Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Cato]

Anima,
The welfare therefore increasing births to unwed mothers is a canard.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers...es-akerlof

The facts suggest the lowered social stigma associated led to far fewer shotgun weddings. The article also points out that if welfare was the cause unwed births would have risen sharply in the early 60s and then tapered off in the 70s and 80s commensurate with welfare variations. I can't help but wonder how the anti-abortion fervor has contributed.

Biological parents are held liable for child care regardless of marital status. This line of reasoning is a non-starter.

I have no problem accepting that no fault divorces may have led to a change in attitude towards the institution; however, I fail to see how allowing same sex marriages does anything to change this.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that same sex marriages will impact traditional marriage rates:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers...es-akerlof

[Anima]

I love it, from "we have an interest in continuing our discrimination" to "we'll just continue to be bigots no matter what laws you pass".

On the first count, we don't (and isn't it lovely to frame the conversation in such a blatant display of disregard for our fellow man...lol), and the second is a -no shit- statement.  

Of course bigots will continue to be bigots regardless of the laws we write or the manner in which we coerce their compliance....if that weren't true then we probably wouldn't need to discuss this issue at the level of the supreme court, eh?

@Rob, LOL..you don't need to know much to get to the heart of this, all the legal'eez is just a veneer through which the witless argue -for- that which they would otherwise be ashamed -of-.

Being a bigot is not illegal (4th Amendment right to privacy). Saying bigoted things is not illegal (1st Amendment freedom of speech). Even discrimination is not illegal so long as it past the proper level of scrutiny (4th Amendment right to privacy and 14th Amendment due process clause).

So ad hominem name calling is the trues sign of wit? The law does not let the religious nut go to court and say, "This law is bigoted and stupid. Change it!!" any more than it lets you do the same.

As stated by Aristotle, "The law is reason free from passion" and "There is no greater form of inequality than to try to treat to unequal things as if they were equal." So we know there is a need to discriminate groups of people from one another, otherwise we run the risk of false equivalency and injustice. What is being argued here is if the discrimination here is invidious. It is not sufficient to say, "I feel it is stupid, get rid off it" anymore than for someone else to say, "I feel it is stupid to get rid off it" without giving any reason.

Be happy we it is being argued at length in stupid legal'eez. It could just be resolved in the manner of any lawless society, by killing en mass.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've neither commented upon nor denied that discrimination can be legal, in fact, my personal appraisal of the situation -depends- upon that very irony.   So........you were saying?


Ad hom?  You've just made it painfully clear that you don't understand what that term means - so I'll disregard going forward.I understand what's being discussed, you've seen my opinion of what's being discussed- and the -manner- in which it is being discussed.  Did you have a question or did you hope that I might have changed my mind since I posted last?  
 

On to lawless s killings en mass are we?  Gee, and it all started with the gay marriage question - see what happens, see how slippery the slope is! 






 

[Losty]

"2)Incestuous relationships are psychologically harming to the people directly and indirectly involved (such as the resultant children)."

Proof??

Umm... Internet search. I would prefer not to have to comb through the myriad of websites that will popup in regards to incestuous relationships. But I am confident you can find it.

You made the assertion so feel free to back it up with a credible source.

[Anima]

I've neither commented upon nor denied that discrimination can be legal, in fact, my personal appraisal of the situation -depends- upon that very irony.   So........you were saying?

Ah. But I was not only saying that discrimination can be legal. I, like Aristotle, am even saying that discrimination can be and is natural, ethical, and moral. Where as it appears you are saying that though it is ethical it is immoral to be discriminatory.

Ad hom?  You've just made it painfully clear that you don't understand what that term means - so I'll disregard going forward.I understand what's being discussed, you've seen my opinion of what's being discussed- and the -manner- in which it is being discussed.  Did you have a question or did you hope that I might have changed my mind since I posted last?  

I do not know argumentum ad hominem... Surely, we are not trying to claim that calling people bigots and idiots for holding a view or argument is not argumentum ad hominem? The subject being discussed is discussed in the particular manner as the goal of the petitioners is to change the ethical law. Thus the argument shall have to satisfy ethical legal principles and be made in accordance with ethical legal arguments. Now if we would like to argue the subject under some other principles (such as morality, biology, etcetera) we may do that as well (though we may want to do it in a different thread so as to not confuse this thread). Just let me know.

On to lawless s killings en mass are we?  Gee, and it all started with the gay marriage question - see what happens, see how slippery the slope is! 

As I said in another thread. There is the natural law (what is physically possible), the ethical law (what is socially acceptable), and the moral law (what is individually acceptable). When there is a conflict ethical supersedes moral and natural supersedes ethical. So if we are arguing it at law and that fails we resort to resolution by the natural law. Which undoubtedly be as peaceful as all resolution conflict in the wild

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah.  But I was not only saying that discrimination can be legal.  I, like Aristotle, am even saying that discrimination can be and is natural, ethical, and moral.  Where as it appears you are saying that though it is ethical it is immoral to be discriminatory.

Yes yes yes, you're very much like aristotle, get on with it.  I don't know why you think we're having a disagreement on this point, we aren't.  

I do not know argumentum ad hominem...

Clearly, since an ad hom requires that the user claim that their opponent is wrong -because they are bigots-, for example.  That this is what makes them wrong.  Since we're not having that discussion.........your comments seem a bit out of place, now don't they?

As I said in another thread.  There is the natural law (what is physically possible), the ethical law (what is socially acceptable), and the moral law (what is individually acceptable).  When there is a conflict ethical supersedes moral and natural supersedes ethical.  So if we are arguing it at law and that fails we resort to resolution by the natural law.  Which undoubtedly be as peaceful as all resolution conflict in the wild

That's what I'm saying, bro, the slope is slippery. One day it's gays marrying..the next is total fucking anarchy!  Don't forget that people will also be screwing children, and dogs will be marrying cats (I've left something out haven't I, there's probably plenty more room at the top of this pile).  

[Anima]

Umm... Internet search. I would prefer not to have to comb through the myriad of websites that will popup in regards to incestuous relationships. But I am confident you can find it.

You made the assertion so feel free to back it up with a credible source.

It is not a pretty picture!! I DO NOT LIKE LOOKING IT UP!!!

"Adults who as children were incestuously victimized by adults often suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction, and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[41][68][69] Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

[Longhorn]

We knew that, but it isn't only incest, it's child abuse. What about consenting adults in an incestuous relationship?

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah, why does incest automatically equal abuse of minors in your mind, Anima?

[Nope]

You made the assertion so feel free to back it up with a credible source.

It is not a pretty picture!!  I DO NOT LIKE LOOKING IT UP!!!

"Adults who as children were incestuously victimized by adults often suffer from low self-esteem, difficulties in interpersonal relationships, and sexual dysfunction, and are at an extremely high risk of many mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, phobic avoidance reactions, somatoform disorder, substance abuse, borderline personality disorder, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[41][68][69] Research by Leslie Margolin indicates that mother-son incest does not trigger some innate biological response, but that the effects are more directly related to the symbolic meanings attributed to this act by the participants.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Children are not considered mature enough to consent to sexual activity.  There is a difference between a parent molesting their child and two adult siblings who decide to have sex.  I don't know if there have been any studies on sisters and brothers who voluntarily have sex because it is such a taboo subject

I found this article with quotes from a study by a geneticist
http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/200...lings.html

Alan Bittles, Australian geneticist, has collected data to show that the risk of birth defects increases from 2% in the general population to 4% when the parents are closely related (source). 

- See more at: http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/200...5ZRRP.dpuf