Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Aristocatt]

I think the real issue with the societal point about having kids is the fact that we don't need a man and a woman copulating to have a kid anymore.  It's called in vitro fertilization.

The other argument was funny though.

In this regard Ace is correct.  In vitro still requires the two parties.  While your argument contends we can disassociate the reproductive act from the sexual act such an argument is not very cogent.  

The maximum manifestation of that argument would be to say you are willing to risk all of humanity on something as trivial as a power outage.  In the end you will always come back to copulation for procreation as a default, which serves as exhibit to the nature of copulation for procreation.  When all else fails; when the power goes out; when the pipette is broken we can always just get down to the yum yum bouncy bouncy!!

---

Yes it requires two parties to make babies. However the sexual orientation of the two parties does not matter. The notion that it is wrong to have homosexuals marry because they can't have children is false.

So are you now saying:
Homosexuality is wrong because they are worse human beings because they don't want to procreate by having sex. This is wrong because if 99% of the world were to die off, all the medical facilities, and all the power in the world were destroyed, if we had too many homosexuals that were unwilling to have sex with someone else to keep the population going, then we might go extinct.

I just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

.