RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
August 13, 2015 at 9:27 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2015 at 10:06 am by Ace.)
(August 12, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: 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.[/b]
Question, Why not count those homosexuals that do have children by biological means? Would their offspring not be counted as adding to the benefit of the state like and heterosexual? (True medical insemination is very costly and has a lower success rate then natural child making, but just for now,) can we say that they benefit the state just like the hetero?
Adoption is another issue unto is self, so I am not counting it in this example. It can be argued with infertility in that it dose not add to population numbers.
