(August 4, 2015 at 11:18 am)Aristocatt Wrote:  The period of time when population scientists believe that the population might either decline or stabilize, is around 40-50 years in the future.
During that time population is expected to increase around 30%.

Let us engage the idea that the world is overpopulation a little. And that there is no a real argument in favor of heterosexuality. Consumption is abundant and is not slowing down.
What then should be done to not only better the situation but, how homosexuality is vital to being the answer to the situation/ will aid in bettering the situation/ or help the issue? What is there place in this issue and why?

Keeping in mind there population worldwide.

(August 3, 2015 at 1:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 8:44 am)Ace Wrote: I have a question. Why must a relationship be only among the consenting (legal)? We know many young people, even children engage with each other sexually, with some becoming pregnant in the process) but why only legal consenting? True, the issue of maturity can be argued however, many of those who engaged in sex at a young age (such as primary, middle and in high school) would say that it was their full right to do so and feel that it was their right to decide the issue of their own body. Many have no regrets and many want to start having children at a young age, (also forgo any argument to economic because not all have children)

hell, like many have argued sex is the most natural act of humans that  has been done the dawn of our existences, regardless of ones education, race, religion, nation, ect.
Why should such a natural act have any restrictions to it?


is it not natural to become desirable to become another, attracted to another, become aroused?

Why trying to stop or hinder such a natural effect/reaction that individuals just do?

I can see where your coming from, but the issue here is one of protecting young people from predators who take advantage.

True,the age of consent is in place to help prevent the youth from being taken advantage but, not all who engage in sex are predators. Yet, lets take the predator issue and say that even women in adult age are targeted by predators and many are actual victimizes of such deviants. Can it be said that women, regardless of age, need to be given a type of safety net to protect her form predators also? How about we make it a rule that in order for women to have sex, they need the consent of their father for every sexual act they engage in all the time? The father is to give the o.k. after viewing the men to see if they could be possible predators or all men that a women engages with must be submitted to a background check. (which does not really sound like a bad idea given the dangerous people that are out there)

Yes predators are present and their victims are all choosing indiscriminately (men, women, young, old) To try and prevent it form happening would be good if such a policy actually worked. It is mostly imposable to even think that any crime can be prevented, in fact the majority of the cases were sexual abuse/rape occurs is after the crime took place.

Now we can argue the child may not have the mental capacity to understand what they are engaging in, however that argument its self is not stopping at all for young teens and kids that are already engaging in sex. In In fact many have argued that they are very much aware what they are doing and should be given the right to decide to do so.

Interestingly in Sweden for example a child at the age of 6 or 7 can make a medical decision to be given assistant suicide. In some states teens as young as 15 can decide to have an abortion without the connect of their parents. And as stated before, kids can own a gun at the age of 5. So now the question becomes that if we can allow children to make life and death, adult, and dangerous decision now on some very heavy issues that can be argued are way more complected then sex. What is reason to say no for them to decided any other right to their own body?

(August 4, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Ace Wrote: Yes, you are right. My apologies

That's mighty big of you to recognize and acknowledge that.

Are you new to the internet or something?

(August 5, 2015 at 10:53 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 4:06 pm)Ace Wrote: Yes, you are right. My apologies

That's mighty big of you to recognize and acknowledge that.

Are you new to the internet or something?

HAHAH No it is just common respect of others and basic manners.


True, I have see and heard of people being uncivil and lose all forms of their manners when on the internet because it given's this scene of "invisibility." They are not as accountable to act uncivil as if they were seen by others.

It's is like the Plato's ethical invisible ring argument about people, (a little like Lord of the Ring) The ideas was how would who be as a human to your self and others if kept from the eyes of men and the divine. Many argue that the majority of people would be bad then good.

But no, just me being me

(August 3, 2015 at 6:41 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Try being honest with your statistics, and I will be able to take them seriously.

The wiki page claims that the total death count across the world was between 75-430 million.  Not in Europe alone.
You also seem to be so interested in being right about something that you fail to understand why 430 million is listed as a possibility.
Let's check the citations!
Oh wait, the citation that is supposed to list 430 million deaths is being cited from a fucking article that doesn't exist anymore.
Maybe a quick google search will help.  Second result = information about ebola.

I understand the discrepancy we are having between the total population of the 8 biggest European countries.  
I was adding turkey into mine, which actually is not reasonable in hindsight, for that I am sorry, I didn't realize I had done that.  But You also removed Ukraine and Romania which is not reasonable.
Either way since you wanted to use wikipedia as a source, of the 3 citations for the scope of the black plague, 200 million is the highest estimate used.
Even with your slightly dishonest representation of European countries we have 304 > 200(world deaths, not European deaths)  
So from this perspective not only has Europe bounced back, but it has made enough babies on it's own to account for the whole worlds loss of life.

If we are going to cherry pick random wikipedia quotes without reference to how likely they are we can do that to.

"It is estimated that between one-quarter and one-third of the European population (20 million people) died from the outbreak between 1348 and 1350."

"Contemporary observers, such as Jean Froissart, estimated the toll to be one-third—less an accurate assessment than an allusion to the Book of Revelation meant to suggest the scope of the plague.[13] Many rural villages were depopulated, mostly the smaller communities, as the few survivors fled to larger towns and cities leaving behind abandoned villages."

