Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

What is you idea of benefit they provided? Why are homosexual people needed.  

You're confused so I'm going to try and make this simple. The only conceivable thing that one can claim makes heterosexuals superior in providing societal benefits as compared to homosexuals is procreation. That's the only conceivable difference, but I have already demonstrated that this isn't even entirely sound because homosexuals can and do in fact reproduce making the premise that they don't unreasonable. Your question is now reduced to, "why is anybody needed", which is of course nonsense.

Procreative centric defenses for the discrimination of homosexuals are fucking dead on arrival. Got anything else?

1. The subject is not dead on arrival if we are agree we have an over-consumption problem. It would seem several members as saying the solution to this problem is the decrease in population. Naturally we should want to determine what quality of person is or is not necessary to our society and eliminate that which is not necessary first and foremost.

2. Arguing homo engaging in hetero activity is no different than arguing serial killer who is not killing is as valuable to society as the average person who is not killing. The argument endeavors to ignore the inclination of the persons in question and default to equality of conduct as equality of inclination and intention. If you wish that to be your argument than so be it. Just keep in mind that you are saying equality of homos exist when they are effectual hetero. Which is the same for the serial killer. One with serial killer tendencies are in no way inferior to one not so inclined as long as they do not act upon that inclination.

Otherwise we may recognize that inclination has bearing on the superiority or inferiority of person. As such we may then say those inclined to activities of a greater proportion to unethical action are inferior to those so inclined to ethical action (even if the external conduct of both parties are the same). Naturally our society is to promote the propogation of those inclined to ethical action and to impede the propogation of those inclined to unethical conduct. This is why we do not let know psycho/sociopaths raise children. I assume you are not going to say it is okay for psycho/sociopaths to raise kids as long as the kids do not do anything psycho/sociopathic. As you would be saying it is okay for the thing to be so long as it does not be what it is.

3. Therefore; the premise still stands that homos are not so inclined to readily reproduce as heteros. Now if you wish to take the IVF argument I believe we have already covered how this conduct is hetero in nature (ovum with sperma), and comes at great expense and resources such as to be considered a viable equivalent to hetero procreation. If you wish to argue as you are doing that homo may engage in hetero action to procreate then we are lead to two statements. First, homo engage in hetero action would seem to constitute an insult to the dignity of the homo to be and act according to their inclination. Second, if the homo is willing to effectively be hetero for procreation purposes than may we also request they be effectively hetero for social and familial purposes? It would be very beneficial to society if we did not have to go through the trouble of redefining all of the laws to incorporate them (with subsequent unintended consequences requiring the recognition of others even they would not agree to) and to not break apart or add familial stress by not acting or revealing they are homo. They can do that to and often do.

I imagine you will say they have the right to live according to their inclination. Which is what the procreative argument is predicated on. If they live according to their inclination alone and are not compelled to conduct themselves as effectively hetero then they are not inclined to procreative intimacy and will not actually engage in much procreative intimacy. Thus, all things held equal they are of less value to society than hetero persons. It then follows they are unnecessary and logically to be eliminate in order to decrease the over-consumption of unnecessary population.