Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

[quote='Anima' pid='978474' dateline='1435699686']


(1)From a social and biological argument you could say this.  As the social value of even an utterly useless person in nearly any other regard at least lies in their potential to create offspring of value.  The biological value of organism lies in their ability to procreate (it is the reason why we are male and female, as well as why the great majority of organisms on this planet live just long enough to procreate).

(2)From a moral standpoint the argument would be more in accordance with the teleological purpose of the act.  While it may readily be argued that any number of activities may be done for purposes not in accordance with their teleological purpose (sex for pleasure, perversion, torture, authoritative dominance, etcetera) we would say be better suited to argue that an act may be determined in terms of its teleological end (meaning if the end itself is bad the act is bad) and then arguing if the means by which the end is accomplished is of a moral quality.  Generally we may state if an act fails to satisfy the former than the latter does not matter.  If it satisfies the former than any particular actor may be said to act immorally if they fail at the latter.

I'll get to the second part of this post a little later.  I hold that your social/biological argument is incoherent.

Here's how it works:
You provided an instance where having too many homosexuals may be bad, and it was based on their inability to want to make babies by having sex.  This is because with too high a proportion of homosexuals, we may be unable to avoid extinction in the event of an unnamed calamity.  Furthermore, because they do not want to make babies the "natural" way, we shouldn't expect them to step up and make babies in the event of a calamity. As for how grounded in reality it is, I won't bother to argue.  This is mainly because I want to use the insanity of the assertion to my advantage below.

I was not arguing to high of a gay population. I was arguing insufficient number of heterosexual persons of procreative age. And that while we may hope for them to take one for the team there is no reason to hope for their benevolence when we can simply take advantage of the nature of the other.

This means that, as long as we are being impartial, if I can provide an example where the ability to want to make babies through sex would cause the extinction of our race, then I have by the same vein of logic showed you that heterosexuality is also wrong.  

Not quite. But I am willing to entertain the idea. This argument would be along the same vein as me saying science has facilitate the capability to destroy the world seven fold while religion has not. Therefore we should get rid of science since it will likely lead to our extinction and keep religion since it will not. Hmm... Perhaps you DO have a point

Global warming will do a fine job as an example.  As of right now, the population explosion of our species is expected to increase our energy use.  The expectation that a number of these nations will pull themselves out of poverty, thus consuming even more energy per capita adds to this population concern.  The real concern here is that scientists are aware of a "tipping point" where we will be unable to effectively manage the climate as it continues to warm in the long term.  This in turn could lead to a climate that is actually unsuitable for human life.  If this were to happen, slowly we could eventually die out.  Had we only had homosexuals walking the earth today, or at some earlier point before the tipping point was reached, we could have averted this tragedy, and we also could have left the option of procreation available by means of IVF treatment.  It doesn't matter if we can kill of billions off humans, because we don't know where the tipping point is, so we don't know when we should institute such a genocide.  In order to support massive genocide on this premise, people are going to need more than "what if" scenarios, and so I posit that such a possibility, is not only possibly not going to occur, but also unlikely to occur, if not impossible.

Interesting, but:

1. You are making an argument to consumption more than to population without consideration to capitalistic tendency. As population increases consumption by person will decrease (while consumption of some persons will not change) due to people being physically or financial excluded from access to those resources. Assuming the quantity of resources remains fixed (we do not figure out a way to create more food or harvest raw materials from asteroids or something) eventually the rate of consumption for the majority of persons will be insufficient for them to support the birthing of additional persons (lack of nutrition will lead to miscarriage and lack of resources will lead to higher rates of infant morality) thereby naturally curtailing population growth. (Such is already the case in impoverished third world countries in relation to the industrialized nations with).

2. I like the argument to the tipping point. But since we do not know when it will occur we may not assume it has already occurred (assuming we will know when it does), will shortly occur, will eventually occur, or will ever occur. Now it seems your argument is it will eventually occur if we do not curtail population growth. So be it, but as stipulated in bullet 1 such curtailment does not necessitate the existence of homosexual persons or limitation of birthing to IVF processes. However, if that situation never occurs and population was curtailed too much we now run the risk of having insufficient means to repopulate which does not necessitate homo sexual activity, but hetero sexual activity. Again we may hope for the benevolence of one in them biting the bullet for the team. Or we can count on the nature of the other to do what they do so well.

The conclusion of this argument however does not show why your argument is incoherent.  It requires we go a step further.

That it does not.

We actually never claimed that hetero or homo sexuality were wrong.  We claimed that they were a subset of two different types of people.  Those of us that enjoy making babies by having sex.  And those of us that do not enjoy making babies by having sex.  
However everyone falls into either those two categories, or a third one I while get to momentarily.

Let's assume everyone falls into those to categories, and that all it takes to condemn type of person as bad is to show that that kind of person could cause extinction.  If everyone falls into those two categories, then everyone is bad, since both categories of individual can cause extinction.  However when we say that extinction is bad, we are also saying that the continued existence of that species is good.  

So I ask you, how can an entire species be provably bad, but at the same time, their continued existence be good?

3. I do not think your argument evidences the need for the homo as much as the need to modify our consumption. Furthermore (as suggested in bullet 1 and 2 above) your argument ignores the natural tendency of capitalistic forces as well as the impact of decreased resources on birth and infant mortality rates (it also ignores homeostasis of the planet in curtailing population growth of any species upon available resources. I know you played sharks and minnows as a kid). To which I would respond your argument does not suffice to show hetero as proverbially bad. (In short acquiring is more difficult than discarding. So we should acquire first knowing discarding may be done readily with or without our intention by volitional or natural forces).

Finally I get to the third option.  You might say, "wait, what if someone is indifferent to either option presented above"?  My response to this, is indifference towards something still manifests as a preference for one or the other in reality.  Either the indifferent are or are not having kids.  This is important, because if we look at the two insane possibilities we have both presented, we would say that the indifferent are not able to save our world in my example, since the world ends before we realize it has ended, however they do have the ability to save the world, without relying on the homosexuals to do something they may not want to do, in your example.  In this vein if we were to compare the goodnes of a type of human based on these three classifications, we might say indifference>homosexuality>heterosexuality, recognizing that a healthy balance between the three is the best way to prevent calamity.

4. The third option is the inclusion of the asexual? Which you then say is a preference for one or the other. To which I would agree and say this effect of this indifference shall determine the category to which they are to be ascribed. But, again the dependency on the homo or asexual parties to procreate benevolently is an unnecessary risk when parties exist who will willfully procreate due to natural tendency.

So on the one hand we have to accept an incoherent theory, and on the other hand, we accept what everyone on this forum knew already, which is that a balance of different kinds of individuals  with regards to sexual orientations is healthy for society.

5. It does not take all kinds. It simply takes the right kind!! But I do like the effort.