RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 29, 2015 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2015 at 5:26 pm by Anima.)
(June 29, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Procreation isn't the only purpose of sex.
As stated, the purpose of a thing should be argued according to its teleological end and not simply to other functions of it. While I would agree procreation may be used for other purposes than procreation such as pleasure, torture, authoritative dominion, etcetera... We would be gravely mistaken in not recognizing the teleological purpose of sex is procreation (as it is the only means by which natural procreation is achieved).
(June 29, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Anima Wrote: Societal argument may be readily made in the wasting of limited resources, ethical associations, and procreation of the species (biology). Under such an argument society does not exist without the continuation of the species, said species/societies consume resources which are limited and not indefinite, in which case resources should be favorably allocated to those who are most likely to contribute to the continuation of society rather than those who are least likely. As recognized society is a means of securing resources and sustenance. Now we may argue the desire to separate the useful from the useless; which is to say to curtail the association of one with the other to increase the survival of the one. Under this argument it is by compassion those who do not contribute are not summarily eliminated (but if we are to argue purely in social terms there is no good reason for not eliminating those who do not contribute or whom will not readily contribute, aka children).
(June 29, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Overpopulation.
Everything you have is that gays can't procreate. What about infertile straight couples? What about straight couples who don't want children? Is that immoral too? What about orphans, waiting for adoption? Is it moral to keep making more children?
Is there a reason why same sex relationships are immoral? Not talking about religion, kids, or the slippery slope. What's so objectionable about two guys or two gals fucking? What seems to be the problem?
As you may observe in my post I did not say anything about gays. I simply said those who do not serve at least a procreative purpose if not a productive purpose. In which case gays or the infertile may not be summarily eliminate due to their productive purpose. But this is not to say they have a procreative purpose to that surves society which would warrant the need to recognize their unions on par with those who may serve a procreative purpose for our society.
