Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

This has become futile.  Your distinctions from my perspective are arbitrary and pointless.  When you appeal to arguments of absurdity, you lose the right to distinguish that one scenario is more likely than the other.  Population is a direct cause of consumption there is no way of divorcing one from the other.  They represent both inputs of production and inputs of consumption.  The examples you are using suggest you don't understand economics.

I don't need an argument in favor to suggest that marriage should be allowed for all groups.  The law is supposed to be impartial.  The burden of proof is on you.

HA HA. They do represent inputs of production and consumption; supply and demand. Your argument is population is an increase of consumption (demand) only while ignoring its impact on production (supply) which will serve to offset consumption. I gave consideration to your argument by not arguing how population will increase production (supply), but rather in multiple responses regarding financial and physical barriers to entry (allocation of supply) which will occur with scarcity of resources that will curtail population growth (demand reduction) without the need for homosexuality. In short your effort to render my argument void by externality is rendered void by two other externalities of increased production (supply) and capitalistic market forces (allocation of supply and demand reduction). Or do you not understand economics? I happened to agree more with Keynesian economic theory rather than Austrian. Since to me Austrian economic theory devolves into an argument to ignorance.

Oh but you do need an argument in their favor. You see the impartiality of the law is not the same as being uniform or applied evenly to all regardless of any qualities of persons. Impartiality means free of passion or based upon objective criterion. So the law does not care about dignity, companionship, or who you love! That is impartiality; but the law does care if you are infantile or elderly, insane or of sound mind and body, with or without child, a first or repeating offender, married or single, and treats you differently accordingly. Impartiality does not mean it is to be non-discriminatory (as we have argued and exhibited to RoboValue the law can, should, and does discriminate).

So what is your argument in their favor? Or in this regard, like theism, are you only adept at tearing things down?