Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

You drug us back to an issue of legality by claiming the absurd idea that there's a compelling argument for the prohibition of other forms of non-procreative sex but that it's not taken up because it would be impossible to enforce. I simply referenced Lawrence to show that the idea would be immediately unconstitutional for reasons other than utility of resources.

Correct. But I point out the it would only be unconstitutional because of the invasion of privacy. Not because it would be a violation of equal protection or the due process clause. As the state has the right to manage its resources by which the people are its resources (yes that is in the law).

I think it's time you got a little more specific with your teleological argument. Much of your conversation smacks of the naturalistic fallacy. If you are using an internal teleological theory to answer the biological question of 'why do we fuck', then who cares? You can't immediately get from here to the idea that we shouldn't be fucking for other reasons. I'm certainly hoping your not trying to invoke some as yet unspoken external platonic teleology where an outside agent is assigning some value. Human hands didn't evolve to manipulate aircraft controls, tennis rackets, guitars or keyboards; will you be consistent and clamor on for the prohibition of such activity based on your idea of a teleological nature?

Ha ha. Human hands did indeed evolve to manipulate the material world (such is there teleological end). However, the argument presented seems to stipulate identification of teleological end to the act does not mean society should not encourage or permit the act for other uses. By which I would ask are we saying society should thereby encourage or permit the act for all social uses? If you answer yes than we may say fucking for pleasure provides no societal benefit (I have been telling the cheating chick at my work that for months she could be getting paid and getting laid!! ); while fucking for procreation, financial gain, to establish dominance, to exert control, to torture, and to punish (let's face it none of us want to go to prison to be anally raped) is of societal benefit.

Now of those listed we would say for financial benefit makes them a prostitute, dominance makes them an asshole or sexual deviant, control generally makes them a sexual deviant (as psychologist state most do it for control and dominance rather than pleasure), while torture and punishment are not something we find palatable regardless of the their social practicality. So alas the only kind of fucking which is of value to society and not considered unpalatable is procreative. Now as our palate changes we may incorporate more. But pleasure does not satisfy a social need. That is a personal want (as pleasure does not necessarily satisfy a personal need either.)