Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Longhorn]

"There is no greater form of inequality than to try to treat two unequal things as if they are equal" - Aristotle

I am sure we may readily recognize that not all human relationship deserve equal recognition. So now that we acknowledge the theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price. Under are price haggling we would say in term of societal value there is nothing gained by means of treating their marriage equal to one in which offspring may arise as a natural course of the relationship in satisfaction of both societal and teleological ends.

They can't make kids, therefore their relationships are worth less. Fuck them and their desire to live a normal life. Making kids is too fucking important and it is somehow detrimental to the couples who do make kids if the couples who don't make kids have a legally recognized relationship.

Argument may be made to state infertile and elderly couples should not be granted marriage under the societal argument. However, as already been argued extensively under the legal argument policing of this fact would become difficult and burdensome such that the overinclusivenss of infertile couples in marriage is a acceptable societal sacrifice for the sake of conserving resources overall. Though there are countries which require persons to be in physical health and social standing prior to being married.

'Societal sacrifice'. Adding gays to that 'societal sacrifice' hurts anybody how exactly?

Are you saying you would like to go down the moral argument in regards to teleological purpose of biological existence?

no. I'm saying is like to know what your problem with same sex couples is. How do their marriages affect anyone else and why should you care? What's the harm?

As you may or may not realize our survival isn't based solely on making kids. The basis of our continued existence is cooperation.