Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Gay marriage and polygamy are not analogous, you are using a slippery slope argument, its fallacious and tired. There are reasons that polygamy/incents/pedophilia/beastiality are illegal that have nothing to with gay marriage. In order to make your argument work you would have to establish with evidence that the cost/benefit analysis of legalizing gay marriage is the same as those other forms of relationships. The laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis and for different reasons. You cannot just use factor that are the same in the relationship, you must also weigh the differences.

Okay. Once again let me help you out here:

1. There is no homo marriage law, hetero marriage law, polygamous marriage law, and so forth. So I do not know what your are talking about when you say the laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis. The closest you can get to this is all persons of a specific class, but homosexuality is not recognized as a distinct class from the general populace at law. Now under that you would be saying different laws apply to different people and there is no equity of law. This is not even counting the simple fact that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH EVERYTHING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. To do so would result in no consistency in the rule of law and would amount to nothing more than a purely relativistic system.

2. Cost/benefit analysis? I have asked multiple times over multiple pages for an argument in their favor. No one has given a single one. In accordance with cost/benefit I can give you a simplistic one for hetero people. Heterosexual procreation creates more population for the State, which shall serve as its tax and production base. Based on this benefit the State chooses to incur a cost to promote heterosexual unions. In this regard alone it is readily shown that homosexual relationships do not provide the same benefit, much less a benefit of sufficient value for the State to incur an addition cost on their behalf. So clearly this was not the criterion by which the State granted homosexuals couples marriage.

Even if I were to give you different laws for different relationship types (which is not the case in the law) I would not give you different evaluation criterion and methodology. Such would remove any possible consistency in the evaluation of the law.

However, I would love to here your cost benefit argument between hetero and homos such that they convey equivalent benefit to the State for the State to incur equivalent costs on their behalf.