Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

@Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

[i]Yes [/i]which is a major issue effecting more Non Europe and North American country's. Many of these country's have major issues with population and lack of mass education. Some of the country's having either one of the issue or both.

Also to the contrary,  both Europe and Americas populations is actual hurting really badly that the governments of these nations have place massive incentives to have reproducing sex more.  Even with their laws that allow same sex marriages. This is mostly in Europe, have not really seen any national incentives in the United States because their numbers are beginning to be offset by immigration.  Amazingly even Japan is having this particular issue.

Hell you should see some of their adds and commercials, they have some funny shit. CNN did a piece on it. Trying to find it now

---

No one, well I am not, is saying homosexuality needs to be out of the equation what one likes/preference and sex are two different thing.

Just like marriage is not about producing or love, then so to,  sex is not about one sexual preferences.

It was a point brought up by a different user.  I thought you may have been continuing that debate, sorry if I was mistaken.

I'll just wait for a response from the other user and go from there!

---

@Ace no it applies to everyone collectively. And actually The West has the most input into climate change with demand for resources due to affluence. "Steralization" is not the answer, just education, promotion of contraceptives and family planning.

Yup!

This has been brought up a lot now.

The response I got when I mentioned overpopulation was along the lines of:

"We can always just get rid of the surplus population when necessary, but if the population were to die off at a rapid rate, we need as many heterosexuals to procreate as possible."

Even though that isn't really worth addressing, I figured I would throw IVF treatment in there to show that even that doesn't matter.

-----------------------------------------
 How is it not worth addressing if one of the arguments was that the world "has massive over population?"

Or was that a hollow argument to at the begging to be just thrown out for the hell of it? Also how do you thing you get the stuff needed to do IVF? (I am assuming IVF mean Introvert Federalization. If not forget last comment)

---

[/quote='Aristocatt' pid='977941' dateline='1435633606']

It was a point brought up by a different user.  I thought you may have been continuing that debate, sorry if I was mistaken.

I'll just wait for a response from the other user and go from there!

---

[/quote]


Oh got you, sorry. Ok will I can take the opposing side of the homosexual argument if you wish.

So what had been said so fair just add the opposing homosexual argument or start it back up what the other one responds?

Cause it seems to have change to not being accepted socially to issues of social over population, lack of education, resources and climate change.  The last I said was that particular argument it sound like a racial issue because of what nations are consider to fall in the category of over pop and less ed.

Then I said low population is actually affecting Europe, North America, and Japan that these nations are giving massive incentives to the citizens to have more child having sex (i.e. heterosexual couples) . . . even with same sex marriage, in regards to Europe.

So I guess from there one then can argue that homosexual sex is not necessary to society's well-being. Lack of populations leads to issue of economic, resources , climate, war,  . . . (that is what is coming to mind so far)

However, homosexuals will still be in the equation. . . .Hmm, I am to argue against the person who is homosexual or the homosexual sex act or both?