(June 29, 2015 at 6:00 pm)LostLocke Wrote: So then, ignoring the marriage part, should infertile/sterile straight couples be allowed to have sex? After all, they can't fulfill the "teleological" purpose of sex....

Under the sociological and teleological arguments you could readily make argument that infertile/sterile couples should not be allowed to have sex. However, as previously stated, there would be concerns with the utilization of resources to police such an action. Similar to deporting illegal mexican immigrants in the southwest. They are not going to identify themselves for you and they are mixed with mexican citizens to such a degree that deportation is a logistical nightmare. Until such time as we may distinctly identify them from the rest we are going to have to leave them be.

Naturally those of the same sex orientation (so long as they form relationships of those time publicly) shall be readily discernable. With that said same sex orientation is not readily observable (with the exception of johnny weir) and it may thereby be said the overinclusiveness of the procreative argument would allow same sex persons to engage in sex with the opposite sex just as it would infertile/sterile couples.

(June 29, 2015 at 11:01 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: @Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

Sterilization is not the answer. Just effective sterilization by mean of promoition of contraceptives and family planning. Hmm?

Do not get me wrong I am not opposed to either of those things. I just find it funny to say sterilization is not the answer followed by an answer which is effectively sterilization.

Anima,
You can give up the procreative centric definition of marriage anytime now. The only reason it was ever considered was because it was the only possible defense for religiously motivated discrimination. 

Your argument that forms of non-procreative sex aren't prohibited simply because of an enforcement issue is fucking ridiculous...Lawrence.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:34 am)Anima Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 11:01 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: @Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

Sterilization is not the answer.  Just effective sterilization by mean of promoition of contraceptives and family planning.  Hmm?

Do not get me wrong I am not opposed to either of those things.  I just find it funny to say sterilization is not the answer followed by an answer which is effectively sterilization.

No steralization means taking away someone's physical ability to have kids. Promoting contraception, introducing higher taxes for people with more kids and even China's One Child Policy (although yes, there are other problems with this) aren't "sterilization", it's encouraging people not to overpopulate the world.

Something has to be done to curb our population growth without killing or steralizing people. It's not ecologically sustainable to have this many people.

China's One Child Policy has a lot of issues that need to be worked on, such as female infanticide, it's far from a perfect system and there are good arguments to call it overly austere. But what you can say for China is that at least it has recognised the problem and has made some attempt at addressing it.

The belief - or in some cases even hope - that Judgement Day will render such issues as climate change and overpopulation moot is in my opinion as big a problem as the two issues themselves.
I'm sure I detect a whiff of it in this thread...

ROBVALUE:

[b]I'm having a hard time getting my head around what is being written here. Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it takes a man and a woman to have a baby? The population is so ridiculously high that, if anything, we should be finding ways of reducing it, not improving efficiency.[/b]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you know of another way?

  Even IVF still requires the main ingredients of a sperm (male)  and egg (female)   . With IVF, just like natural conception, fertility treatment using IVF still remains in the hands of nature in the end . . .”

http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com/about-infertility/faqs/how-effective-is-ivf

IVF its self is not without its own complication, like any natural creation of a baby, IVF is associated with high order multiple pregnancy,  add significantly to the number of premature births. Ovarian stimulation leads to up to 5% of women developing ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS) which is a life-threatening condition. The long-term effects of repeated ovarian stimulation may increase the risk of ovarian, endometrial and breast cancer. It is likewise an extremely expensive treatment for the average individual to pay. (Geeta, Intro) “A US study has shown that the success rate of IVF does drop away sharply.”

http://fertility.treatmentabroad.com/about-infertility/faqs/how-effective-is-ivf

-  Geeta Nargund1, John Waterstone, J.Martin Bland, Zoe Philips4, John Parsons and Stuart Campbell. Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Oxford Journal of Reproduction, 2000

Also, egg donation is extremely limited unlike sperm

And...What has this got to do with marriage? Nothing, as far as I can see. Being married or not married has no effect on people's ability to have children. I see talk of "resources" like we're on the brink of extinction and we can't afford to give that last bit of bread to the guy who is terminally ill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True having kids has nothing to do with marriage, however, the argument accepted by both gay and straight is the child rising is has a better out come in a two parent home.   I agree with the over use of lack of resource, but, the issue of population is actually a very important issue in Western Europe, America and Japan which is extremely low. (link for numinous articles on the issue).

[color=#3366fhttp://us.wow.com/searchs_pt=source2&s_it=aolsem&s_chn=87&q=birth%20rates%20decline


 Many nations are provided economic incentives Netherlands, for an example of the latter, gives every family a kinderbijslag, or child supplement, of an average of about $1,300 per child per year to age 13, and less thereafter. Italy adopted a national policy of offering 1,000 euros to every mother who had a second child. I say they should also give out free beer

New York Times did a pieces one this issue : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazi...d=all&_r=0#


However I do have a question,  if marriage and children are not important why was it used in the same sex argument in the supreme court?


