Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Aristocatt]

The only issue with your hypothesis is that the planets population is not actuall declining, it is increasing.

You are misunderstanding population growth with the rate of population growth.  The latter is declining.  It was exponential, now it is not.

Haha ok, I is not my hypothesis it is a fact. Sorry.

Again, here are my sources.  If you wish for more let me know.
(hopefully I did the link adding correctly)

CNN’s own Fareed Zakaria show, I think it is called GPS, did a segment on this issue about two or three weeks ago. You can look it up and find it. I was able to only find the transcripts. It is about mid, to a little over, page
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1506/14/fzgps.01.html


Yale Daily News
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2008/02/27...d-species/

http://us.wow.com/searchs_pt=source2&s_i...%20decline

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazi...d=all&_r=0#


Time Magazine: On American women Low birth rate.
http://time.com/3617927/pregnancy-birthrates/

New York Times: American women Low birth
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/us/us-....html?_r=0

New York Times: German Population
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/...-drop.html

United Nations: World Population Prospects
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/po...ndex.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/po...014/en.pdf

The Economist: Japan Decline
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/20...demography

BBC: Japan Decline
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30653825

World Watch Institute
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/561

The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...08/377735/

Not one of these articles is disagreeing with what I have been saying.  
Most of them are agreeing with what I am saying.  Population will continue to climb until the second half of the century at least.

"The United Nations currently projects that world population will rise from its current level of 6.4 billion to somewhere between 7.4 and 12.8 billion by 2050, attaining between 5.5 and 43.6 billion by the end of the century. " -World Watch Institute

"The experts believed that birth and death rates would be more or less equal in the future, as they had been in the past, keeping total population stable after a level of 10-12 billion people was reached during the transition." - The Atlantic

^Still requires a population increase of at least 3 Billion over the next 40 years.  They also are claiming that in the second half of the century birth rates will actually stabilize.


The problem is, the UN has decided that by 2050 something needs to be done about consumption. Population is invariably tied to consumption. Some reports on global warming are apocalyptic. Since it is possible that having babies is going to help lead to our extinction, being heterosexual is bad.

The issue that you are having is you see that the argument I am making is ridiculous, but you want to be able to still have an argument against homosexuality by arguing that it could cause extinction. Anima already admitted his argument was not based on likelihood, it was based on the very minute possibility that it could happen. I am using a similar tactic to show that this "minute possibility of extinction" is not an acceptable reason for considering homosexuality socially undesirable relative to heterosexuality.

Not only does the argument suck, but it also is not a real argument in favor of heterosexuality.
All of this talk about population dynamics is pretty much irrelevant to the points that were being made earlier.
This entire conversation has occurred, because instead of admitting to being wrong about one thing, you guys just have to find a way to show that you were right in another.