1. The 430M estimate is not world wide. I confess I did not read the footnote, however upon reading the footnotes reference are primarily made to the middle ages in europe such that distinction was specifically made in regards to China and the Middle East. If your assertion is right and that number is the world wide number than we would have to say the summation of all the numbers is approximately 430M, which is to say:

Total = Europe+China+Middle(365) = 430M = X +125M+10000+(500+1000)*365 = 430M = X + 125M + 0.01M + 5.5M => X = 299.5M = 300M

So based on the math if 430M was the world wide death than the European death toll would be the value of X at 300M. While the page for the source is no longer found it is disingenuous on your part to disregard the estimate simply because the site no longer has the page. I guess you expect anything on the internet to be around for all eternity... Hmm...

2. Though it would seem you are being disingenuous yourself. The 200M number that you are sighting from the BBC article is the estimate of deaths which occurred in the 14th century alone and does not account for the deaths over the entire span of the 13th-17th century (There are three outbreaks).

"The plague, otherwise known as the Black Death, ravaged Europe and Asia between the 14th and 17th Centuries. In the 14th Century alone it is estimated to have killed 200 million people.

3. The exclusion of Romania and Ukraine was due to the fact they are considered Eastern Europe and were not primarily effected by the plague in the first place. Such is illustrated on the map displayed on the site showing the primary impact of the plague was in Western Europe which is entirely reasonable.

4. Rather than argue this (which is not needed in support of my argument. Again you are arguing the scenario and not the logic of my argument). Let us agree with the following cherry picked quote from the same webpage (which is the very first paragraph on the page) in particular the bold section and move on:

"Consequences of the Black Death included a series of religious, social and economic upheavals, which had profound effects on the course of European history. The Black Death was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1347 and 1350 with 30–95 percent of the entire population killed.[1] It reduced world population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 45 million in the 14th century. It took 150 and in some areas more than 250 years for Europe's population to recover."

(August 4, 2015 at 6:53 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: What does any of this have to do with marriage? Even if he could establish (which he can't) that gays negatively impact society why would marriage make a difference? It's not like if you stop gay marriage, you put end to homosexuality.

I have already established that. No rebuttal has been given other than to say their negative impact is sufficiently minimal as to be offset by the proper conduct of the rest. To which I responded such may be said about the murder as well. They are not only prevalent through out human and animal society and history, but their conduct is sufficiently minimal as to be offset by the proper conduct of the rest. So why do we not give them governmental recognition and dignity?

I await the special pleading.

You don't see a difference between two people having consensual sex and murder? ._.

(August 4, 2015 at 7:47 am)Ace Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 1:31 am)robvalue Wrote: What the fuck has population got to do with marriage?

Population is an issue because of the debate both  Aristocatt and Anima are having. Aristocatt's argument is based on the world being overpopulated and consuming to much. Therefore, there is a need to low the current population. Anima is saying that one need to keep in mind of the possibility of population declining in the future.  To which I am saying the population IS ALREADY declining.

Now Aristocatt is saying Anima's argument is not only worng but has no ground base of his argument because it can never or not be. Thus any argument to show that the population is decline would not only make Anima's argument no longer wrong but has standing.

This is what I understand to be the just of the issue.

Actually population is not an issue to my debate. I am following the logic of the argument from intention/orientation to action to particular result to universal result. Furthermore the argument is in regards to biological terms. Not in regards to psychological or economic terms such as gays deciding to kill themselves (which the law will not fix) or over-consumption (which would lead to a dictatorship if we wanted the laws to fix) and is thus center on procreation. Both my argument #1 and #4.

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)
4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Illustrate the intent leads to an act which has a particular negative result. The particular negative result if normalized as universal (meaning it is done by everyone) is further negative as to state objectively that the intentions of #1 and #4 are bad.

Efforts to state the normalized universal resultant is unlikely are futile as the normalization of the particular result to a universal is to make the impact poignant. Furthermore in making such efforts it is recognized the particular result is negative and the argument is simply it is not sufficiently negative as to reach the universal result. However, such is not an argument for why the particular negative result should be permitted, tolerated, or given legal recognition.

Though I confess if countries are suffering from population issues it does not hurt my argument. Such is not essential to my argument. This would be losing the argument for the scenario once again.

Would you exterminate all homosexuals Anima, if it were in your power to do so?

(August 6, 2015 at 10:03 am)Neimenovic Wrote: You don't see a difference between two people having consensual sex and murder? ._.

1. Am I to answer this under the argument people have free will and may consent or that people do not have free will and may not consent?

2. If people have free will and may consent then the argument becomes is all consensual conduct proper conduct to be recognized by society or the state? The answer to that is quite readily no. Now we begin haggling over price (meaning which conduct is to be recognized).

3. If people do not have free will and may not consent then the argument becomes should society or the state permit conduct according to an irresistible impulse which a person has simply because they cannot resist it? Again the answer to that is no and we begin haggling over price again.

4. It has been pointed out by any number of persons on this board that one may think or believe what they want, but may not necessarily act according to those thoughts or beliefs. To this I would agree and go as step further. One may be inclined to any given activity and their inclination to that activity may be immutable; but, such is not an argument for why society or the state should permit the activity (though it may do nothing about the inclination).

Homos are born that way and cannot change. So be it. So are murders, pedophiles, necrophiles, abusers, psychos, sociopaths, and so on. Just because they are born a specific way does not mean society or the state needs to be accepting of those actions.