Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

[quote='Anima' pid='999379' dateline='1437408375']

I see.  You are endeavoring to argue I made a causal fallacy.  So I will respond to your specific fallacy and two other ones which I think comprise your single:

1.  The fallacy you identify appears to state an argument in one of two ways (please correct this if it is wrong) first it seem to say if there is more than one cause which may lead to a given outcome than we may not "undermine" a particular cause in regards to its tendency to a negative outcome do to the myriad of alternative causes.  By this argument we may not undermine guns in regards to them being used to kill people because people are also choked, stabbed, beaten, burned, starved, skinned, infected, drowned, electrocuted, and so forth.  Nor may we undermine any of the listed (or not listed) means by which people are killed because there is always another means.  Naturally I do not think this argument is tenable since it serves no other purpose than to say we may not identify any particular cause as negative in regards to its objective consequence.  Such ignores both the objective consequence of the cause as well as the subjective intention of the agent engaging in the action as a cause.  This would subsequently limit determination of the cause to a purely subjective valuation, whereby the particular is not discussed as a cause but as an act in itself to be determined as good or bad by the actor regardless of the impact it has or the intent the actor had.  (I would strongly caution going down this route of argument.  If you want to I would direct you to read
https://atheistforums.org/thread-33523.html where we have already discussed it at length).

[quote='Aristocatt' pid='1002744' dateline='1437626172']
No.  My conclusion was that if homosexuality is socially undesirable because it is a plausible cause of extinction, then heterosexuality is also socially undesirable because it too is a plausible cause of extinction.  This has nothing to do with saying that because an outcome has a set of causes, that you cannot make a judgement of said causes.  It only says that causes with the same, perceivable, likelihood of the same outcome, weigh such an outcome equally when making normative valuations.

Okay. Let's see if I can get this right. Since I seem to continue to miss your point. Each time I read the point you seem to be making it is stating heterosexuality is an equally plausible cause of extinction (if we factor in the externality of over-consumption, which renders the plausibility no longer equal) and thus hetero and homo are undesirable based under an argument to extinction. Is this correct?

Based on this understanding I have responded by saying your argument against extinction argument requires you to look at an independent causes (over-consumption is not dependent on over-population as exhibited between the consumption of the US vs. China, where 0.3B consume more than 1.5B) that I contend it is an externality and not an inherent resultant of the hetero or homo orientation; while procreation (or the lack of) is a direct consequence of the orientation. Thus our arguments are as follows:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

2. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (opp sex) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act (over-consumption) -> Universal Result (extinction due to over consumption)

3. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Act IVF (hetero) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act Result (continuation by conception).

So in my argument (#1) it may be seen how the orientation leads to an act which has a direct particular result that is negative as a universally result. In your arguments (#2 and #3) your conclusions require the introduction of externalities which are not simply the universalization (or normalization) of the particular results of the act the orientation leads to or in keeping with an act which follows from the orientation itself. Do you see how Over-consumption and IVF do not follow as a direct sequence of orientation to its teleological end and how they are not of equal plausibility of extinction?

Bringing up the IVF argument to increase the rate of procreation of same sex couples above zero so as to refute #1 not only breaks the direct sequence of orientation to its teleological end, but serves to state homosexuals may avoid extinction only be means of a hetero act which is not in keeping with homosexuality. Thus the argument to IVF only serves to exhibit the value of the hetero while pointing out the inherent flaw or inferiority of the homo. (Even ignoring the expense, resources, and viability of IVF as a whole).

I further answered this in terms of applying the same methodology of coming up with an externality which negates your externaility in terms of physical and financial barriers to entry and the impact of lack of resources on fertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality rates. While over-consumption may be said to be a result of over-population it may not be said to have no factors which will decrease the rate of population without resulting in extinction. Such may not be said of homosexual conduct which if adhered to without deviation shall not result in offspring resulting in extinction of a greater and far from equal plausibility as over-consumption.

I like the effort though. Since you are trying to argue the creation of things (procreation) is as inclined to nothingness (extinction) as the lack of creation of things (non-procreation).

Second, if I am to take your argument as not meaning a myriad of causes, but rather as an issue of a sequence of actual or proximate cause than it would appear your argument is saying one may not undermine any particular cause unless that cause is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of the negative outcome.  By this argument we may not undermine any initial cause resulting in the negative outcome of death because the initiating cause is not the direct actual or immediate proximate cause.  Once again such an argument is untenable as it would limit discourse to say the cause of death is dying, the cause of cancer is cancerous cells, the cause of rape is being raped, and so forth.  In short the argument becomes a continuum fallacy by which we must determine the exact moment the sequence of causes becomes the final consequence; the action just before the final consequence is then the only direct actual or immediate proximate cause which may be referenced as any other cause is only a initiate of another cause in a sequence of causes.

This is exactly the opposite of what I was suggesting.  You even recognized that my case against the heterosexual requires looking at the indirect causes.  This is why I am inclined to think you are being disingenuous.

Very well. I discussed this in case I was missing your point again and you did mean it. It seems to me you are endeavoring to do a combination of alternative causes and sequence of causes, but your saying you are not. In either case if this is not what you meant we may ignore it.

