Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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?

1. The subject is not dead on arrival if we are agree we have an over-consumption problem. It would seem several members as saying the solution to this problem is the decrease in population. Naturally we should want to determine what quality of person is or is not necessary to our society and eliminate that which is not necessary first and foremost.

2. Arguing homo engaging in hetero activity is no different than arguing serial killer who is not killing is as valuable to society as the average person who is not killing. The argument endeavors to ignore the inclination of the persons in question and default to equality of conduct as equality of inclination and intention. If you wish that to be your argument than so be it. Just keep in mind that you are saying equality of homos exist when they are effectual hetero. Which is the same for the serial killer. One with serial killer tendencies are in no way inferior to one not so inclined as long as they do not act upon that inclination.

Otherwise we may recognize that inclination has bearing on the superiority or inferiority of person. As such we may then say those inclined to activities of a greater proportion to unethical action are inferior to those so inclined to ethical action (even if the external conduct of both parties are the same). Naturally our society is to promote the propogation of those inclined to ethical action and to impede the propogation of those inclined to unethical conduct. This is why we do not let know psycho/sociopaths raise children. I assume you are not going to say it is okay for psycho/sociopaths to raise kids as long as the kids do not do anything psycho/sociopathic. As you would be saying it is okay for the thing to be so long as it does not be what it is.

3. Therefore; the premise still stands that homos are not so inclined to readily reproduce as heteros. Now if you wish to take the IVF argument I believe we have already covered how this conduct is hetero in nature (ovum with sperma), and comes at great expense and resources such as to be considered a viable equivalent to hetero procreation. If you wish to argue as you are doing that homo may engage in hetero action to procreate then we are lead to two statements. First, homo engage in hetero action would seem to constitute an insult to the dignity of the homo to be and act according to their inclination. Second, if the homo is willing to effectively be hetero for procreation purposes than may we also request they be effectively hetero for social and familial purposes? It would be very beneficial to society if we did not have to go through the trouble of redefining all of the laws to incorporate them (with subsequent unintended consequences requiring the recognition of others even they would not agree to) and to not break apart or add familial stress by not acting or revealing they are homo. They can do that to and often do.

I imagine you will say they have the right to live according to their inclination. Which is what the procreative argument is predicated on. If they live according to their inclination alone and are not compelled to conduct themselves as effectively hetero then they are not inclined to procreative intimacy and will not actually engage in much procreative intimacy. Thus, all things held equal they are of less value to society than hetero persons. It then follows they are unnecessary and logically to be eliminate in order to decrease the over-consumption of unnecessary population.

[Ace]

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.

Is there a difference between a a crazy persion and a non crazy person? Are they not both humans. What is the difference between a killer and a non killer? Are they also both humans? If so why do we treat them differently? Can you say they help human society and biology? (Maybe the killer more)

So you rebuttal is because they are humans and they are just like the rest of the humans? So what is that Benifet?

And why have we seem to find this now or see this now?

[Anima]

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.

Ha ha. All humans are human being. Generally speaking there is no difference between any type of human being and another other type in providing benefit to society. Particularly if one is to argue that humanity is the only requisite of utility.

It may be readily argued the natural inclination of one to murder has more social utility than the homo if properly directed. Where as the natural inclination to homo is of no social utility whatsoever and is thereby unnecessary.

Remember we are endeavoring to be logical here. In which case there is not reason why we should be opposed to discrimination. It is a nice platitude to say we should not discriminate, but as Neitzche states, "30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them."

[Cato]

1.  The subject is not dead on arrival if we are agree we have an over-consumption problem.  It would seem several members as saying the solution to this problem is the decrease in population.  Naturally we should want to determine what quality of person is or is not necessary to our society and eliminate that which is not necessary first and foremost.

If depopulation is the solution, the quality that most significantly impacts continued consumption is the creation of new consumers. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in this department so you should start there if this is your concern. Aside from this, there isn't a bit of difference between the two groups and other criteria should then be assessed.

2.  Arguing homo engaging in hetero activity is no different than arguing serial killer who is not killing is as valuable to society as the average person who is not killing.  The argument endeavors to ignore the inclination of the persons in question and default to equality of conduct as equality of inclination and intention.  If you wish that to be your argument than so be it.  Just keep in mind that you are saying equality of homos exist when they are effectual hetero.  Which is the same for the serial killer.  One with serial killer tendencies are in no way inferior to one not so inclined as long as they do not act upon that inclination.

This is not at all what I said. I simply made the argument that reproductive capacity cannot be used as a litmus test since homosexuals have the capacity. A homosexual woman reproducing via IVF is not hetero activity.

