Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Aristocatt]

I have not postulated a moral argument for why homosexuality is wrong.  I have postulated a biological/sociological argument for why it is detrimental (at worst) and superfluous (at best).   The general argument you have presented is to say over-consumption by an increasing population will lead to extinction of the species.  To which I have responded over-consumption will be curtailed by capitalistic forces which will subsequently curtail population growth by means of increased rates of infertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality.  

I made no mention of the impacts of various wars which are likely to spring up in competition for resources which may serve to further curtail the population by millions in very short bursts or any other social policies which may be adopted by nations to curtail population growth such as one child policies, selective abortions of females, or even illegality of procreation without a license.  Thus I have stated over-consumption itself will be curtailed by capitalistic forces and population will be curtailed by natural and social forces.  


You do not understand how capitalistic forces work.  Over time consumption per capita increases.

I am not sure what war has to do with this.
One more time for the people in the back!!
P1.  Biological extinction is bad
P2.  Non-procreative orientations are naturally disposed to biological extinction.
C1.  Non-procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.

To which you endeavor to argue:

P1.  Biological extinction is bad
P2.  Procreative orientations are naturally disposed to biological extinction.
C2.  Procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.

1.  First we may say your second premise is invalid.  Procreative orientations are not natural disposed to biological extinction.  In order to make assertion procreation leads to extinction you were required to incorporation beyond the  procreative (which is the biological argument) to include consumption of resources (this is why I said your argument is one to consumption.  Procreation is not the problem, over-consumption is the problem).  Without an appeal to over-consumption by additional population there is little if any support for your second premise; which is not the case for my second premise.  We all recognize homo does not make more homo and thus a world of solely them not being compelled to act in opposition to their inclination in anyway (no turkey baster to serve as hetero by proxy or biting the bullet), which could be construed as emotionally harmful and depriving them of the dignity and nobility of homo, would ultimately result in their biological extinction within a single generation.

2.  Second, considerations of our conclusions it to be made.  By my conclusion non-procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.  This is to say any non-procreative orientations not naturally disposed to biological extinction are not bad.   However, the very fact the orientation is non-procreative means it naturally has a greater disposition to biological extinction (due to lack of procreation engender in the orientation itself) than one which is procreative.  Your conclusion states procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.  Once again holding any procreative orientations not naturally disposed to biological extinction are not bad.  In this case we may readily say procreative orientations have a natural disposition to avoid biological extinction (due to the procreative nature engender in the orientation itself).  So it may be said our conclusions both exclude the same thing; orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction (which is to say all non-procreative and some procreative.)

3.  Now you may argue I have built a straw man of your argument (as you did of mine) and say (as you did) my argument is that it only takes an example of certain kind of individual in society (along with extending factors beyond that individual) which would lead to extinction thereby holding the thesis and anti-thesis as bad.  To this I hope bullets 1 and 2 have given clarification in regards to what the orientation engenders rather than to any non-orientation argument such as consumption.  (By which one may readily make the argument when the zombie apocalypse happens survival of the uninfected will be in low population areas.  Therefore anything which leads to higher population in a given area; procreation, secure housing, economic security, jobs, is bad.  Ignoring such is a problem of zombie infection rather than population density.)

I have a better understanding of what your actual point is now.  But this is becoming circular.  When you talk about being naturally disposed to extinction, the counter is "We have IVF treatment"  This is why we got into this stupid game of insane scenarios.  Also if you felt as though I were strawmanning your argument, you needed to tell me that when I asked you to affirm your position.

(1) More specifically, you don't get to ignore the effects of procreation when you are talking about if procreation is good or bad.  The effects of procreation are exactly what we use to determine if it is good or bad.  Consumption is one of those effects.  You suggest that your premise does not have any additional claims.  It however does.  It makes the claim that IVF treatment would be unavailable.  This requires additional assumptions beyond that naturalistic ones you are attempting to make your argument about.  The premise I gave you is still valid, regardless of if you like it.
(2)  Most of the mistakes here are because of your earlier mistakes in (1).
(3)  Most of the mistakes here are because of your earlier mistakes.





You mistake my previous last sentence.  I expressly stated it does not take all kinds.  It only takes the right kind.  I do not mean this to say it takes a right balance of kinds (right, wrong, and negligible).  I mean this in the same vein as a redundancy argument, to say that which is right is needed, that which is wrong is not, and that which is negligible is effectively not.

Once again I have not provided a moral framework.  I have provided a biological (which supports a sociological) framework.

Ha ha.  Moot.  Would you believe I had never even heard that word until I was about 22 years old.  I digress.  Moot it is not.  So would that render the moot statement moot?  Can moot be a double negative?

If I mistook your previous statement, it was because I thought it made sense.  Your position now does not make sense given the conclusion presented.  I also don't care what kind of framework you call it.  You have made a normative framework, regarding what we ought to do that is incoherent.