Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

Endeavoring to keep legal spiel aside:

1. Same sex couples were not being denied equal rights. They were being denied additional benefits associated with state recognition of their relationship. No one has a right to benefits. The State may confer those benefits to encourage desired activities to serve a legitimate social purpose.

2. The argument of conduct being permissible so long as it is not "hurting" anyone is one I have always found to be paradoxical.

If argued in terms of metaphysical harm (so not physical or financial) than it may be argued in terms of dignity or emotional harm. In which case argument may just as readily be made that compelling conduct one does not approve of is insulting to their dignity or emotional well being. Thus there is a harm committed in condoning and condemning an action. Since either engenders harm resolution should be made in terms of quality and quantity of harm, by which the the goal is to minimize harm in accordance with utility. In terms of same sex marriage we may say 10% of the population is so inclined while 90% is not. We may even narrow down the 90% in terms of pathetic (passionate) vs. apathetic (who cares) such that the 90% is now 40%. If the quality of offense is equal (meaning in terms of dignity or emotion) than the mere quantity of those who would be emotionally harmed by being forced to condone conduct they condemn is sufficient to support their condemnation on social grounds under not harming people.

If argued in terms of physical (or financial harm). We may simply state so long as no physical harm was brought upon the 10% than there is no harm sufficient to warrant the changing of the existing condition. Argument will likely follow there is no harm in changing the condition either. However, such a statement may not be accurately made unless changing of the condition requires no physical changes. If changing the condition requires physiological change said change is a burden upon the society which it would not have to bear if it does not change. This is to say it does not hurt anyone to stay but it will cause an ever so slight hurt to change. Once again determining under the argument of not harming anyone that to remain as is shall constitute a lesser harm than to change. Regarding the subject of financial harm I would direct back to bullet 1 above.

3. Once more avoiding the legal spiel, if we are to argue permissibility of conduct solely upon a lack of physical harm, are to ignore the subject of metaphysical harm, and are to ignore the added burden placed upon society to facilitate the desired change, we would then be in a situation whereby permissible conduct is to be determined in accordance with a theory of physical harm. To which any conduct which does not result in physical harm is thereby condoned. This argument invariably leads to the permissibility of cannibalism and necrophilia (so long as the one eaten is already dead and not killed to be eaten or screwed), Assault (which does not consist of any physical contact much less harm), battery and rape (so long as the batter or raped is not physically harmed, we are ignoring emotional harm), trespass (of any type so long as no one is physically harmed), invasion of privacy (so long as no one is physically harmed in the invasion), and many other things I am sure your imagination can come up with regarding illegal conduct that does not physically or financially harm anyone.

So to argue the no one was harmed in the making of the marriage argument is invalid if we consider either/and emotional harm, if we consider increased burden as a harm, or if we consider the permissibility of many acts we consider to be criminal as a harm. Then there is a harm.

[Anima]

Simple answer is because society is in need of certain kinds of fucking...

Really? How so? Last I checked there wasn't a population deficiency problem. Perhaps you are hell bent on proving Malthus correct.

I suggest you look up population growth in the United States, Europe, Russia, and Japan. I think you are going to find that population deficiency is already a problem.

Do not worry. Malthus is most assuredly correct. Overpopulation will lead to famine, excessive death from famine may leads to disease depending on the rate which the death occurs and the dead may be disposed of or interred.

[Aristocatt]

Really? How so? Last I checked there wasn't a population deficiency problem. Perhaps you are hell bent on proving Malthus correct.

I suggest you look up population growth in the United States, Europe, Russia, and Japan.  I think you are going to find that population deficiency is already a problem.  

Do not worry.  Malthus is most assuredly correct.  Overpopulation will lead to famine, excessive death from famine may leads to disease depending on the rate which the death occurs and the dead may be disposed of or interred.

100% of the professionals who talk about there being a population problem are fully aware of the population dynamics in the places you have discussed.

[Anima]

[quote='Anima' pid='978474' dateline='1435699686']


(1)From a social and biological argument you could say this.  As the social value of even an utterly useless person in nearly any other regard at least lies in their potential to create offspring of value.  The biological value of organism lies in their ability to procreate (it is the reason why we are male and female, as well as why the great majority of organisms on this planet live just long enough to procreate).

(2)From a moral standpoint the argument would be more in accordance with the teleological purpose of the act.  While it may readily be argued that any number of activities may be done for purposes not in accordance with their teleological purpose (sex for pleasure, perversion, torture, authoritative dominance, etcetera) we would say be better suited to argue that an act may be determined in terms of its teleological end (meaning if the end itself is bad the act is bad) and then arguing if the means by which the end is accomplished is of a moral quality.  Generally we may state if an act fails to satisfy the former than the latter does not matter.  If it satisfies the former than any particular actor may be said to act immorally if they fail at the latter.

