Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Anima I just read the response you gave me to one of my previous posts.

We need to go through my argument again.

Do we really

It worked like this.

Because you used one ludicrous example to show that it was possible for homosexuality to lead to extinction, and because of that, you deemed homosexuality as wrong(or at the very least felt you had brought forth a coherent argument).  
My response was:
If I can create an example where heterosexuality leads to extinction, then heterosexuality is also wrong according to the criteria you set to deem homosexuality immoral.

As stated before, I did not give an argument for homosexuality being immoral. I did give a biological/sociological argument regarding how homosexuality is harmful (at worst) and unnecessary (at best). I followed this argument with one discussing how it actually results in a metaphysical and physical social harm.

Furthermore, In order to make you argument work you appealed to an externality that is not inherent in the being of hetero or homo sexual. You are doing the same in regards to IVF. The argument you presented is why over-consumption may lead to extinction (which I do not disagree). It does not follow that over-consumption is a result of increased population, as Cato pointed out in his later rebuttal when I made reference to this argument. (To my knowledge the population of the US at 0.3B consumes more than the population of China at 1.5B. So if 5 times the people can consume less than over-consumption is more of a social habit problem than a population problem.)

The entire argument is irrelevant to IVF costs, I know I have been mentioning them quite often, but you seem to be misunderstanding why I am mentioning them.  You moved from making an argument that homosexuality is wrong based on principle to making an argument that homosexuality is wrong from a utilitarian perspective where we need to weigh all the costs and effects.  

In truth the entire IVF argument is irrelevant to the homosexual issue (this was argued with Cato at length, whereby it was shown the act is hetero in nature and would amount to say homosexuals have value so long as they engage in hetero action.) Introducing IVF in the homosexual argument is an externality utilize to try and resolve an issue brought about by homosexuality (the fact the orientation encourages action which is non-procreative).

The issue is homosexuality and what it subsequently contributes/detracts to biology or society. Not over-consumption and the economic, political, and social solutions/repercussions therein or what biological or sociological shortfalls scientific advancement allowed us to compensate for (IVF for infertility, Guns for skill and strength of killing, etcetera). As such my argument and request is to hear from you or anyone else the biological, sociological, or teleological benefit conferred by homosexuality.

I am inclined to think this is your MO, however.  Rather than addressing directly the points being presented, it is more convenient to dodge the question and move in between different arguments.

I specifically responded to your over-consumption externality with externalities that will serve to curb population growth due to over-consumption by discussing financial and physical barriers to acquisition as well the impacts malnutrition have on fertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality rates. I even made specific connection to your over-consumption externality and IVF externality to state if over-consumption is the issue than IVF is far from the solution since it consumes far more resources and involves more parties than natural hetero procreation. I am not sure how I could address your argument more specifically.

In response to your points about underpopulation being an issue.  It is akin to saying because it was colder this winter on the Eastern Shore of the US, that the earth was on average colder this Winter.  It is disingenuous.

Two points on this. First if my response of under-population being an issue is as you say akin to associating weather with climate (which you are saying is a fallacy of composition, by which a particular condition is taken to be the state of whole) than the same may be said in regards to IVF. You are saying IVF offsets or is the answer to the non-procreative nature of homosexuality. But IVF is just a blip in the history of procreation and may be said to be a particular that you are trying to state is applicable to the whole (in a fallacy of composition) to negate the issue of that whole.

Second, under-population at a given time is not analogous to weather and climate. The reason being that while an extremely cold winter or even a mini or regular ice age (weather) would not necessarily stop a macro climate trend of warming (since weather does not beget weather, rather the sun is the primary contributor; should that be effected than we would have a substantial climate change to global freezing) is not the same as saying a substantial decrease in population or even a mass extinction would not result in the extinction of our species (as humans beget humans). As can be seen readily weather is a particular dependent condition while climate is a universal independent; while in the latter case existence is the particular dependent and procreation is the universal independent:

P1. Continued existence of humans is dependent on procreation (universal independent)
P2. Humans wish to continue to exist (particular dependent)
C1. Humans wish is dependent on procreation.

P1. The planets climate is getting warmer (universal independent)
P2. The weather today is not warm (particular dependent)
C2. The weather today is not the planet's climate.