(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...

(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