Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

This thread has become a showcase of bigotry.

Let's see if I can follow this reasoning:

1) Homos are somehow "worse" than heteros.

2) In a situation where we had to choose to save either homos or heteros, we should choose heteros.

3) Therefor, we should be free to ostracise, persecute and annoy homos any chance we get.

Sensible people do not make everyday judgements based on hypothetical and nonsensical scenarios. Plus, for all this increasingly obvious bigotry, point 1 has not been demonstrated at all. I'm done reading this foul bilge.

I agree with you fully. I myself have been amazed of the amount of bigotry speech that has been given  to other that may hold alternative ideological arguments from the majority in this forum.   Some is hidden in much word play while other are very plane to see.

A possible tyranny by the majority of the minority. Hmmm  

Tangent, but I want to rant.

Just seen this queen on instagram bashing gay pride marchers who dressed up as Jesus and made satire. "Disrespecting religion" this man says.

Gay people who do this shit wtf. You are aware this religion would have you burned alive if it still had power, right? If you think "disrespecting religion" is on par with burning people alive your sense of reality is skewed. This is not a gay-friendly religion that loves us, it hates us and is un-apologetic about it. Fuck their "feelings", and get a sense of humour ffs, religious satire can be hilarious.

I think the gay community needs an official pejorative term for these sell-out gays, who would throw other gays under the bus to pander to religious sensitivities. These "gays for Palestine" and "ex-gay" types who must have been smoking something. You're not gay people I want in my social circle, and you deserve to be called the fuck out for your bullshit and stigmatised.

Did not know there was gay hate on gay? because one side is religious and the other is not?? Very interesting


________________________________________________________________________________________________

.  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.
[/quote]
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is right to call the opposition names ? Hmm Could be seen as a hate attack on the religious .

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

[b]So fuck other peoples ideas? Got it.[/b]

Because it goes a long way to convince the “rubes” …

… the rubes need to convinced this behavior is not morally acceptable.

Name calling opposition. Got it.

[/quote]
_________________________________________________________________________________
 I say, gay couples are [i]better for us than heterosexual couples, because they are less likely to accidentally reproduce, and we already have way too many people.  .
[/quote]
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Is this not saying one group is better then another? So there is no equality or better said it is ok to have inequality if the lower of the two group were  heterosexuals?

[/i]

…  maybe they should think about changing their views, or at least not publicly stating them.

Sounds like don't ask don't tell to me. Deny opponents the right to free speech?

What these people are asking for is free speech, but they want that free speech to only apply to themselves. That's religion all over, play the victim card when it suits.

General fails assumed characteristic  of a group or a stereotypical statement.

… they're not a fucking church. What they were asked for was a damn cake, not their opinions on civil rights.

Got it, one has no say or can expresses them self.

. . . I could care less if its part of your hateful religion.

[b] stereotypical statement or an possible false assumption?[/b]

However, a lot of these religous people constantly voicing their objections to gay marriage (or divorce, or abortion) are textbook cases of bigotry.

It was never about the legal arguments. You just plain don't like gay people, and you decided to use whatever tools you had at your disposal, but you couldn't keep it up

Stereo-type statement?

People will likely stop using the terms "bigot" and "racist" when other people stop being bigoted and racist.  Or in other words, not in your lifetime, if ever.  So you should get used to hearing the terms with some frequency.

So name calling is ok if one does not agree with you?

[Esquilax]

I await an argument in opposition to #1.  It has been demonstrated they represent an increased burden and they inflict a metaphysical and physical harm.  So what is your argument they do not?

As I stated earlier I have yet to hear a single argument in their favor.  If you know one please share it.

Are you often in the habit of ranking human lives and deciding their worthiness for human rights based on that? Do you extend the same standards to other "burden" classes like the homeless and disabled, or does this ruthless utilitarianism of yours only extend to groups your religion already has a history of special pleading against?

[Anima]

I await an argument in opposition to #1.  It has been demonstrated they represent an increased burden and they inflict a metaphysical and physical harm.  So what is your argument they do not?

As I stated earlier I have yet to hear a single argument in their favor.  If you know one please share it.

Are you often in the habit of ranking human lives and deciding their worthiness for human rights based on that? Do you extend the same standards to other "burden" classes like the homeless and disabled, or does this ruthless utilitarianism of yours only extend to groups your religion already has a history of special pleading against?

1. Are we not all in this very same business? We recognize that those of close familial relation are of greater importance/value to us than strangers. But why? Procreation is an antiquated argument that does not matter (or so I hear). The strangers are not hurting us where as our immediate family often does. But we readily establish the stranger as lower in value of person to us than our immediate family based on our own emotional attachment; our familiarity with family vs strangers? As I said earlier my sister is a lesbian; I have a close personal relationship with her, but I will not determine my views on law, biology, society, and teleology based on my sentiment of my sister.

