Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

That's some stupid fucking logic.

"Durr hurr if people are gay it'll lead to extinction!"

Yeah, cause EVERYBODY IS SUDDENLY GOING TO BECOME GAY IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE!  Oh wait, no.  That's a fucking stupid suggestion.  It has absolutely ZERO logic to it.  Besides -- you stated that a gay man and a lesbian woman can have kids.  If gay people can have kids that way, it won't lead to extinction, now will it?

Actually that logic is sound and not a fallacy. As requested the argument shows the relationship between orientation, action, particular resultant, and universal normalized resultant. I know that you wish to assume that homosexuality shall not become prevalent in society (I did not expect you to believe such) what argument is being made in justification of this assumption and what conclusion is to be drawn from it?

Since we both recognize the particular negative resultant (which you even took extra care to voice as GAY PEOPLE CANNOT HAVE KIDS) than your argument becomes though the orientation leads to an act has a particular negative consequence, the act should not be prohibited as the particular shall never become universal. In which case I may readily state the same may be said of murder and murderers. If murder were made legal today every one would not become a murder. Thus by your argument it is unlikely the particular negative of the murder will become a universal (though again you would need to justify this assumption and may not simply assert it dogmatically). By your same argument though the orientation leads to an act with a particular negative consequence the unlikelihood of that particular becoming universal negates any need to avoid the orientation or prohibit the action so as to avoid the consequence. Thus we are not logically justified in prohibiting murder since they are ubiquitous, but of such rarity that any number of them are really not a threat to humanity as a whole anyway.

I expect you do not agree (and you should not). But for you to make such argument for homosexuality, while not accepting the argument for murders is special pleading and thereby exhibits the fallacy and bias of your argument.

[...]1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)[...]

"Extinction"?... :

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha... 

Oh, how you retards crack me up. Better stick to your book with talking animals, dumb-ass...

Glad you find that humorous. I am not sure what book you are reading with talking animals... Must be a kids book. In either case as already stated the logic of the argument follows. Like Divinity you do not think homosexuality will be of such prevalence as to lead to the normalization of the particular result. Once again you have no provided argument for why such an assumption is justified (I would be interested to hear it as it will be an argument for why homosexuality will always be marginal) nor so such an assumption remove the negative particular result of the act which follows from the orientation, which should be avoided.

(And I am lead to believe we are not allowed to use retard in a derogatory manner anymore. Just an FYI before people start calling you a bigot for doing so )

It's sort of like what Kant's Categorical Imperative might have been if Kant had been a complete fuckwit.

Very nice! It is indeed based on Kant's Categorical Imperative and is logically sound. Needless to say we see the argument if valid for the murderer, but just do not seem to want to see it for homosexuality. Bias? However, I am more than happy to hear your logical rebuttal as well as you argument in their favor. I wait with baited breath.