Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Regina]

Basically any gay person who, like I said, values religion (namely Christianity and Islam) over their own rights as human beings, whose sole purpose of existence is to pander to straight religious peoples' views. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that.

Gay people who are apologists for religion (knowing damn well what Christianity and Islam thinks of them), closet-case gay Republicans who actively push back against open gays, "ex-gays". All that lot, I have absolutely no time for them and I wish more people would call them out on their fuckery.

[Ace]

Basically any gay person who, like I said, values religion (namely Christianity and Islam) over their own rights as human beings, whose sole purpose of existence is to pander to straight religious peoples' views. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that.

Gay people who are apologists for religion, closet-case gay Republicans who actively push back against open gays, "ex-gays". All that lot.

Hmmmm interesting.

Well Rachael Madow did do a segment were she found that about 60% of homosexuals were in the republican party.

Hahaha American Dad also had an episode about that.

Would they be lumped in with those in the gay community who are them self against same sex marriage?

Hey like any community it has all kinds. But why not the Jews as well? And what of Hindu and all of them?

How about Non-gold,Crazy Gay? NGCG . . . . hmmm?!!
non gold for anti same marriage, Crazy for religious nut, and the last G you will never guess what it is??? Guess, Guess come on I dare you?

Yea NGCG is shitty. I got to think on that. Damn that a stumpier.

---

[quote='Yeauxleaux' pid='978629' dateline='1435716586']
Basically any gay person who, like I said, values religion (namely Christianity and Islam) over their own rights as human beings, whose sole purpose of existence is to pander to straight religious peoples' views. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that.

Gay people who are apologists for religion, closet-case gay Republicans who actively push back against open gays, "ex-gays". All that lot.

Wait one can be an ex-gay?? How the hell can that be ??

[robvalue]

Ace: I can't make any sense of what you're saying, sorry. You sure don't have to debate with me and clearly you don't want to so we'll call it a day.

[Longhorn]

I have a massive willy

And you can split it as many times as you like provided you open and close the quote properly.

but it's absolutely rammed with STD's

and you can keep on going and going, copying and pasting different parts of a post inside quote tags...

and has tried to strangle me to death at least five times.

There, easy. Oh and for fuck's sake, keep to one colour in your posts, much easier on the eyes.

Have I told you lately that I love you?

[rado84]

What's there to discuss? This smells like a hate topic to me...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Seems as though your sense of smell might be right on the money.

[Iroscato]

You're welcome Ace. Another piece of advice - maybe cut down the smilies to one or two per post. They can also break formatting and make posts difficult to read.

And you can split it as many times as you like provided you open and close the quote properly.
and you can keep on going and going, copying and pasting different parts of a post inside quote tags...

There, easy. Oh and for fuck's sake, keep to one colour in your posts, much easier on the eyes.

Have I told you lately that I love you?

You don't need to as I'm fully aware, but it's always welcome regardless

[Anima]

Anima, got never answered me. What does same sex marriage hurt anybody?

It doesn't harm anyone, regardless of what people might say. And how they might justify their prejudice and dislike.

Nobody is harmed, not society, not societal structures, not liberal democracies, nobody. Giving equal rights to people who were unjustifiably prevented from having those rights is not a detriment.

Actually you are going to see a ton of law suits fly into the courts. The ruling that was just made is in contradiction to all of the legal precedence that exists (you know what those social structures use). Current cases pending in the courts concern state payment for IVF (about $70k per treatment, usually 4 or more treatments are needed), state payment for sex changes (about $30k), law suits regarding parental rights (at the expense of the state, some of which result in the child being given to a non-biological parent against the will of the biological parents), suits regarding extensive renovation and reconstruction of prisons to accommodate to name a few. Those rights were not being unjustly withheld from those people. They were being with held in accordance with the just authority of the States granted by the constitution (honestly read the ruling!)

None the less I am always a fan of the "not harming anyone argument". Without making any equality between the following and same sex people are we willing to abide by that argument. Are we to legalize anything that does not "hurt anyone"? What do you mean by hurt? By that do you mean the term cognizable injury at law? In which case there must be a physical injury as evidenced by need for professional treatment or that results in a continuous change of condition degraded to that of the normal condition.

If so this ruling in itself cannot stand. No one was hurting them by not granting them added benefits. Or are we going to say denying them added benefits or recognition hurts them? In which case denying all of us who are not married or without children is hurting us. No one was hurting them by not giving them public recognition of their relationship. If they were doesn't that mean we are hurting anyone who wants public recognition of their relationship or activities who is not getting it?

In fact by granting or denying any group any benefit or recognition not conferred to everyone is harmful. I believe this is the argument to equality is it not? But we know we cannot stick to strict equality in all things regardless of the quality of all things lest we legalize assault (fear of harm is not harm), cannibalism, necrophilia, prostitution, any human activity with non-human entities or things (trespass to land, trespass to chattel, trespass to anything since trespassing is not hurting anyone, and so forth). If it does not result in cognizable injury than it should not be illegal.

Sounds stupid? Good! Because that is effectively what the recent ruling just said. It argues people have a constitutional right to dignity and that by not granting legal recognition to their chosen activities the rest of us are denying them dignity. I wonder who could possibly sue using that argument?

[Anima]

You drug us back to an issue of legality by claiming the absurd idea that there's a compelling argument for the prohibition of other forms of non-procreative sex but that it's not taken up because it would be impossible to enforce. I simply referenced Lawrence to show that the idea would be immediately unconstitutional for reasons other than utility of resources.