Otherwise we may recognize that inclination has bearing on the superiority or inferiority of person.  As such we may then say those inclined to activities of a greater proportion to unethical action are inferior to those so inclined to ethical action (even if the external conduct of both parties are the same).  Naturally our society is to promote the propogation of those inclined to ethical action and to impede the propogation of those inclined to unethical conduct.  This is why we do not let know psycho/sociopaths raise children.  I assume you are not going to say it is okay for psycho/sociopaths to raise kids as long as the kids do not do anything psycho/sociopathic.  As you would be saying it is okay for the thing to be so long as it does not be what it is.

Your biggest problem here is demonstrating that homosexuality in and of itself or its manifestations is inherently unethical. I don't think you'll be successful here. Without this, your sociopath equivocation becomes absurd.

3.  Therefore; the premise still stands that homos are not so inclined to readily reproduce as heteros.  Now if you wish to take the IVF argument I believe we have already covered how this conduct is hetero in nature (ovum with sperma), and comes at great expense and resources such as to be considered a viable equivalent to hetero procreation.  If you wish to argue as you are doing that homo may engage in hetero action to procreate then we are lead to two statements.  First, homo engage in hetero action would seem to constitute an insult to the dignity of the homo to be and act according to their inclination.  Second, if the homo is willing to effectively be hetero for procreation purposes than may we also request they be effectively hetero for social and familial purposes?  It would be very beneficial to society if we did not have to go through the trouble of redefining all of the laws to incorporate them (with subsequent unintended consequences requiring the recognition of others even they would not agree to) and to not break apart or add familial stress by not acting or revealing they are homo.  They can do that to and often do.

I may have missed the previous part of the discussion, but the existence of IVF removes the requirement of sexuality for ovum with sperma reproduction. Essentially we're just talking delivery method which precedes conception, gestation and birth. The part in all of this you have either missed, or recognize and intentionally skirt, is that heterosexuality is not a requirement for continuation of the species.

I imagine you will say they have the right to live according to their inclination.  Which is what the procreative argument is predicated on.  If they live according to their inclination alone and are not compelled to conduct themselves as effectively hetero then they are not inclined to procreative intimacy and will not actually engage in much procreative intimacy.  Thus, all things held equal they are of less value to society than hetero persons.  It then follows they are unnecessary and logically to be eliminate in order to decrease the over-consumption of unnecessary population.

Again, procreative intimacy is not required for reproduction.

Your argument has no basis in reality today. I am really at a loss for understanding why you establish an extreme scenario of over-consumption to establish a need to choose who stays and who goes only to want to rid the population of those that don't have a natural proclivity for the traditional method of delivering sperma to the ovum; i.e., creating more consumers. This makes absolutely no sense.

[Cato]

Remember we are endeavoring to be logical here.  In which case there is not reason why we should be opposed to discrimination.  It is a nice platitude to say we should not discriminate, but as Neitzche states, "30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them."

I'm fine with the discrimination, but discrimination based upon sexuality given the over-consumption scenario is ridiculous. All other discrimination would have to deal with traits and characteristics that have nothing to do with sexuality. I seriously don't think you're going to be able to rescue this.

[Anima]

Remember we are endeavoring to be logical here.  In which case there is not reason why we should be opposed to discrimination.  It is a nice platitude to say we should not discriminate, but as Neitzche states, "30. Our deepest insights must—and should—appear as follies, and under certain circumstances as crimes, when they come unauthorizedly to the ears of those who are not disposed and predestined for them."

I'm fine with the discrimination, but discrimination based upon sexuality given the over-consumption scenario is ridiculous. All other discrimination would have to deal with traits and characteristics that have nothing to do with sexuality. I seriously don't think you're going to be able to rescue this.

You may want to read some of the older posts.

I would agree that discrimination based on over-consumption is ridiculous. That was not my argument but rather the argument of Aristocatt. However, this argument was already made throughout this thread.

[Cato]

Is there a difference between a a crazy persion and a non crazy person? Are they not both humans. What is the difference between a killer and a non killer? Are they also both humans? If so why do we treat them differently? Can you say they help human society and biology? (Maybe the killer more)

So you rebuttal is because they are humans and they are just like the rest of the humans? So what is that Benifet?

And why have we seem to find this now or see this now?

Your disgusting equivocation of sociopaths/murderers and homosexuals will require some justification. As I have already stated, and you seem to keep ignoring, there's no substantive difference between humans based on sexual preference in terms of societal benefit. None.

[Anima]

If depopulation is the solution, the quality that most significantly impacts continued consumption is the creation of new consumers. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in this department so you should start there if this is your concern. Aside from this, there isn't a bit of difference between the two groups and other criteria should then be assessed.

I would recommend you read post http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...#pid983220 in regards to the argument that homosexuality is a means to decrease over-consumption. Of course over-population is not the problem in regards to over-consumption. I was simply saying if we wish to consider it so we should consider our goal is to curtail and control population not to eliminate it altogether.

