Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

1. Read what I wrote, I didn't say the cost benefit wasn't in the interest of the state, I said the cost benefit analysis for the state was not between hetero and homo. The benefit is equal rights for its citizens, when I say cost benefit analysis, I don't just mean dollars and cents.

I do not mean dollars and cents either. But how do equal rights of citizens benefit the state? It benefits the citizens. but it burdens the state whose actions are subsequently restrained. Thus I am saying if the state is going to burden itself (incur a cost) it must get some benefit in return. So what is the benefit the State receives for its burden?

2. Heterosexual marriage offers no benefit that gay marriage doesn't offer nor does it cost the state any more or less than a hetero marriage. Procreation is not a benefit of hetero marriage, two married gay people can procreate, also you do not have to be married to procreate. Their is no added benefit or increased harm to the state that hinges on the gender of the two people entering the contract.

To repeat myself once again. Marriage recognition provides an incentive for hetero couples to procreate. Two married gay people cannot procreate (they require the intervention of a third party who is not privy to the marriage). Hetero couples can procreate without marriage which the state is most appreciative of. However, we are talking about the state incurring a cost for an additional benefit. Hetero procreation is a benefit to the state which justifies the state incurring addition burdens/costs. Homo marriage or relationships do not create a benefit for which the state should incur additional burdens/costs for. This is to say their is a benefit which may be derive from the parties of different genders entering the contract marriage contract which may not be derived from parties of the same gender entering the marriage contract.

3. Your still a bigot, I don't care how intelligent you think you are or how kindly you respond to me. The fact is, you think people who are homosexual are less valuable and not worthy of equal treatment, for no better reason than the fact that they are gay. You have made no arguments against homosexual marriage that couldn't be applied to hetero marriage.

As stated by Aristotle, "There is no greater form of inequality than to treat two unequal things as if they are equal." We do not treat all people equally. I have pointed this out numerous times as treating people equally harms the superior and the inferior by not giving proper recognition to the former and aid to the latter. It is bigoted and an oversimplification to say everyone should be treated equally regardless of the quality.

We have only been arguing in terms of biology and already it is apparent they are less valuable. I did not make them so. And you may want to call me a bigot for recognizing they are inferior, but it is really bigoted of you to do so. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Nature; but do not expect me to say it is valuable when it is not or it is equal when it is not.

Was that really all the pro-gay side had? False equivalency? I had hoped for much better.