Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Cato]

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.

If depopulation is the solution, the quality that most significantly impacts continued consumption is the creation of new consumers. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in this department so you should start there if this is your concern. Aside from this, there isn't a bit of difference between the two groups and other criteria should then be assessed.

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.

This is not at all what I said. I simply made the argument that reproductive capacity cannot be used as a litmus test since homosexuals have the capacity. A homosexual woman reproducing via IVF is not hetero activity.

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.

Your biggest problem here is demonstrating that homosexuality in and of itself or its manifestations is inherently unethical. I don't think you'll be successful here. Without this, your sociopath equivocation becomes absurd.

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 may have missed the previous part of the discussion, but the existence of IVF removes the requirement of sexuality for ovum with sperma reproduction. Essentially we're just talking delivery method which precedes conception, gestation and birth. The part in all of this you have either missed, or recognize and intentionally skirt, is that heterosexuality is not a requirement for continuation of the species.

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.

Again, procreative intimacy is not required for reproduction.

Your argument has no basis in reality today. I am really at a loss for understanding why you establish an extreme scenario of over-consumption to establish a need to choose who stays and who goes only to want to rid the population of those that don't have a natural proclivity for the traditional method of delivering sperma to the ovum; i.e., creating more consumers. This makes absolutely no sense.