2. Now in regards to your particular question the answer is yes. I have many family members who suffer from physical (blind cousin, cousin with cerebral palsy) and mental disabilities (cousin with dyslexia, cousin with downs, cousin with epilepsy). I even have close persons to me who have acquired mental disorders due to traumatic events (cousin and fiancee with post-traumatic stress disorder), as well as family members who have become homeless addicts.

With that said I would not equate them (any more than I would a homo person) to persons who do not have these various disorders or deficiencies; such would readily be a false equivalency which does not recognize the apparent superiority and inferiority of the conditions. Furthermore I would most certainly not construct the law or social policy to promote or propagate these disabilities, disorders, or habits particularly if they are genetic defects which impede biological or sociological teleology.

Now I imagine the crux of your question is what I would do for those who are present. As I said earlier I am not saying round them up and execute them on the spot. However, I recognize they are an unnecessary burden upon society which any given society must deal with. Some societies may choose to deal with it by means of execution (it is a reasonable solution); other societies may ostracize them (you know like we do with our elderly in old folks homes or our disabled in special care facilities); still other societies may endeavor to cure them (through medical or psychological treatment); a few societies endeavor to integrate them (to some degree. None do so fully in recognition of their inherent inability or inferiority).

No matter what manner of treatment they receive from the given society two things may be said. First they would be seriously mistaken in commanding a specific treatment from society unless they may give argument for why they deserve such treatment (which I have yet to hear) as execution of them is a viable social solution (unless they are essential to society). As a friend of mine once told me, "We are here! We are queer! Deal with it!" To which I responded, "It does not get to decide how I deal with it. So I am going to kill it. I have dealt with it." Second, the manner in which society (or I personally) deal with them unless compelled by argument is subject to social whim at any given time. In which case we may say a la the Princess Bride, "Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

My personal method of dealing with them would be a combination of ostracism, partial integration, and treatment/curing. Those who can be reasonably cured should be cured. Those who cannot be cured must be further evaluated as socially functioning or non-functioning. If they are socially functioning (meaning they may function in the society as already defined) than I would integrate them to the degree their disability allows. If they are non-functioning (meaning they require substantial changes to society as defined or cannot function in any society) then they are to be ostracized in various manners in accordance with their disability (special care, asylum, prison, island of Elba, even execution)

3. With all of that said may I take it your lack of argument in their favor is that there is no argument in their favor? Is the support for their position only logical fallacies of False Equivalency, Argumentum ad Novitatem (Appeal to Novelty by not being on the wrong side of history), or Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity for them)? I confess, try as I might, I have not been able to come up with a better argument on their behalf. I hope we may find one otherwise as inequality will become known, what is new will change, and pity runs out...

Furthermore, it may be readily argued that one who condemns the view points of others based on their own views which are predicated entirely upon logical fallacies are in truth the bigots. The shit kicker may not know much, but he knows false equivalency when he sees it; and he is not a bigot for seeing it and letting others know he sees it.

[robvalue]

Fuck me with a scissor monkey.

It's not normally the atheist that plays the Hitler card but...

Hitler. Fuck me.

[Anima]

Fuck me with a scissor monkey.

It's not normally the atheist that plays the Hitler card but...

Hitler. Fuck me.

Ha ha!! Argumentum ad Hitlerum! Though that is:

1. Not an argument in their favor, as it is just a specific ad hominem
2. Does not denigrate the way we currently deal with people which is a combination of cure, partial integration, and ostracism including but not limited to execution. As stated by Shakespeare:

"There is no world without Verona walls
But purgatory, torture, hell itself.
Hence “banishèd” is banished from the world,
And world’s exile is death. Then “banishèd,”

Or in modern language:

"There is no world for me outside the walls of Verona, except purgatory, torture, and hell itself. So to be banished from Verona is like being banished from the world, and being banished from the world is death.'


Or were you just expressing your desire for scissor monkey copulation?

[Ace]

Are you often in the habit of ranking human lives and deciding their worthiness for human rights based on that? Do you extend the same standards to other "burden" classes like the homeless and disabled, or does this ruthless utilitarianism of yours only extend to groups your religion already has a history of special pleading against?

1.  Are we not all in this very same business?  We recognize that those of close familial relation are of greater importance/value to us than strangers.  But why?  Procreation is an antiquated argument that does not matter (or so I hear).  The strangers are not hurting us where as our immediate family often does.  But we readily establish the stranger as lower in value of person to us than our immediate family based on our own emotional attachment; our familiarity with family vs strangers?  As I said earlier my sister is a lesbian; I have a close personal relationship with her, but I will not determine my views on law, biology, society, and teleology based on my sentiment of my sister.