I'll get to the second part of this post a little later.  I hold that your social/biological argument is incoherent.

Here's how it works:
You provided an instance where having too many homosexuals may be bad, and it was based on their inability to want to make babies by having sex.  This is because with too high a proportion of homosexuals, we may be unable to avoid extinction in the event of an unnamed calamity.  Furthermore, because they do not want to make babies the "natural" way, we shouldn't expect them to step up and make babies in the event of a calamity. As for how grounded in reality it is, I won't bother to argue.  This is mainly because I want to use the insanity of the assertion to my advantage below.

I was not arguing to high of a gay population. I was arguing insufficient number of heterosexual persons of procreative age. And that while we may hope for them to take one for the team there is no reason to hope for their benevolence when we can simply take advantage of the nature of the other.

This means that, as long as we are being impartial, if I can provide an example where the ability to want to make babies through sex would cause the extinction of our race, then I have by the same vein of logic showed you that heterosexuality is also wrong.  

Not quite. But I am willing to entertain the idea. This argument would be along the same vein as me saying science has facilitate the capability to destroy the world seven fold while religion has not. Therefore we should get rid of science since it will likely lead to our extinction and keep religion since it will not. Hmm... Perhaps you DO have a point

Global warming will do a fine job as an example.  As of right now, the population explosion of our species is expected to increase our energy use.  The expectation that a number of these nations will pull themselves out of poverty, thus consuming even more energy per capita adds to this population concern.  The real concern here is that scientists are aware of a "tipping point" where we will be unable to effectively manage the climate as it continues to warm in the long term.  This in turn could lead to a climate that is actually unsuitable for human life.  If this were to happen, slowly we could eventually die out.  Had we only had homosexuals walking the earth today, or at some earlier point before the tipping point was reached, we could have averted this tragedy, and we also could have left the option of procreation available by means of IVF treatment.  It doesn't matter if we can kill of billions off humans, because we don't know where the tipping point is, so we don't know when we should institute such a genocide.  In order to support massive genocide on this premise, people are going to need more than "what if" scenarios, and so I posit that such a possibility, is not only possibly not going to occur, but also unlikely to occur, if not impossible.

Interesting, but:

1. You are making an argument to consumption more than to population without consideration to capitalistic tendency. As population increases consumption by person will decrease (while consumption of some persons will not change) due to people being physically or financial excluded from access to those resources. Assuming the quantity of resources remains fixed (we do not figure out a way to create more food or harvest raw materials from asteroids or something) eventually the rate of consumption for the majority of persons will be insufficient for them to support the birthing of additional persons (lack of nutrition will lead to miscarriage and lack of resources will lead to higher rates of infant morality) thereby naturally curtailing population growth. (Such is already the case in impoverished third world countries in relation to the industrialized nations with).

2. I like the argument to the tipping point. But since we do not know when it will occur we may not assume it has already occurred (assuming we will know when it does), will shortly occur, will eventually occur, or will ever occur. Now it seems your argument is it will eventually occur if we do not curtail population growth. So be it, but as stipulated in bullet 1 such curtailment does not necessitate the existence of homosexual persons or limitation of birthing to IVF processes. However, if that situation never occurs and population was curtailed too much we now run the risk of having insufficient means to repopulate which does not necessitate homo sexual activity, but hetero sexual activity. Again we may hope for the benevolence of one in them biting the bullet for the team. Or we can count on the nature of the other to do what they do so well.

The conclusion of this argument however does not show why your argument is incoherent.  It requires we go a step further.

That it does not.

We actually never claimed that hetero or homo sexuality were wrong.  We claimed that they were a subset of two different types of people.  Those of us that enjoy making babies by having sex.  And those of us that do not enjoy making babies by having sex.  
However everyone falls into either those two categories, or a third one I while get to momentarily.

Let's assume everyone falls into those to categories, and that all it takes to condemn type of person as bad is to show that that kind of person could cause extinction.  If everyone falls into those two categories, then everyone is bad, since both categories of individual can cause extinction.  However when we say that extinction is bad, we are also saying that the continued existence of that species is good.  

So I ask you, how can an entire species be provably bad, but at the same time, their continued existence be good?

3. I do not think your argument evidences the need for the homo as much as the need to modify our consumption. Furthermore (as suggested in bullet 1 and 2 above) your argument ignores the natural tendency of capitalistic forces as well as the impact of decreased resources on birth and infant mortality rates (it also ignores homeostasis of the planet in curtailing population growth of any species upon available resources. I know you played sharks and minnows as a kid). To which I would respond your argument does not suffice to show hetero as proverbially bad. (In short acquiring is more difficult than discarding. So we should acquire first knowing discarding may be done readily with or without our intention by volitional or natural forces).