2.  Fallacy of a Single Cause:  Similar to the first interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said that we never contended homosexuality was the single cause of extinction.  Rather it was the cause to which the focus of our inquiry was directed.  It may readily be said that any number of causes of extinction exists and that we would "undermine" all such causes due to the negative consequence that follows from them.  Thus, choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving, skinning, infecting, drowning, electrocuting, and so forth as various causes of killing of people are denigrated due to the negative consequence.  It is further recognized the "undermining" of the causes is not limited to the agent, but most definitively in terms of its negative objective consequence.  Choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving... is bad whether caused by an inanimate object or as the volitional act of an animate object if it results in the death of a person.  Thus, The existence of many causes does not invalidate the negative of a particular cause.  We may readily admit over-consumption leading to extinction is bad, while still maintain it is not the focus of our discussion and its impact as an alternative cause of extinction does not serve to eliminate recognition of other causes of extinction that are the focus of discussion.

Largely irrelevant to my point.  Your lack of attention to detail is not a defense of your position.  Saying, "I never said other things couldn't cause extinction" is not a defense.  It was very obvious you were making a point about homosexuality in relation to heterosexuality, and it was very obvious I was making a point about heterosexuality in relation to it's plausibility as a catalyst of extinction.  See my first line of red text to understand why this matters.

As I understood your argument above to be in regards to equally plausibility I have responded above to show heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally plausible causes of extinction. The latter being natural inclined to extinction and the former being naturally inclined to the avoidance of extinction.

3.  Third Cause Fallacy:  Similar to the second interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said death is the direct actual or immediate proximate cause of extinction if and only if the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation (I think we may agree on this).  From here the focus of my argument was upon the procreative side of the equation.  Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of death remains constant) if we were to go along with Pyrrho and say homosexual intimacy is superior to heterosexual intimacy, such that the former is permitted and the latter prohibited, will we have a situation where the rate of procreation will exceed the rate of death?  The answer is no; in which case we may say homosexual intimacy (while not being the only cause) is a cause of extinction.  

This is a different one from the scenario I asked you about before breaking down why your argument is incoherent.  This is also an even more implausible scenario.  See my first line of red text.

This is no different. It is characterizing my initial argument to give explanation of why it is not a third cause fallacy. As you said above your were not discussing this so it may be ignored.

Argument to over-consumption serves to take the death side of the equation.  Holding all else equal (this is to say the rate of procreation remains constant) if we say over-consumption is superior to under-consumption, such that we permit the former and prohibit the latter, do we have situation where the rate of death exceeds the rate of procreation?  The answer becomes not necessarily; simply because it depends on what we over-consume.  Over-consumption of a competitor will decrease the death rate, of a luxury will not increase nor decrease the death rate, while over-consumption of a necessity will increase the death rate.  As such we may say we should over-consume our competition for resources, it does not matter if we over-consume luxury resources, and we should not over-consume necessary resources as such will end in extinction.  Should we not wish to make distinction between competition, luxury, and necessity than we may say over-consumption as a whole leads to extinction based on the assumption we would over-consume all resources including necessary.

This is barely a coherent paragraph.  It is also largely irrelevant.  All that matters is you accept the plausibility that it leads to extinction.  Similarly, your argument rests on my ability to accept the plausibility that a catastrophic event that somehow disproportionately affects heterosexuals destroys all our medical devices, or destroys all of our energy production capabilities, and that furthermore, no homosexual is willing to procreate to keep the species going, and that no technicians and scientists exist capable of restoring IVF treatment.  The other scenario you provide assumes that if we make it okay to be gay in society, everyone is going to become gay, and not be willing to procreate. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to explain how the introduction of over-consumption is an externality causing you to commit a third cause fallacy. Over-consumption does not follow directly from over-population (under that under populated societies may not over-consume. Something we know is not true) nor does it lead directly to extinction (as over-consumption of competiton and luxuries does not lead to extinction). But we may agree it is irrelevant (though you are the one who brought it up). It also a false equivalency to say if

Furthermore my argument requires you consider the facts of history which have already occurred. I am sure you are abreast of what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire. You know when technology advancements made by the Romans over 2000 years were lost to humanity (even to this very day) and the black death (plagued) wiped out much of the world population:

First Pandemic:
- It went on to destroy up to a quarter of the human population of the eastern Mediterranean. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)#History)
- It caused Europe's population to drop by around 50% between 541 and 700. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)#History)

Second Pandemic:
- China lost around half of its population, from around 123 million to around 65 million; Europe around 1/3 of its population, from about 75 million to about 50 million; and Africa approximately 1/8 of its population, from around 80 million to 70 million (mortality rates tended to be correlated with population density so Africa, being less dense overall, had the lowest death rate). This makes the Black Death the largest death toll from any known non-viral epidemic. Although accurate statistical data does not exist, it is thought that 1.4 million died in England (1/3 of England's 4.2 million people), while an even higher percentage of Italy's population was likely wiped out. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)#History)