(August 4, 2015 at 10:36 am)Aristocatt Wrote:(August 4, 2015 at 8:30 am)Ace Wrote: 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.
You did actually read the artical's right? They are in English. I mad sure of that.
I was not arguing for Anima I was just saying their is a population issue. If it effects gay marriage or not I am not even talking about that. Forget what Anima is saying, this is what I am saying so don't put the two together. Now if you don't want to see that hey that is on you. I have given you my sources for my statement of population decline for you and anyone to read. I did not think your comprehension is an issue. I consider you to be smart here.