Finally I get to the third option.  You might say, "wait, what if someone is indifferent to either option presented above"?  My response to this, is indifference towards something still manifests as a preference for one or the other in reality.  Either the indifferent are or are not having kids.  This is important, because if we look at the two insane possibilities we have both presented, we would say that the indifferent are not able to save our world in my example, since the world ends before we realize it has ended, however they do have the ability to save the world, without relying on the homosexuals to do something they may not want to do, in your example.  In this vein if we were to compare the goodnes of a type of human based on these three classifications, we might say indifference>homosexuality>heterosexuality, recognizing that a healthy balance between the three is the best way to prevent calamity.

4. The third option is the inclusion of the asexual? Which you then say is a preference for one or the other. To which I would agree and say this effect of this indifference shall determine the category to which they are to be ascribed. But, again the dependency on the homo or asexual parties to procreate benevolently is an unnecessary risk when parties exist who will willfully procreate due to natural tendency.

So on the one hand we have to accept an incoherent theory, and on the other hand, we accept what everyone on this forum knew already, which is that a balance of different kinds of individuals  with regards to sexual orientations is healthy for society.

5. It does not take all kinds. It simply takes the right kind!! But I do like the effort.

[Aristocatt]

My argument is very simple. You have done nothing to point out why it is wrong in relation to the premises you had postulated to justify why homosexuality could be considered wrong.
Let's try this again.
Premises that are required for your example to hold any validity are as follows:
(1)Extinction is bad.
(2)If it only takes one example of how having a certain kind of individual in society could lead to extinction, then that kind of person is bad. (This is because you presented one example of how homosexuality might lead to extinction. I think your example is insane, but that's fine, lets role with it.)

I presented an example of how heterosexuality might lead to extinction.
Premise 1 says this is bad.
Premise 2 supports the notion that heterosexuality is bad.

Conclusion:
Using the moral framework you set up to show that homosexuality is bad, every single form of sexuality is bad. Asexuality is also bad, it presents an inclination to not have children by having sex.

I do not know what it means to be indifferent. I am not sure if it is possible. I only listed that it might be a counter point that you present.

Your last sentence is acceptable. It does not however tell us what the right kind balance is. It does not exclude homosexuality from that balance, and so the conclusion that homosexuality is apriori wrong, does not hold water.

Every single counterpoint you made is either a moot one, or one that actually makes my point that the moral framework you have presented to justify that homosexuality is bad, an insane moral framework.

[Regina]

If it ever came to a situation where gay people had to have children for the sake of continuing the human race, that can be arranged. gay =/= infertile. most of us actually are physically capable of having kids too. Evidence for this being that an increasing number of gays actually are having children of their own through surrogacy or sperm donorship. This all means your argument about extinction is null and void. No, most gay people are perfectly capable of having children if they double up with someone of the opposite sex to do it, and probably would if it meant the survival of humanity. However, with so many people in the world right now that's not a pressing concern.

You're also talking with this simplistic view that the sole purpose of an individual human's life is to reproduce. Sure that is an important part of life for most people and is the natural progression of a species, but it erases the choice that many people take to not have children for personal reasons. I don't think I want children, maybe one day I'll change my mind but for now I don't. Does that make me selfish? Probably according to you but eh, it's my choice.

[Pyrrho]

...
Going back to what I said earlier, it's not like there's any danger of humanity going extinct anytime soon. We have 7 billion people and counting. 2-4% of the world's population who are LGBT arent going to make such a dramatic dent in the situation.

And if it ever came to a situation where gay people had to have children for the sake of continuing the human race, that can be arranged. gay =/= infertile. most of us actually are physically capable of having kids too. Evidence for this being that an increasing number of gays actually are having children of their own through surrogacy or sperm donorship.

If it ever became necessary for gay people to reproduce, you would not have to actually have sex with a woman.  If you masturbate into a cup, you can hand that to a woman who can transfer your semen into a turkey baster (or syringe without a needle) and then insert that into her.  In fact, you could leave it in a room and never have to even see a woman.  Of course, there is likely specialized equipment that is essentially the same sort of thing, that is used at sperm donation centers.  You could be looking at gay porn or have another man help you extract your semen.

Of course, as you say, there is no danger that you are going to need to reproduce.  The real danger is, too many people are reproducing.  We should encourage people to have less children.  Whether that is with people choosing gay sex, or people using good birth control, makes no difference for the desired outcome.

As things are, homosexuality is not a problem for the world.  It is religious twits who hate it and then try to make up "reasons" to support their religious views, who are a problem.  As things are, it would be better if more people were gay.  If sexual orientation were a choice, I likely would have chosen to be gay as a way to say "fuck you!" to Christian jerks who disapprove.  Jerks deserve to be offended.

