marriage and polygamy are not analogous, you are using a slippery slope argument, its fallacious and tired. There are reasons that polygamy/incents/pedophilia/beastiality are illegal that have nothing to with gay marriage. In order to make your argument work you would have to establish with evidence that the cost/benefit analysis of legalizing gay marriage is the same as those other forms of relationships. The laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis and for different reasons. You cannot just use factor that are the same in the relationship, you must also weigh the differences.

Okay.  Once again let me help you out here:

1.  There is no homo marriage law, hetero marriage law, polygamous marriage law, and so forth.  So I do not know what your are talking about when you say the laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis.  The closest you can get to this is all persons of a specific class, but homosexuality is not recognized as a distinct class from the general populace at law.  Now under that you would be saying different laws apply to different people and there is no equity of law.  This is not even counting the simple fact that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH EVERYTHING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.  To do so would result in no consistency in the rule of law and would amount to nothing more than a purely relativistic system.

2.  Cost/benefit analysis?  I have asked multiple times over multiple pages for an argument in their favor.  No one has given a single one.  In accordance with cost/benefit I can give you a simplistic one for hetero people.  Heterosexual procreation creates more population for the State, which shall serve as its tax and production base.  Based on this benefit the State chooses to incur a cost to promote heterosexual unions.  In this regard alone it is readily shown that homosexual relationships do not provide the same benefit, much less a benefit of sufficient value for the State to incur an addition cost on their behalf.  So clearly this was not the criterion by which the State granted homosexuals couples marriage.

Even if I were to give you different laws for different relationship types (which is not the case in the law) I would not give you different evaluation criterion and methodology.  Such would remove any possible consistency in the evaluation of the law.

However, I would love to here your cost benefit argument between hetero and homos such that they convey equivalent benefit to the State for the State to incur equivalent costs on their behalf.

1. Complete bullshit, it's not a question of who benefits the state more hetero people or homo people. It is a question of what is the cost/benefit analysis for allowing gays to marry versus not allowing them to marry. Polygamy, homosexual relationships, beastiality, peodophillia, are all dealt with on an individual basis when it comes to their legality, because they are not analogous and the cost/benefit is different for each one as it pertains to society. Also its not about having different laws for each relationship, it's about reviewing each relationship and deciding whether it should be legal under the marriage law.

2. You sir are a disgusting bigot, this is evidenced by your attempts to make this argument about who are more valuable as people hetero or homo. Homosexuals are working citizens they pay taxes and contribute to society, there is no good reason why they should be denied equal rights.

[Anima]

Well if I believed in God I'd pray for your school pupils, no shade

Pedophilia "love" is one-sided, making it manipulation at best and rape at worst. A man might claim that he "loves" a grown woman he raped, that's still rape. It's not the rest of the world who are failing to see the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, it's you, you're the one saying this shit. If you ask me, I think you're a little too interested in the subject for my comfort.

I am sorry but this response assumes the child or the incestuous have been manipulated and are not capable of making a rational decision. While I do admire it as a different way to say the same thing (which is to say the child may not consent) you have not evidenced why a child may make decisions in term of their own life or death, the ownership and use of a device which is designed to take the life or death of others, and to the contraction of necessaries, but just cannot seem to willing agree to this one thing without coercion.

Furthermore, the majority of the world (you know the non-US part) considers pedophilia and homosexuality to be analogous. In both cases each represent an inclination to engage in sexual activity with partners in a manner which does not follow from the di-hybrid procreative inclination (that is to say a minimum of two persons of pubescent age and opposite genders). In that regard they are indeed analogous. However if we wish to say they are not analogous it may be argued that pedophilia is a far more reasonable defect of the procreative inclination faculty than homosexuality.

For example if one observes an 80 year old and a 40 year old they generally find the younger 40 year old more attractive. The same may be said of a 40 year old and a 20 year old. So we established there is an attraction to the younger of a pairing that is in relation to age and, generally speaking, procreative fertility. If attraction is related to procreative fertility it may be said there is a lower bound of pre-pubescence and an upper bound of senility. Where it is recognize the fertility of one who has not gone through puberty or has passed well beyond it is non-existent (or greatly diminished) and thus attraction to them is equally non-existent (or greatly diminished). Thus 80 loses to 40 while 25 does not lose to 5; due to the child being below pubescent age and outside the range of fertile age.

Observing the relation that exists between attraction, fertility, and age it may be said if a person were to establish a false equivalency that age is inversely proportional to fertility (1/age = fertility) rather than recognizing their is a relations between the two (fertility = -(age+constant)^2+constant), but not an inverse equality, they would reason the younger of greater attractiveness beyond the pre-pubescent threshold into the pedophilia range. This may be said for one who makes the improper relation between age and fertility; what more may be said to one whose determination of attractiveness is not tied to procreative fertility at all.

(NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING PEDOPHILIA IS RIGHT!! I AM ONLY SAYING IT MAY FOLLOW LOGICALLY FROM A DEFECTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE AND FERTILITY.)

And I'm sorry but what I said is true whether you like it or not. I stand by what I said earlier (which you failed to even address). I'll believe your concern is true when I see some real evidence that you have devoted a lot of your spare time (not "being a teacher" which you do primarily to make a living), energy and money to helping kids who are really abused. Lots of parents and teachers are assholes btw, not saying necessarily that you are, but just saying being either doesn't mean you're a champion of childrens' rights.

I am sorry but this is a foolish ad hominem argument by which you seek to avoid the question by arguing the quality of the questioner. Even if ACE is the patron deity of children you will not accept that as sufficient proof because you are trying to avoid the question. So how about you answer the question or if you do not have an answer just say so.

Otherwise with every post you make you are going to have to provide proof of your personal credentials to support your assertion or question to a degree we find satisfying. By the way, in case you forgot this is an atheist board so most here are not inclined to believe something you say simply because you say it or have a picture of it. Good luck making your proof.

[Anima]

However, I would love to here your cost benefit argument between hetero and homos such that they convey equivalent benefit to the State for the State to incur equivalent costs on their behalf.

The same ways any average American citizen might, you bigoted shit-stick. What about being homosexual stops them from contributing to society by working, paying taxes, and being otherwise productive members of society? Not a damn thing. Fuck off with that shit...Christ on a cracker with tartar sauce...

 

Indeed a reason for the value as individuals persons. But how does that support the state incurring additional cost in recognition of their relationships?

[Regina]

I don't have anything to prove as I have not made any outlandish claims, pulled from my ass, about an acceptance of homosexuality leading to an acceptance of pedophilia, nor am I using any particular groups' rights purely to further my own bigoted views

A child is not capable of making a rational decision about sex. They have limited understanding of what sex is, and the weight of a decision to have sex with somone. A pre-pubescent child is also not programmed to become sexually aroused, they physically can't with the limited stage of development of their sex organs.

And again we're trying to argue "gay people can't procreate". I can procreate, I just can't do it with a member of the same sex. I want kids of my own? That can be arranged, I can get surrogacy or I can just have consensual sex with a woman and also have a man there to help me along. A child who has not yet reached puberty can not procreate, so your argument about being sexually attracted to what you can procreate with falls flat on that regard.

Bitch sit.