Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Aristocatt]

The point you are missing is that when two actions have the same potential effect, the judgment levied on the actions has to be the same unless you provide additional reasons of different effects that are also worthy of judgement. You have, again, undermined your entire argument by alluding to the use of reducto ad absurdum. The point of such an argument is wholly divorced from the probability of such an action occurring and wholly wedded to showing that a certain attitude or perspective is not appropriate in all instances.

You used reducto ad absurdum to point out one thing, and then I used reducto ad absurdum to point out that your conclusion is true for all cases of sexuality, and so all of humanity is bad by the same token.

You have done everything you can to admit your argument sucks, without simply admitting that it sucks. You are very very close now, and this is going to be the last time I repeat what I have been saying.

So again, what are your arguments for why homosexuality is bad? The only argument you have brought forth so far is an argument that suggests to me that all of humanity is bad. Since we are discussing why we should be more partial to heterosexuals, a conclusion that all forms of sexuality are bad is not a conclusion that adds weight to the argument that we should be more partial to heterosexual groups.