RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 1, 2015 at 6:00 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm by Aristocatt.)
My argument is very simple. You have done nothing to point out why it is wrong in relation to the premises you had postulated to justify why homosexuality could be considered wrong.
Let's try this again.
Premises that are required for your example to hold any validity are as follows:
(1)Extinction is bad.
(2)If it only takes one example of how having a certain kind of individual in society could lead to extinction, then that kind of person is bad. (This is because you presented one example of how homosexuality might lead to extinction. I think your example is insane, but that's fine, lets role with it.)
I presented an example of how heterosexuality might lead to extinction.
Premise 1 says this is bad.
Premise 2 supports the notion that heterosexuality is bad.
Conclusion:
Using the moral framework you set up to show that homosexuality is bad, every single form of sexuality is bad. Asexuality is also bad, it presents an inclination to not have children by having sex.
I do not know what it means to be indifferent. I am not sure if it is possible. I only listed that it might be a counter point that you present.
Your last sentence is acceptable. It does not however tell us what the right kind balance is. It does not exclude homosexuality from that balance, and so the conclusion that homosexuality is apriori wrong, does not hold water.
Every single counterpoint you made is either a moot one, or one that actually makes my point that the moral framework you have presented to justify that homosexuality is bad, an insane moral framework.
Let's try this again.
Premises that are required for your example to hold any validity are as follows:
(1)Extinction is bad.
(2)If it only takes one example of how having a certain kind of individual in society could lead to extinction, then that kind of person is bad. (This is because you presented one example of how homosexuality might lead to extinction. I think your example is insane, but that's fine, lets role with it.)
I presented an example of how heterosexuality might lead to extinction.
Premise 1 says this is bad.
Premise 2 supports the notion that heterosexuality is bad.
Conclusion:
Using the moral framework you set up to show that homosexuality is bad, every single form of sexuality is bad. Asexuality is also bad, it presents an inclination to not have children by having sex.
I do not know what it means to be indifferent. I am not sure if it is possible. I only listed that it might be a counter point that you present.
Your last sentence is acceptable. It does not however tell us what the right kind balance is. It does not exclude homosexuality from that balance, and so the conclusion that homosexuality is apriori wrong, does not hold water.
Every single counterpoint you made is either a moot one, or one that actually makes my point that the moral framework you have presented to justify that homosexuality is bad, an insane moral framework.
