Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Now they should fire this stupid cunt just on general principles.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/supreme-...-licenses/

Supreme Court denies Kentucky clerk request on gay marriage licenses

They should have fired the stupid bitch as soon as she started denying licenses.  Fucking Kentucky.

Hmm, do you mean like the President and  Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr, who “decided that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, . . . ”

Even his own “lawyers told Mr. Obama, he had a constitutional duty to comply until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Providing federal benefits to same-sex couples in defiance of the law . . .  theoretically. . . . risk articles of impeachment.”

Here is an artical also.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/pol....html?_r=0  

[Longhorn]

Ace? Citation? Pt 2?

[Anima]

That's some stupid fucking logic.

"Durr hurr if people are gay it'll lead to extinction!"

Yeah, cause EVERYBODY IS SUDDENLY GOING TO BECOME GAY IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE!  Oh wait, no.  That's a fucking stupid suggestion.  It has absolutely ZERO logic to it.  Besides -- you stated that a gay man and a lesbian woman can have kids.  If gay people can have kids that way, it won't lead to extinction, now will it?

Actually that logic is sound and not a fallacy. As requested the argument shows the relationship between orientation, action, particular resultant, and universal normalized resultant. I know that you wish to assume that homosexuality shall not become prevalent in society (I did not expect you to believe such) what argument is being made in justification of this assumption and what conclusion is to be drawn from it?

Since we both recognize the particular negative resultant (which you even took extra care to voice as GAY PEOPLE CANNOT HAVE KIDS) than your argument becomes though the orientation leads to an act has a particular negative consequence, the act should not be prohibited as the particular shall never become universal. In which case I may readily state the same may be said of murder and murderers. If murder were made legal today every one would not become a murder. Thus by your argument it is unlikely the particular negative of the murder will become a universal (though again you would need to justify this assumption and may not simply assert it dogmatically). By your same argument though the orientation leads to an act with a particular negative consequence the unlikelihood of that particular becoming universal negates any need to avoid the orientation or prohibit the action so as to avoid the consequence. Thus we are not logically justified in prohibiting murder since they are ubiquitous, but of such rarity that any number of them are really not a threat to humanity as a whole anyway.

I expect you do not agree (and you should not). But for you to make such argument for homosexuality, while not accepting the argument for murders is special pleading and thereby exhibits the fallacy and bias of your argument.

[...]1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)[...]

"Extinction"?... :

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... 

Oh, how you retards crack me up. Better stick to your book with talking animals, dumb-ass...

Glad you find that humorous. I am not sure what book you are reading with talking animals... Must be a kids book. In either case as already stated the logic of the argument follows. Like Divinity you do not think homosexuality will be of such prevalence as to lead to the normalization of the particular result. Once again you have no provided argument for why such an assumption is justified (I would be interested to hear it as it will be an argument for why homosexuality will always be marginal) nor so such an assumption remove the negative particular result of the act which follows from the orientation, which should be avoided.

(And I am lead to believe we are not allowed to use retard in a derogatory manner anymore. Just an FYI before people start calling you a bigot for doing so )

It's sort of like what Kant's Categorical Imperative might have been if Kant had been a complete fuckwit.

Very nice! It is indeed based on Kant's Categorical Imperative and is logically sound. Needless to say we see the argument if valid for the murderer, but just do not seem to want to see it for homosexuality. Bias? However, I am more than happy to hear your logical rebuttal as well as you argument in their favor. I wait with baited breath.

[Anima]

By that logic all people should be legally required to have children. If we normalize not having children it will lead to extinction.

The argument is not discussing legality but rather biology. Biologically speaking our only purpose for existing is to procreate. Now if we wish to construct laws in accordance with biology than we would make it so that every is legally required to try to have children (admittedly some may fail to do so). If we wish to construct the laws to recognize biology, but not to in accord with it directly we would have laws that encourage people to have children without requiring them to do so (you know like giving benefits to couples who have children.)

[Anima]

I think some people have been making the slippery slope argument for so long that they forget homosexuality and paedophilia aren't the same thing.

They think if they say it enough times, it will be true. That's not how debate usually works.

100 pages of this drivel? Argh.

HA HA!! If only that were true as I have read 100 page of drivel regarding false equivalency without a single argument of justification or in their favor.

It would appear many believe saying it again and again will make it true.

Argument was presented of the equivalent nature of pedophilia and homosexuality in terms of:

An Orientation leads to an Act to a Particular Resultant to a Universal Resultant.

In this regards homosexuality and pedophilia are both orientation of sexual expression/proclivity/desire/etcetera and equivalent in terms of the argument.

[Divinity]

So I guess you're going to become gay now?  You must really like the cock, and are afraid of the consequences that don't exist.

[Losty]

By that logic all people should be legally required to have children. If we normalize not having children it will lead to extinction.

The argument is not discussing legality but rather biology. Biologically speaking our only purpose for existing is to procreate. Now if we wish to construct laws in accordance with biology than we would make it so that every is legally required to try to have children (admittedly some may fail to do so). If we wish to construct the laws to recognize biology, but not to in accord with it directly we would have laws that encourage people to have children without requiring them to do so (you know like giving benefits to couples who have children.)

Biologically speaking biology does not offer any purpose for our existence. In Germany, there are laws that encourage people to have children. In America, should have laws that encourage people to have less children.

[Anima]

You are honestly that stupid, aren't you? The human race continues to amaze me daily, and you are one such example, albeit an incredibly negative one.
Wow...

Agreed. People who accuse others of being fools who believe stupidity which is devoid of justification continue to amaze me for saying any number of horrible things about my person because I will not believe their stupidity without logical justification.

Try as they might the ad hominem, fallacies, and pathos based arguments seem to be sufficient for them to be as fervent and fanatical about this subject as those they despise in another.

Belief is god is stupid because it is not justified by facts or logic? Well than belief in the equality of persons devoid of quality is equally stupid unless justified by fact or logic. The facts exhibit that people are not equal. The logic supports them not being so. But DAMMIT IT WE WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEF THEY ARE EQUAL REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS OR LOGIC!!!

Wow! Amazing indeed.

[Anima]

Biologically speaking biology does not offer any purpose for our existence. In Germany, there are laws that encourage people to have children. In America, should have laws that encourage people to have less children.

How so? Biology offers a great deal regarding the purpose of our existence. In fact procreation is so ingrained into our vary existence that nearly every species on this planet only lives to sexual maturity (very few live beyond this point). Up until about 100 years ago humans were not very different in this regard.

Furthermore biology is so ingrained to the procreation of the species that we have biological genders. Which exist for the sole purpose of di-hybrid procreation. If di-hybrid procreation was not a concern of biology than their is no need for biology to assign biological genders. After all biology does not care about procreation.

America is also have a population growth issue. They really should have laws to encourage people to have children. Just like Europe they are trying to deal with the problem by encouraging people to have more children and by immigration into the country. But do not doubt it is a problem.

[Anima]

That's not me angry.  That's just how I talk all the fucking time.  Angry me can be a very nasty bitch.

Thankfully we are giving consideration to your argument and not your personal eloquence... Or lackthereof.