2.  Now in regards to your particular question the answer is yes.  I have many family members who suffer from physical (blind cousin, cousin with cerebral palsy) and mental disabilities (cousin with dyslexia, cousin with downs, cousin with epilepsy).  I even have close persons to me who have acquired mental disorders due to traumatic events (cousin and fiancee with post-traumatic stress disorder), as well as family members who have become homeless addicts.

With that said I would not equate them (any more than I would a homo person) to persons who do not have these various disorders or deficiencies; such would readily be a false equivalency which does not recognize the apparent superiority and inferiority of the conditions.  Furthermore I would most certainly not construct the law or social policy to promote or propagate these disabilities, disorders, or habits particularly if they are genetic defects which impede biological or sociological teleology.

Now I imagine the crux of your question is what I would do for those who are present.  As I said earlier I am not saying round them up and execute them on the spot.  However, I recognize they are an unnecessary burden upon society which any given society must deal with.  Some societies may choose to deal with it by means of execution (it is a reasonable solution); other societies may ostracize them (you know like we do with our elderly in old folks homes or our disabled in special care facilities); still other societies may endeavor to cure them (through medical or psychological treatment); a few societies endeavor to integrate them (to some degree.  None do so fully in recognition of their inherent inability or inferiority).

No matter what manner of treatment they receive from the given society two things may be said.  First they would be seriously mistaken in commanding a specific treatment from society unless they may give argument for why they deserve such treatment (which I have yet to hear) as execution of them is a viable social solution (unless they are essential to society).  As a friend of mine once told me, "We are here!  We are queer!  Deal with it!"  To which I responded, "It does not get to decide how I deal with it.  So I am going to kill it.  I have dealt with it."  Second, the manner in which society (or I personally) deal with them unless compelled by argument is subject to social whim at any given time.  In which case we may say a la the Princess Bride, "Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."

My personal method of dealing with them would be a combination of ostracism, partial integration, and treatment/curing.  Those who can be reasonably cured should be cured.  Those who cannot be cured must be further evaluated as socially functioning or non-functioning.  If they are socially functioning (meaning they may function in the society as already defined) than I would integrate them to the degree their disability allows.  If they are non-functioning (meaning they require substantial changes to society as defined or cannot function in any society) then they are to be ostracized in various manners in accordance with their disability (special care, asylum, prison, island of Elba, even execution)

3.  With all of that said may I take it your lack of argument in their favor is that there is no argument in their favor?  Is the support for their position only logical fallacies of False Equivalency, Argumentum ad Novitatem (Appeal to Novelty by not being on the wrong side of history), or Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity for them)?  I confess, try as I might, I have not been able to come up with a better argument on their behalf.  I hope we may find one otherwise as inequality will become known, what is new will change, and pity runs out...

Furthermore, it may be readily argued that one who condemns the view points of others based on their own views which are predicated entirely upon logical fallacies are in truth the bigots.  The shit kicker may not know much, but he knows false equivalency when he sees it; and he is not a bigot for seeing it and letting others know he sees it.

WoW Anima! Hmm?

Interesting in the use of the disabled humans/citizens that have physical or mental illness in determining how much integration they are given into society.

One can view this in education with students that are learning disable. All schools, (now legally required by the federal disability act), must provide learning center's with a certified staff to help learning disable students. Prior to this law many were unable to achieve any type of decent education.

If one were to say, “I with a learning disability demand to be treated equally in everything in every element in education.” Not only is such a statement extremely irrational and non-logically correct but, will actually hurt the learning disable more than help. The average student does not need aided or a setup of a special facility to study the material, write papers, or take tests. Those with disabilities will be subject to conduct their studies like the average student and treated completely the same without any aid with their studies. One would think that such aids may not be so important but, if one were to look at some examples it becomes very clear that this statement is untrue

Only hearing impaired students are in need of a sing language interpreter for the classroom. Not the average student.

Only a person with dyslexia is in need with software programs to help read all material and help write papers, extra time to take test and do papers, a scribe for writing. Not the average student.

Only those who are wheelchair bound need access to wheelchair access ramp to a building. Not the average student.

Only a blind student is in need of a cane, alternative format of reading material to braille material or a Seeing Eye Dog. Not the average student.

Even today may argue that such aids for these student are actually not aids but benefits and that any degrees that are achieved by them should have an asterisk on it stating aid was used. Unlike the average student that did not use any aid while studying their degree. For many non-learning disabled these aids given to these people are seen as special exemptions for these students and are not fair to the average student.

