(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.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Happy to debate either. . .but just for fun:

In terms of societal. . .you bring up an awesome point!  Resources are limited, and our population is exploding.  The last thing we need is a higher proportion of straight people having too many kids and using up even more of our dwindling resources.  So we should probably make marriage only for homosexuals in order to incentivize more people to be homosexual!!!

Ha ha.  I like that.  However, life is a numbers game and your analysis must make consideration of the impact of wars, plagues, and famines as well as the rate of re-population.  I would agree with your assessment if the rate of human maturity was handled in the expanse of merely a year or two.  Given the need of at least a decade if not two to reach productive and procreative utility we would be best to consider our argument to having more or less in the terms of it being easier to disgard more than it would be to acquire more.  So we should encourage a surplus to be discarded at leisure rather than a shortfall which may not readily be replaced, before deficiency become irrevocable.

I'm a little confused.  Are you saying that if we ever have too many people we can just get rid of some of them and say that's that.  But that if some anomalous event occurred that drove us to extinction, we want to make sure we have enough humans to avoid extinction?  I would counter by saying that if extinction were ever a serious issue, I think the homosexuals would take one for the team and do the dirty with the other sex.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:25 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Anima Wrote: Ha ha.  I like that.  However, life is a numbers game and your analysis must make consideration of the impact of wars, plagues, and famines as well as the rate of re-population.  I would agree with your assessment if the rate of human maturity was handled in the expanse of merely a year or two.  Given the need of at least a decade if not two to reach productive and procreative utility we would be best to consider our argument to having more or less in the terms of it being easier to disgard more than it would be to acquire more.  So we should encourage a surplus to be discarded at leisure rather than a shortfall which may not readily be replaced, before deficiency become irrevocable.

I'm a little confused.  Are you saying that if we ever have too many people we can just get rid of some of them and say that's that.  But that if some anomalous event occurred that drove us to extinction, we want to make sure we have enough humans to avoid extinction?  I would counter by saying that if extinction were ever a serious issue, I think the homosexuals would take one for the team and do the dirty with the other sex.

HA HA!! Take one for the team? Possibly. But why risk it when you could have those who would happily do the deed for their own satisfaction and to the benefit of the team!!

No need to rely on their benevolence when you may rely on the others instinctual motivation. Where lack of self restraint becomes a win for all!!

(June 29, 2015 at 5:25 pm)Anima Wrote: 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).

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.

They're people. Their relationship deserves to be equally as valid as that of other people.

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, yes?

You didn't address what I said. What is the problem with same sex relationships? Procreation, slippery slope and religion aside.

NEIMENOVIC:

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?


______________________________________________

Simple! for those who are old or infertile straight kill them and straight people can and do adopt orphans to. So, give orphans to straight marred couple. Or we can be merciful and not kill the infertile and the old and have them rise the orphans instead. Its the issue of the numbers.

Now gays by all mean should never be taken out of this equation. The thing is that to help aid in good population and to protect humanity's future they just need to fuck some lesbians and make some kids. (In saving a low goods society model)

(June 29, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: They're people. Their relationship deserves to be equally as valid as that of other people.

"There is no greater form of inequality than to try to treat two unequal things as if they are equal" - Aristotle

I am sure we may readily recognize that not all human relationship deserve equal recognition. So now that we acknowledge the theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price. Under are price haggling we would say in term of societal value there is nothing gained by means of treating their marriage equal to one in which offspring may arise as a natural course of the relationship in satisfaction of both societal and teleological ends.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, yes?

Argument may be made to state infertile and elderly couples should not be granted marriage under the societal argument. However, as already been argued extensively under the legal argument policing of this fact would become difficult and burdensome such that the overinclusivenss of infertile couples in marriage is a acceptable societal sacrifice for the sake of conserving resources overall. Though there are countries which require persons to be in physical health and social standing prior to being married.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: You didn't address what I said. What is the problem with same sex relationships? Procreation, slippery slope and religion aside.

Are you saying you would like to go down the moral argument in regards to teleological purpose of biological existence?

Nemienovic:
You didn't address what I said. What is the problem with same sex relationships? Procreation, slippery slope and religion aside.

So wait are we arguing just for fun or are you asking for serious replay?

If serious, a  same sex relationship is not the issue. I think people have an issue more with them being told  that their type of fucking is the same as someone else type of fucking, regardless of what you are fucking.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:28 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:25 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I'm a little confused.  Are you saying that if we ever have too many people we can just get rid of some of them and say that's that.  But that if some anomalous event occurred that drove us to extinction, we want to make sure we have enough humans to avoid extinction?  I would counter by saying that if extinction were ever a serious issue, I think the homosexuals would take one for the team and do the dirty with the other sex.

HA HA!!  Take one for the team?  Possibly.  But why risk it when you could have those who would happily do the deed for their own satisfaction and to the benefit of the team!!

No need to rely on their benevolence when you may rely on the others instinctual motivation.  Where lack of self restraint becomes a win for all!!

I don't think it's much of a risk.  Overpopulation is a much more real risk.



Also Aristotle was pretty much the bane of scientific progress.  Really smart guy.  Great to study.  Not so great to quote.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Anima Wrote: "There is no greater form of inequality than to try to treat two unequal things as if they are equal" - Aristotle

I am sure we may readily recognize that not all human relationship deserve equal recognition. So now that we acknowledge the theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price. Under are price haggling we would say in term of societal value there is nothing gained by means of treating their marriage equal to one in which offspring may arise as a natural course of the relationship in satisfaction of both societal and teleological ends.

They can't make kids, therefore their relationships are worth less. Fuck them and their desire to live a normal life. Making kids is too fucking important and it is somehow detrimental to the couples who do make kids if the couples who don't make kids have a legally recognized relationship.

Quote:Argument may be made to state infertile and elderly couples should not be granted marriage under the societal argument. However, as already been argued extensively under the legal argument policing of this fact would become difficult and burdensome such that the overinclusivenss of infertile couples in marriage is a acceptable societal sacrifice for the sake of conserving resources overall. Though there are countries which require persons to be in physical health and social standing prior to being married.

'Societal sacrifice'. Adding gays to that 'societal sacrifice' hurts anybody how exactly?

Quote:Are you saying you would like to go down the moral argument in regards to teleological purpose of biological existence?

no. I'm saying is like to know what your problem with same sex couples is. How do their marriages affect anyone else and why should you care? What's the harm?

As you may or may not realize our survival isn't based solely on making kids. The basis of our continued existence is cooperation.

(June 29, 2015 at 5:45 pm)Ace Wrote: Nemienovic:
You didn't address what I said. What is the problem with same sex relationships? Procreation, slippery slope and religion aside.

So wait are we arguing just for fun or are you asking for serious replay?

If serious, a  same sex relationship is not the issue. I think people have an issue more with them being told  that their type of fucking is the same as someone else type of fucking, regardless of what you are fucking.

there is a quote/reply button under every post, might want to use that