Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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.