Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.

I have not postulated a moral argument for why homosexuality is wrong. I have postulated a biological/sociological argument for why it is detrimental (at worst) and superfluous (at best). The general argument you have presented is to say over-consumption by an increasing population will lead to extinction of the species. To which I have responded over-consumption will be curtailed by capitalistic forces which will subsequently curtail population growth by means of increased rates of infertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality.

I made no mention of the impacts of various wars which are likely to spring up in competition for resources which may serve to further curtail the population by millions in very short bursts or any other social policies which may be adopted by nations to curtail population growth such as one child policies, selective abortions of females, or even illegality of procreation without a license. Thus I have stated over-consumption itself will be curtailed by capitalistic forces and population will be curtailed by natural and social forces.

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.)

One more time for the people in the back!!
P1. Biological extinction is bad
P2. Non-procreative orientations are naturally disposed to biological extinction.
C1. Non-procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.

To which you endeavor to argue:

P1. Biological extinction is bad
P2. Procreative orientations are naturally disposed to biological extinction.
C2. Procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad.

1. First we may say your second premise is invalid. Procreative orientations are not natural disposed to biological extinction. In order to make assertion procreation leads to extinction you were required to incorporation beyond the procreative (which is the biological argument) to include consumption of resources (this is why I said your argument is one to consumption. Procreation is not the problem, over-consumption is the problem). Without an appeal to over-consumption by additional population there is little if any support for your second premise; which is not the case for my second premise. We all recognize homo does not make more homo and thus a world of solely them not being compelled to act in opposition to their inclination in anyway (no turkey baster to serve as hetero by proxy or biting the bullet), which could be construed as emotionally harmful and depriving them of the dignity and nobility of homo, would ultimately result in their biological extinction within a single generation.

2. Second, considerations of our conclusions it to be made. By my conclusion non-procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad. This is to say any non-procreative orientations not naturally disposed to biological extinction are not bad. However, the very fact the orientation is non-procreative means it naturally has a greater disposition to biological extinction (due to lack of procreation engender in the orientation itself) than one which is procreative. Your conclusion states procreative orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction are bad. Once again holding any procreative orientations not naturally disposed to biological extinction are not bad. In this case we may readily say procreative orientations have a natural disposition to avoid biological extinction (due to the procreative nature engender in the orientation itself). So it may be said our conclusions both exclude the same thing; orientations naturally disposed to biological extinction (which is to say all non-procreative and some procreative.)

3. Now you may argue I have built a straw man of your argument (as you did of mine) and say (as you did) my argument is that it only takes an example of certain kind of individual in society (along with extending factors beyond that individual) which would lead to extinction thereby holding the thesis and anti-thesis as bad. To this I hope bullets 1 and 2 have given clarification in regards to what the orientation engenders rather than to any non-orientation argument such as consumption. (By which one may readily make the argument when the zombie apocalypse happens survival of the uninfected will be in low population areas. Therefore anything which leads to higher population in a given area; procreation, secure housing, economic security, jobs, is bad. Ignoring such is a problem of zombie infection rather than population density.)

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.

From a biological/sociological standpoint asexuality is bad; as well as volitional decisions to render the self temporarily infertile (contraception) or to decide to not sire offspring. Argument that such a statement is insulting, inconsiderate, or disrespectful to a persons right to choose are of no concern to the biological purpose of being. Nature (the anthropomorphized sentiment of survival) does not condemn or condone anything, but it punishes that which does not take proper consideration of it.

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.

You mistake my previous last sentence. I expressly stated it does not take all kinds. It only takes the right kind. I do not mean this to say it takes a right balance of kinds (right, wrong, and negligible). I mean this in the same vein as a redundancy argument, to say that which is right is needed, that which is wrong is not, and that which is negligible is effectively not.

Once again I have not provided a moral framework. I have provided a biological (which supports a sociological) framework.

Ha ha. Moot. Would you believe I had never even heard that word until I was about 22 years old. I digress. Moot it is not. So would that render the moot statement moot? Can moot be a double negative?