Another way to say this is that all citizens are equal no matter their age, race, or economic situation. Therefor all are subject to all the laws and the punishment if such laws are broken. So if a child commits the act of killing, they must therefore be tried as an adult, ( sadly this  actual occurs in this country ) and are subject to the fullest extent of  the punishment. Thus, if a murder, the child is to be given life in federal prison and to be served along with adult males.  (For separation of facilities is not equal (Brown v. Board of Education)) (Currently the youth is sent to Juvenal detention and then transported to the adult prison.) I fear this practices could end and my scenario will be reality. We try them as adults so we are already half way there, whats the difference in taking another step

Lets take the child element out. There have been many cases were the killer was an adult but only had an comprehension of a 5 year old. Are they to also be punished like the average citizen? Knowing that they are  truly not the average adult do to their low level of  mental capacity? NO!!

And should cannot be allowed! We do not treat children and adults the same, nor do we do so with individuals with major mental/physical disabilities or the elderly and they should never be!

But different treatment does not mean that the individuals are they to be treated inhumanly? No!  (even though historically many have been and are to this day). Are any less a person? No! Should have no rights? No! In fact, many laws and rights have been specifically made for them them and are not open to all average citizens, which thus dismiss the concept that all are treated equally in this country or should be.


Ha made me think something different there Anima. Good one  

[Ace]

Fuck me with a scissor monkey.

It's not normally the atheist that plays the Hitler card but...

Hitler. Fuck me.

Ha ha!! Argumentum ad Hitlerum!  Though that is:

1.  Not an argument in their favor, as it is just a specific ad hominem
\

 

OK fine he is Hitler, the devil, evil incarnated, satin, a savage, bigot  an animal, an ass, pig, shit, dick, pussy, punk, sad human, greedy, mean, scary, sick, sadistic, stupid, unfunny, Godless, hateful, bigot,  a dis, small minded, crazy, sadist, sad, un-human, a fuck, a bitch, cruel, smelly, childish, bully, uneducated, un-supportive, stereotypical, ruby, dog, ugly, frighting, twisted, devil lover, upsetting  and so on and so on, and so on.

  It still evades his question.  Answer his damn question, anyone!! Please.

"  It has been demonstrated they represent an increased burden and they inflict a metaphysical and physical harm.  So what is your argument they do not?

As I stated earlier I have yet to hear a single argument in their favor.  If you know one please share it."

[Justtristo]

Because it goes a long way to convince the “rubes” …

… the rubes need to convinced this behavior is not morally acceptable.

Name calling opposition. Got it.


[/quote]

I will take back the calling of those people who believe if the government makes something legal, then it is no longer immoral as "rubes". However these sort of people do exist alas.

[Ace]

  Anima

I give it that congradulations are in order Anima on this debate.
It seems that you win by Qui tacet consentire vidétur  (Silence gives Consent)

A little choppy at first but good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you please, I wish to discuss the topic of the little cake shop owner’s refusal of services. There were some prior post about the issue but, they have seem to just stop.
 
1. What are the laws and who is right logically.
Thus, the topic will be argued/debated under in the legal and logical viewpoints, if that is all right with you? The viewpoints can be changed.

One thing that I am wondering is if this is at all legal. I know that big business and little business are not treated entirely  the same  under  business  law.
I am also aware that a small business can refuses severs if: [b](I may be incorrect and missing so scenarios[/b])
1. There is another shop in the vicinity that can perform the same services.
2. That if it is known or continually displayed that a shop sell  x type of goods in x manner, that a customer is not in the right to ask opposite of what is the product of the business

- For example, I cannot go into Walmart (which can be said to be more of a family store) and demand that they make me a cake of two dog's fucking. Nowhere does it show that this type of cakes is made or that they provided full catering of the cakes.

- I cannot go to a comic book store and demand that the have comic books that talk about sexual escapades.

3. They also fall on freedom of speech to which a wedding cake that is meant to be shown publically, acts like a billboard were public speech is given.

4. Are small shops open to a lesser form of refusal of services the big business?

5. They cannot discriminate against any protected class. However because homosexuals do not have protected class statues in this country or in the international community (international court has ruled against a protected class status for homosexuals) can then are the considered like a non-protected class person and are not granted strict scrutiny under the law?

2. Also, Is this a religious issue and if so would not the shop owner win? According to the law when two constitutional rights come into conflict with one another (1st Amendment v.14th Amendment), it is decided by order of the amendments. Thus, the 1st Amendment wins.

[Anima]

TRJF;

I am not sure if you are still reading this thread but I have a legal question for you. Something I read in Chief Justices Roberts dissent caught my attention. He said:

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."

It is my understanding the federal government may only compel the states in two ways:
1. By means of the Commerce Clause
2. By means of the Supremacy Clause

The issue of same sex is a domesticity issue under the 10th Amendment and thus does not fall under the Commerce Clause. As such it would require the Supremacy Clause to compel the States to change their definitions, but the Supremacy Clause requires a federal law passed by congress which is to override the States. Saying same sex persons have a right to dignity and security that compels the states to permit their marriage does not follow as it is not compelled by the Commerce or Supremacy Clauses. Perhaps you are seeing something I missed?