Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Err...

I don't know fuck all about law so debating me about law is pointless. Also, it's law now, so it's moot

Any non-legal reason why there is any point to prohibiting same sex marriage. What harm does it do to anything? What's the problem? Why would society be better off continuing to prohibit it?

I guess I would prefer a moral/societal argument, but whatever you want to do. I have no idea what it has to do with economics, and I'm no expert on that either.

I don't care about history or biology in regard to this matter, unless you can convince me they are relevant.

I'm all for removing financial benefit to being married, that is dumb.

I would say any argument of a moral or societal nature will incorporate biology into the matter.

Moral argument may be made in accordance with the argument to teleological ends (biology). It may readily be shown the purpose of biological life is the procreation of the species as more creatures live only long enough to procreate than live beyond mere procreative maturity. While arguments to same sex being natural are akin to arguing the physical laws of existence allow it so it is the intentional outcome of those laws. In which case it may readily be argued the physical/natural laws allow for the killing of weak things, thus the intentional outcome of those laws is that weak things be killed. Thus we are better fitted to arguing according to teleology rather than physical limitation when discussing "natural".

Societal argument may be readily made in the wasting of limited resources, ethical associations, and procreation of the species (biology). Under such an argument society does not exist without the continuation of the species, said species/societies consume resources which are limited and not indefinite, in which case resources should be favorably allocated to those who are most likely to contribute to the continuation of society rather than those who are least likely. As recognized society is a means of securing resources and sustenance. Now we may argue the desire to separate the useful from the useless; which is to say to curtail the association of one with the other to increase the survival of the one. Under this argument it is by compassion those who do not contribute are not summarily eliminated (but if we are to argue purely in social terms there is no good reason for not eliminating those who do not contribute or whom will not readily contribute, aka children).

Those are cursory argument devoid of proper details. Which would you like to argue?