Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Indeed a reason for the value as individuals persons.  But how does that support the state incurring additional cost in recognition of their relationships?

Because the state incurs the cost of recognizing the relationships of other citizens who contribute roughly the same amount they do.

Now you are getting it. The state should incur the cost of recognizing relationship of citizens whose RELATIONSHIPS provide a benefit to the State. (Do not make the mistake in saying if they are equal in one regard they are equal in all; which is a false equivalency. This is to say do not make the mistake of saying heteros and homos both pay taxes so both of their relationships should be recognized. The recognition of their relationship has no bearing on their ability to convey tax benefit to the state. It may even be said to recognition of relationships cost the state more therefore additional benefit must be provided by the relationship in particular rather than their individual person in general. Furthermore to say tax benefit should translate to state incurred cost in recognition of relationship would be akin to saying pedos also pay taxes therefore the state should recognize their relationships since they roughly contribute the same amount to the State as other citizens in regards to taxes. Which we know is not correct.)

As such the question becomes do hetero and homo relationships convey the same benefit to the state? You stipulate they roughly do. If I am to accept your assertion of roughly (which I do not agree is the case) than I would be recognizing that "roughly" the same is not the same. Furthermore, I would recognize "roughly" as being less than rather than greater than the same. So what is the primary difference? What benefit do hetero couples convey to the state, if any, that homo couples do not? Answer, additional tax and production base by means of natural procreation. Thus it may be readily said the state should incur a cost for the addition benefit of hetero relationships and it should not incur a cost for the homo relationships which convey no additional benefit to the state.

Now I imagine this is where someone will try to ride the IVF pony. To which we have previously expressed is a very financial and resource expensive procedure and in the end is nothing more than a hetero action by petri rather than penis and not to be confused as a homo act. In terms of redundancy it is foolish to be hetero by petri when it is so much more effective, easier, and cheaper to be hetero by penis. In either case the homo relationship conveys no benefit to the state (even IVF requires a hetero combination of male and female, to which the homo parties must seek out a third party) and thus the state should not incur a cost to recognize it. The hetero relationship does convey an additional benefit to the state which the state should incur a cost for receiving.