Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

I apologize.  What was your question?

If the question is state recognition of bisexuals it may be said, in like manner to homosexuals, the state appreciates your heterosexual inclinations and activities from which it derives a benefit and has no need of your homosexual inclination and activities where no benefit is derived by the state.

So....

exterminate only half of me? ._.

CONFUZZED.

So as previously answered so re-posted for you:

Response to number one was given long ago in this thread.  It is recognized that laws are not perfectly defined and thus may be overinclusive.  Upon endeavoring to define the law objectively it may be said the procreative definition is utilized.  By which the state stipulates it shall incur a burden and recognize couples that meet the minimum criterion for procreative benefit to the state.  This is to say the union of two persons, of the opposite gender, of at least pubescent age.  Needless to say this definition will encompass 100% of the group the state desires and a few the state does not desire.  Just as you use the term "roughly" because you recognize it is extremely difficult to define something to such absolute specificity, so to does the state go with the most specific ambiguous (oxymoron I know) definition.  So that it may make sure to include the desired group, though it may include a few of undesired in that definition.  (For what it is worth do not be surprised if the states change the criterion for benefits as there is no need for them to be attached to marriage.  That was just convenient, but it is not essential.  This is something Chief Justice John Robert's discusses as well.)

Response to your second point, which is not a refutation of the procreative benefit; the state desires heterosexual activities and is not concerned with the orientation of the parties as hetero, homo, bi, tri, or any given mix of orientations.  Lest you forget opposite biological genders could marry regardless of orientation or gender identity.  It was permitted by means of the overinclusivity of the procreative criterion, which once again is sufficient to include 100% of the targeted group and with only a few who are not part of the target group.  With that said it is recognized the relationships and activity the state derives a benefit from are heterosexual and it is for these relationships the state is willing to incur addition burden/cost.  Thus, the state is not opposed to any orientation having heterosexual relationship and intercourse, and is even willing to give State recognition of those relationships.

Less confused?