(June 30, 2015 at 11:44 am)Cato Wrote: Anima,
You can give up the procreative centric definition of marriage anytime now. The only reason it was ever considered was because it was the only possible defense for religiously motivated discrimination.
Your argument that forms of non-procreative sex aren't prohibited simply because of an enforcement issue is fucking ridiculous...Lawrence.
Lawrence V. Texas is arguing it under a right to privacy issue by which the states do not have a compelling interests. We had moved on from the legal argument at the request of robovalue.
However, if you wish to go back to the legal argument the procreative definition is still applicable and will end up being the default when Obergfell V. Hodges gets overruled. As the ruling is now it will lead to any number of problems which we had discussed earlier. (I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)
Alas the natural law supersedes even the ethical law, though the ethical law may endeavor to argue sex is not for the procreation of offspring the teleological nature of sex is for the procreation of offspring. Again we may argue that sex is used for different things including pleasure and torture, but we would be foolish to say such was the teleological natural purpose of the thing.
