Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Cato]

So as Ace is asking.  What is the social benefit uniquely provided by homo people which cannot be provided by hetero people?  Shall we argue, as I have heard here, that homo like God does not or may as well not exist if it is redundant and does not provide a unique benefit.

You reacted splendidly and just wrecked Ace's argument. My reply was meant to illustrate the ridiculous nature of Ace's argument by pointing out that people contribute to society in ways having nothing at all to do with sexual preference. I expected a retort similar to yours whereby I could make a general catalog of things generally accepted to be beneficial to society that people of any sexual preference could contribute which in turn would allow me to press Ace for justification of why spawning was held superior. Any answer could easily be parried by analogy to other enterprises of large numbers of people and the principle of the division of labor and how relative worth for specific tasks gets severely muddled and most times can't be objectively quantified. This all would have scuttled Ace's argument.

Then you swooped in and took a shortcut. Your claim that benefits provided by people can be dismissed since their non-existence would solve the problems took the wind right out of the procreative-centric sails. If our problems can be solved by non-existence, why reproduce at all? According to this, those that are reproducing are causing the problems.

Also, the only way the position Ace is arguing makes sense is if homosexuals can't reproduce. Homosexual women are getting pregnant and having children all the time. A homosexual man has the ability to get someone pregnant. I know of several cases just within the Mormon community where a homosexual man lives a traditional life reproducing only to finally come out years later because he's tired of not living in accordance with his nature.

The procreative-centric argument is simply ridiculous on so many levels.