This is not at all what I said. I simply made the argument that reproductive capacity cannot be used as a litmus test since homosexuals have the capacity. A homosexual woman reproducing via IVF is not hetero activity.

A homosexual woman reproducing via IVF is engaged in a hetero activity. The activity requires the combination of ovum from the female and sperma from the male. By definition this is hetero activity. Sorry to say but babies only come from the combination of male and female (aka Hetero!)

Your biggest problem here is demonstrating that homosexuality in and of itself or its manifestations is inherently unethical. I don't think you'll be successful here. Without this, your sociopath equivocation becomes absurd.

Already done. http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...#pid979272 where argument is made in terms of harm. Argument was made further back in regards to social/biological/teleological benefit/purpose.

I may have missed the previous part of the discussion, but the existence of IVF removes the requirement of sexuality for ovum with sperma reproduction. Essentially we're just talking delivery method which precedes conception, gestation and birth. The part in all of this you have either missed, or recognize and intentionally skirt, is that heterosexuality is not a requirement for continuation of the species.

Might want to read up on how In Vitro Fertilization. Ovum and sperma are still required (even cloning still requires the two components while the genial information is removed from the sperma).

Umm. Heterosexuality is essential to the continuation of the species. I already covered IVF and how that is in no way a readily replaceable method of procreation to the natural process as it costs about $70k-60k to perform, requires three persons instead of two, and utilizes tons of resources not readily available throughout the world. I provided the link above.

Again, procreative intimacy is not required for reproduction.

Your argument has no basis in reality today. I am really at a loss for understanding why you establish an extreme scenario of over-consumption to establish a need to choose who stays and who goes only to want to rid the population of those that don't have a natural proclivity for the traditional method of delivering sperma to the ovum; i.e., creating more consumers. This makes absolutely no sense.

HAaaaaaa hhhhaaaa!! My argument has no basis in reality today? Where do you think most people come from even TODAY?! Here is a hint, IT ISN'T IVF!!! Generally speaking the world over procreative intimacy is still required for reproduction. The world is not just the US and Western Europe.

As stated above the argument to over-population was not mine. But the argument will further eliminate the social/biological value of homosexuals because the cost and resources required for IVF procreation is unsustainable in the long term or for the majority of people throughout the world. The truth is under population is a current issue which homosexuality does not resolve, but only exacerbates. So if we consider a world of over-populated they are not necessary and need not be encourage and if we consider the world as it is they are no necessary and need not be encouraged. If we further consider the subjects of harm as previously discussed their existence in socially harmful.

[Anima]

Is there a difference between a a crazy persion and a non crazy person? Are they not both humans. What is the difference between a killer and a non killer? Are they also both humans? If so why do we treat them differently? Can you say they help human society and biology? (Maybe the killer more)

So you rebuttal is because they are humans and they are just like the rest of the humans? So what is that Benifet?

And why have we seem to find this now or see this now?

Your disgusting equivocation of sociopaths/murderers and homosexuals will require some justification. As I have already stated, and you seem to keep ignoring, there's no substantive difference between humans based on sexual preference in terms of societal benefit. None.

Pardon? Equivocation? I believe I expressly stated those with an inclination to kill are of greater social benefit and utility than homosexuals, if directed properly. Killing is something society needs for various reasons. Same sex is not something society needs for any reason (you may want to argue it has a use for torture and punishment through rape, such as in prison. But this is effectuated by heteros in prison or inanimate objects).

In regards to the benefits we have made extensive expression from a biological/social point and have even given explanation in regards to the subject of "not hurting anyone" by which it is shown they impose a metaphysical and physical harm.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Pardon? Equivocation? I believe I expressly stated those with an inclination to kill are of greater social benefit and utility than homosexuals, if directed properly. Killing is something society needs for various reasons. Same sex is not something society needs for any reason (you may want to argue it has a use for torture and punishment through rape, such as in prison. But this is effectuated by heteros in prison or inanimate objects).

Anima, you remind me of Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men, or even Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective, if you'll excuse my enormous reach to grab an obscurity like that to craft the simile.

What I mean to say is: When this thread started I enjoyed reading what you had to say, though I disagreed (vehemently) with it. We argued legal points on an intellectual level. You were a respectable debater.

But when the opposition started to increase, and more people started challenging you, and - especially, it seems - when the Supreme Court made it's Obergefell ruling, the veneer started to crack, and the niceties and politeness you observed disappeared under pressure.

It was never about the legal arguments. You just plain don't like gay people, and you decided to use whatever tools you had at your disposal - in this case, legal tools (by virtue of your education) - to try to advance these views in a way that wouldn't be immediately dismissed. For a while, you succeeded, but you couldn't keep it up forever.

Well, I can't either. I'm going to read what you wrote above one more time, to make sure I've given you every benefit of the doubt, and then I'm going to go vomit.