[Pyrrho]

If it ever came to a situation where gay people had to have children for the sake of continuing the human race, that can be arranged. gay =/= infertile. most of us actually are physically capable of having kids too. Evidence for this being that an increasing number of gays actually are having children of their own through surrogacy or sperm donorship. This all means your argument about extinction is null and void. No, most gay people are perfectly capable of having children if they double up with someone of the opposite sex to do it, and probably would if it meant the survival of humanity. However, with so many people in the world right now that's not a pressing concern.

You're also talking with this simplistic view that the sole purpose of an individual human's life is to reproduce. Sure that is an important part of life for most people and is the natural progression of a species, but it erases the choice that many people take to not have children for personal reasons. I don't think I want children, maybe one day I'll change my mind but for now I don't. Does that make me selfish? Probably according to you but eh, it's my choice.

Deciding to not have children because one does not want them is no more selfish than deciding to have children because one does want them.  In fact, given the population problem, it is more selfish to have children than to not have them.  If you want to do what is right for the world, you will decide to not have children.

So, feel free to tell anyone who wants you to have children to go fuck themselves.

[Ace]

I ᗪOᑎ'T KᑎOᗯ ᗯᕼO EᒪᔕE TO ᔕᗩY TᕼIᔕ. TᕼEᖇE Iᔕ ᗩ ᗰᗩᒍOᖇ ᑭOᑭᑌᒪᗩTIOᑎ ᑭᖇOᗷᒪEᗰ ᗩᒪᖇEᗩᗪY Iᑎ ᗰᗩᑎY ᑕOᑌᑎTIEᔕ , EᐯEᑎ TᕼE ᑌᔕᗩ. ᗰᗩᑎY EᑌᖇOᑭEᗩᑎ ᑎᗩTIOᑎᔕ ᕼᗩᐯE ᗰᗩᗪE EᑕOᑎOᗰIᑕᗩᒪ IᑎᑕEᑎTIᐯEᔕ ᖴOᖇ ᑭEOᑭᒪE TO ᔕTᗩᖇT TO ᑭᖇOᗪᑌᑕE ᗰOᖇE ᑕᕼIᒪᗪᖇEᑎ. TᕼE ᑭEOᑭᒪE EᐯEᑎ GET TIᗰE Oᖴᖴ Oᖴ ᗯOᖇK TO "ᗷOᗰ..ᗷOᗰ". ᗰᗩᑎY ᑕOᑌᑎTᖇY'ᔕ TᕼEᔕE "ᗷEᑎEᖴITᔕ/ IᑎᑕEᑎTIᐯEᔕ" ᗩᖇE OᑎᒪY OᑭTIOᑎᗩᒪ TO ᕼETEᖇOᔕE᙭ᑌᗩᒪ ᑕᑌᑭᒪᔕ. ᑎOT TO TᕼEIᖇ ᕼOᗰOᔕE᙭ᑌᗩᒪ ᑭOᑭᑌᒪᗩTIOᑎ, EᐯEᑎ Iᑎ ᑕOᑌᑎTᖇIEᔕ TᕼᗩT ᕼᗩᐯE ᔕᗩᗰE ᔕE᙭ ᑌᑎIOᑎᔕ Oᖇ ᗰᗩᖇᖇIᗩGE, ᔕOᗰE GᗩY ᖇIGᕼT GᖇOᑌᑭᔕ ᕼᗩᐯE ᑕᗩᒪᒪEᗪ ᗪIᔕᑕᖇIᗰIᑎᗩTIOᑎ ᗷᑌT TᕼE ᑎᗩTIOᑎᗩᒪ GOᐯEᖇᑎᗰEᑎTᔕ ᕼᗩᐯE ᑭEᗩTY ᗰᑌᑕᕼ ᕼᗩᐯE ᔕᗩIᗪ TO TᕼEᗰ Tᑌᖴᖴ. .. ᑕᑎᑎ'ᔕ ᖴᗩᖇEEᗪ ᘔᗩKᗩᖇIᗩ ᔕᕼOᗯ, I TᕼIᑎK IT Iᔕ ᑕᗩᒪᒪ Gᑭᔕ, ᗪIᗪ ᗩ ᔕEGᗰEᑎT Oᑎ TᕼIᔕ Oᑎ TᕼIᔕ ᐯEᖇY IᔕᔕᑌE ᗩᗷOᑌT TᗯO ᗯEEKᔕ ᗩGO. YOᑌ ᑕᗩᑎ ᒪOOK IT ᑌᑭ ᗩᑎᗪ ᖴIᑎᗪ IT.
ᔕOᖇᖇY ᖴOᖇ ᗷEIᑎG Iᑎ ᗩᒪᒪ ᑕᗩᑭᔕ IT TᕼE TYᑭE Oᖴ KEYᗷOᗩᖇᗪ TᕼᗩT Iᔕ Oᑎ TᕼIᔕ ᑭᕼOᑎE.?

[Longhorn]

Thanks, I see your point now