Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Nope]

Shitty replay, what are we 3. but ok.  but again is not only done by gay people

Come on with resign and logic What do gays and only gays, that is done by gays helps society for its benifet

Ace, your post are very hard to follow so I don't know what you are asking

[Anima]

[quote='Ace' pid='988109' dateline='1436623698']
What do you contribute to humanity as a whole that better it?

I help provide electricity.

Really? Are you a superhero or some type of human electric eel? If not than I take it you work for a utility that provides electricity. In which case your work is not exclusively a function of your same sex orientation. Which was the crux of Ace's question.

I shit and piss in places that don't contribute to unsanitary conditions.

Ha ha. If you did not exist we would not have to worry about your shitting or pissing at all, much less whether you are doing it in a sanitary or unsanitary manner. Not to mention by sanitary you mean you do it in a way that does not cause illness to decrease the surplus population. So perhaps you should be pissing and shitting in a more unsanitary manner.

I recycle.

Which is another way to say you consume. You endeavor to offset that consumption by recycling, but let's be honest...We would conserve more resources if you did not consume in the first place.

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.

[Nope]

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.

[/quote]


I'm sorry, I still don't understand exactly what you and Ace are asking. Why do either homosexuals or heterosexuals have to provide a unique benefit to society?

[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.

[robvalue]

What are we even talking about anymore?

Removing dead wood from our society or something? Are we burning them or just dropping them all on their own island?

[Ace]

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.

Actuall I said nothing of the production of kids. I said that many did not like that argument as to why homosexuality is social, biological, anti logical not needed in society. So I ask you what is your contribution to the society, biological and logically in society. And because procreation, according to many is not the major issue for a society then , again I ask you, what is the the need/ benifet given only by homosexual people (forget fuck) to society.

One side said that it is of no importance because they lack the ability to produce.
You say no, not acceptable, stupid argument to to denying homosexuality"s importance to society.

This is what has been said by others and you as well. So then what is your augment for the opposing view?

What is you idea of benefit they provided? Why are homosexual people needed.


If you are referring to IVF that has nothing to do with homosexuality. One it was start as a way to deal with women who are infernal. Thus it is only recently that it have been allocated for use in the homosexual community. Two that actually tells me how science has contributed to society biology, and Logic in society, not homosexuality. IVF, exist with or without you. You hold not factor in is ability to be or work.

[Cato]

What is you idea of benefit they provided? Why are homosexual people needed.  

You're confused so I'm going to try and make this simple. The only conceivable thing that one can claim makes heterosexuals superior in providing societal benefits as compared to homosexuals is procreation. That's the only conceivable difference, but I have already demonstrated that this isn't even entirely sound because homosexuals can and do in fact reproduce making the premise that they don't unreasonable. Your question is now reduced to, "why is anybody needed", which is of course nonsense.

Procreative centric defenses for the discrimination of homosexuals are fucking dead on arrival. Got anything else?

[Ace]

Dead on arrival? Read my post very slowly, I am using simple words so that can be done.

Wow you coincided. . . . . Hahaha then I take from Anima "we agree that my argument is sound in principle, now we are just haggling over price "

WHAT IS YOUR AGRIMENT FOR HOMOSEXUAL AND WHAT IS THERE BEIFET TO US. ( society, biological) WHAT WHAT WHAT IS YOUR ARGENT FOR.????????

I am asking you what is your content argument. I get it as I said in the beginning you do not agree with fucking argument. (However you did agree some to the fucking argent, so why you are objecting to the fucking argument then?????



For only 10% or 5% of there population its self is insufficient to even run a society or a country. Are discriminated from because I am not giving a shit about 10% of the population when I have 90 or 80% to deal with.
As for benefits is it not right that if I were government then it is up to me to decide who I give my goods to or not? Is it not mine to give or keep?

[Cato]

WHAT IS YOUR AGRIMENT FOR HOMOSEXUAL AND WHAT IS THERE BEIFET TO US. ( society, biological) WHAT WHAT WHAT IS YOUR ARGENT FOR.????????

Homosexuals are human beings. Generally speaking there is no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals in terms of providing a benefit to society.

[Ace]

Dead on arrival? Read my post very slowly, I am using simple words so that can be done.

Wow you coincided. . . . . Hahaha then I take from Anima "we agree that my argument is sound in principle, now we are just haggling over price "

You are agents the argument so what is your argument for???

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR HOMOSEXUAL AND WHAT IS THERE BEIFET TO US. ( society, biological) WHAT WHAT WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR.????????

I am asking you what is your counter argument. I get it as I said in the beginning you do not agree with kid makeing fucking argument. (However you did agree some to the fucking argent, so why you are objecting to the fucking argument then?????

UNDERSTAND A LITTLE MORE NOW?
Tell me your view and convinces me


For only 10% or 5% of there population its self is insufficient to even run a society or a country. Are discriminated from because I am not giving a shit about 10% of the population when I have 90 or 80% to deal with.
As for benefits is it not right that if I were government then it is up to me to decide who I give my goods to or not? Is it not mine to give or keep?