If there is an argument further to the above, I haven't been able to fathom it. You seem to be treating society as if we're at a theoretical tipping point while failing to demonstrate that we are; or that marriage has anything to do with the issue. I'm having trouble believing this is really why you are against it. If you're actually not against it, then please don't feel the need to try and make the case anyway
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In short I want to say self views always create a bias that unless the argument is in favor then any opposing argument will not or be  so easily accepted. It happen's.

We were just having a general debate on the issue and the subject headed in this direction. Sorry

As to your request on ending the discussion, if the intent is to please and speak only to you, then this thread should end immediately, as you have stated. Since there are likely others and you are not the only one participating I will continue under the assumption that while the argument is not pleasing to you it is no less poignant and viable to us all.

Last I check the U.S. does grant free speech good, bad, for and against. Or has the Supreme Court Ruled on the end of free speech and we are in some dictatorial one ideal,  one voice only nation because the freedom of speech diminishes someone’s dignity and security? 

---

(June 30, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Iroscato Wrote: The belief - or in some cases even hope - that Judgement Day will render such issues as climate change and overpopulation moot is in my opinion as big a problem as the two issues themselves.
I'm sure I detect a whiff of it in this thread...

Personally I am hoping for no Judgement Day. Especially when I am still on this planet!! It is with hope/faith that humanity will get its head out of its ass and address the major issues respectful. Yet, given our history of action for the greater good, J. Day may be the only way it will be fix.

DAME THAT IS SOME TWISTED SHIT - If we need to let it ride, so be it, just not when I am still breathing.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:08 am)Anima Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 5:59 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I think the real issue with the societal point about having kids is the fact that we don't need a man and a woman copulating to have a kid anymore.  It's called in vitro fertilization.

The other argument was funny though.

In this regard Ace is correct.  In vitro still requires the two parties.  While your argument contends we can disassociate the reproductive act from the sexual act such an argument is not very cogent.  

The maximum manifestation of that argument would be to say you are willing to risk all of humanity on something as trivial as a power outage.  In the end you will always come back to copulation for procreation as a default, which serves as exhibit to the nature of copulation for procreation.  When all else fails; when the power goes out; when the pipette is broken we can always just get down to the yum yum bouncy bouncy!!

---

Yes it requires two parties to make babies. However the sexual orientation of the two parties does not matter. The notion that it is wrong to have homosexuals marry because they can't have children is false.

So are you now saying:
Homosexuality is wrong because they are worse human beings because they don't want to procreate by having sex. This is wrong because if 99% of the world were to die off, all the medical facilities, and all the power in the world were destroyed, if we had too many homosexuals that were unwilling to have sex with someone else to keep the population going, then we might go extinct.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

.

(June 30, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Ace Wrote: >snip<

For crying out loud, please format your posts properly. Damn thing almost gave me a seizure.

(June 30, 2015 at 11:44 am)Cato Wrote: Anima,
You can give up the procreative centric definition of marriage anytime now. The only reason it was ever considered was because it was the only possible defense for religiously motivated discrimination. 

Your argument that forms of non-procreative sex aren't prohibited simply because of an enforcement issue is fucking ridiculous...Lawrence.

Lawrence V. Texas is arguing it under a right to privacy issue by which the states do not have a compelling interests. We had moved on from the legal argument at the request of robovalue.

However, if you wish to go back to the legal argument the procreative definition is still applicable and will end up being the default when Obergfell V. Hodges gets overruled. As the ruling is now it will lead to any number of problems which we had discussed earlier. (I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)

Alas the natural law supersedes even the ethical law, though the ethical law may endeavor to argue sex is not for the procreation of offspring the teleological nature of sex is for the procreation of offspring. Again we may argue that sex is used for different things including pleasure and torture, but we would be foolish to say such was the teleological natural purpose of the thing.

(June 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Anima Wrote: (I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)

And I'm still telling you it's diminished capacity to consent: Children as a class do not have the same ability as adults to determine what is in their best interest, and the state has a compelling interest in making sure children aren't exploited, sexually, monetarily or otherwise.

More importantly: even if you are absolutely 100% convinced that this isn't a proper distinction, it doesn't matter, because every Judge in the United States will say it is.

Or, hell, they'll find some other justification for it.  I'm sure that a proper search in the process of writing an opinion would reveal all sorts of justifications. My point is that your insistence on this as an "issue" simply demonstrates that you're living in text-book, law school land, not the real world.  Judges aren't going to look at Obergefell, say "wait, this allows child marriage!," and start overturning Obergefell.  What they will do is say "obviously, child marriages aren't legal," and then use Obergefell and the rest of US law to tell you exactly why.  Whether you agree with their reasons is matter of opinion and interpretation.

TL;DR: legal realism