Correct. But I point out the it would only be unconstitutional because of the invasion of privacy. Not because it would be a violation of equal protection or the due process clause. As the state has the right to manage its resources by which the people are its resources (yes that is in the law).

I think it's time you got a little more specific with your teleological argument. Much of your conversation smacks of the naturalistic fallacy. If you are using an internal teleological theory to answer the biological question of 'why do we fuck', then who cares? You can't immediately get from here to the idea that we shouldn't be fucking for other reasons. I'm certainly hoping your not trying to invoke some as yet unspoken external platonic teleology where an outside agent is assigning some value. Human hands didn't evolve to manipulate aircraft controls, tennis rackets, guitars or keyboards; will you be consistent and clamor on for the prohibition of such activity based on your idea of a teleological nature?

Ha ha. Human hands did indeed evolve to manipulate the material world (such is there teleological end). However, the argument presented seems to stipulate identification of teleological end to the act does not mean society should not encourage or permit the act for other uses. By which I would ask are we saying society should thereby encourage or permit the act for all social uses? If you answer yes than we may say fucking for pleasure provides no societal benefit (I have been telling the cheating chick at my work that for months she could be getting paid and getting laid!! ); while fucking for procreation, financial gain, to establish dominance, to exert control, to torture, and to punish (let's face it none of us want to go to prison to be anally raped) is of societal benefit.

Now of those listed we would say for financial benefit makes them a prostitute, dominance makes them an asshole or sexual deviant, control generally makes them a sexual deviant (as psychologist state most do it for control and dominance rather than pleasure), while torture and punishment are not something we find palatable regardless of the their social practicality. So alas the only kind of fucking which is of value to society and not considered unpalatable is procreative. Now as our palate changes we may incorporate more. But pleasure does not satisfy a social need. That is a personal want (as pleasure does not necessarily satisfy a personal need either.)

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It doesn't harm anyone, regardless of what people might say. And how they might justify their prejudice and dislike.

Nobody is harmed, not society, not societal structures, not liberal democracies, nobody. Giving equal rights to people who were unjustifiably prevented from having those rights is not a detriment.

Actually you are going to see a ton of law suits fly into the courts.  The ruling that was just made is in contradiction to all of the legal precedence that exists (you know what those social structures use).  Current cases pending in the courts concern state payment for IVF (about $70k per treatment, usually 4 or more treatments are needed), state payment for sex changes (about $30k), law suits regarding parental rights (at the expense of the state, some of which result in the child being given to a non-biological parent against the will of the biological parents), suits regarding extensive renovation and reconstruction of prisons to accommodate to name a few. Those rights were not being unjustly withheld from those people.  They were being with held in accordance with the just authority of the States granted by the constitution (honestly read the ruling!)

None the less I am always a fan of the "not harming anyone argument".  Without making any equality between the following and same sex people are we willing to abide by that argument.  Are we to legalize anything that does not "hurt anyone"?  What do you mean by hurt?  By that do you mean the term cognizable injury at law?  In which case there must be a physical injury as evidenced by need for professional treatment or that results in a continuous change of condition degraded to that of the normal condition.

If so this ruling in itself cannot stand.  No one was hurting them by not granting them added benefits.  Or are we going to say denying them added benefits or recognition hurts them?  In which case denying all of us who are not married or without children is hurting us.   No one was hurting them by not giving them public recognition of their relationship.  If they were doesn't that mean we are hurting anyone who wants public recognition of their relationship or activities who is not getting it?

In fact by granting or denying any group any benefit or recognition not conferred to everyone is harmful.  I believe this is the argument to equality is it not?  But we know we cannot stick to strict equality in all things regardless of the quality of all things lest we legalize assault (fear of harm is not harm), cannibalism, necrophilia, prostitution, any human activity with non-human entities or things (trespass to land, trespass to chattel, trespass to anything since trespassing is not hurting anyone, and so forth).  If it does not result in cognizable injury than it should not be illegal.

Sounds stupid?  Good!  Because that is effectively what the recent ruling just said.  It argues people have a constitutional right to dignity and that by not granting legal recognition to their chosen activities the rest of us are denying them dignity.  I wonder who could possibly sue using that argument?

Legal spiel aside (I am not a US resident, neither am I a lawyer), granting equal rights to marry under the law to those have been unjustifiably prevented from marrying harms nobody. And what do I mean by 'hurt' or harm? I have no idea really. What do you mean? You seem to be 'hurt' by the idea of two men or women having their marriage viewed as being equitable to that of a man or a woman. Why is that? I'm not. My marriage to my wife doesn't feel devalued or threatened by it.

Let's cut away the nonsense and stick to brevity. What, exactly, is the problem in letting two men or two women marry, to you? You have an objection, fine, but I'm not going to sit through and read a myriad of legal discourse which may or may not be relevant at all to the question in hand.

There are many points in your reply I take issue with, but I'll stick with the bold. What exactly is the link between allowing homosexuals and/or LGBT's to have marriage rights equal to those who are straight who marry link to, say cannibalism? Why is that equitable to two legally consenting men/women marrying each other? if people want to fuck a corpse, or engage in prostitution, then I have no problem with that aside my personal dislike of either. I'm not going to advocate a ban because I dislike it.

I just don't see any reasonable justification for an objection aside 'well, if you let the gayz marry, then pretty soon people will be marrying their dogs'. 1. So what? 2. Not equitable at all, in any way.