Best arqumensts against: Homosexuality cause human extinction?

Do we pass laws requiring heterosexual fucking if population trend numbers go below a certain threshold?

 

Well, consider this... Homosexuality exists in most species in nature. It even has its place for ensuring survival of species. Since same sex couples can't reproduce on their own, they often (especially in animals) take in orphaned offspring, ensuring those babes don't perish without their natUral born parents. In addition, not all hetero couples are capable of reproduction. Often couples end up infertile. If reproduction was the only goal, people would have to prove fertility in order to marry at all, which doesn't make any sense.

 

There are enough heterosexuals to do the reproduction, so you could encourage them to make more kids, and if they don't want them, let the gay couples raise them.

 

Why?

Why do you want to engage in a debate over opinions?

That's not a battle you can win. :bang:

 

Even if that were true, and it's not, we're not exactly running out of people. There are probably way too many as it is. And if we go extinct it won't be because we legalized homosexuality and everyone gay married. It'll be because we dropped the bomb or devoured all our resources or made the world uninhabitable or dropped dead of a new disease. And, incredibly, there are gay couples who have kids. Not through adoption but through biological processes. Surrogacy, sperm banking, in vitro and all kinds of wonderful medical science. And there are het couples who don't have kids because of choice or biology.

Honestly, the extinction argument is the lamest one I've ever read. Thankfully I've never heard someone say it in person because none of my friends are that foolish.

 

To the OP: given where you are from, I would avoid any debate with anyone about homosexuality, you would be putting yourself in mortal danger.

With reference to any counter-argument against the fantasies that you can find on the internet, save your strength and don't waste your time. If anyone believes in the "human extinction" argument, their belief is not based on facts, or logic, and using both to counter them will get you nowhere.

 

To the OP, Russia Today is not exactly the most unbiased source of information :lol:.

That said, the massive demographic shift that the United States will experience across this century can be partly explained by the massive income inequality that has systemically plagued this country. Partly. You see, economic growth and prosperity is seen to be inversely correlated with the birthrate. The US also has policies where women often must choose between career progress and starting a family, and this becomes more pronounced among educated, professional women who have more to lose by getting pregnant and having children.

If you want more white babies and less growth by non-whites: paid family leave that doesn't make parents feel that getting pregnant will cause long-term changes to their career goals; affordable child care; and, a reduction of-pocket costs for pregnancies (poorer people usually can get Medicaid and not pay at all whereas the cost for getting pregnant is more pronounced among the middle class).

Also, systemically fight income inequality among ethnicities. As minorities get wealthier, it should lead to a reduction of their birth rate.

Education is also not only a silver bullet, but a condom.

 

"Heterosexuality can cause overpopulation, but you're still legal."

I mean if you really want to get into this argument, good luck. Maybe look at trends of overpopulation. Or population decline trends. I think dwindling population is more correlated to poverty and crime rates, but that's just a guess.

 

Considering we're exceeding seven billion people, society should consider homosexuality a blessing because at least we're not the ones being directly responsible for overpopulation.

 

This.

Homophobes with nuclear weaponry on the other hand, I could see that causing human extinction. And pretty much everything else but roaches and fleas.

 

Wouldn't make logical sense, considering more people are heterosexual than gay. So people will continue making babies regardless, and many gay couples use sperm donor/surrogacy. Also, even if heterosexuals were removed, bisexuals and fluid people in our community would continue reproducing.

 

Even if people are gay that doesn't mean they can't reproduce.

So pretty much they can still create kids.

 

Well even if homosexuality starts becoming more common and the number of them increases, there will still be bisexual and heterosexual people who are already alive and are going to be born. Also, even if all the population becomes gay, then not only do we still things like sperm banks, but the government could have specific times where people are forced to have kids. So odds are no matter what, gays are gonna make us go extinct.

 

I think climate change is a bit more of an issue than reproduction..
Get priorities in order...

 

Do a bit of research on the impact of female education on birth rates. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that greater access to better education for women slows population growth and eventually results in declining populations.

It is no coincidence that the worlds leading governments invest so much in female education across the developing economies. They know it is the most successful way to slow down population and it is the most viable -and ethical?!- option to implement. If legalising homosexuality had the same effect, wouldn't the worlds leading powers put more effort into pressuring developing nations into it instead of just turning a blind eye as they do? It would be much easier and cheaper and more likely to secure their place as global super powers.

There is no evidence (that I am aware of) to suggest that homosexuality has any negative impact on population growth. Even if there was evidence, the theory is flawed because it is based on an assumption that criminalisation is the only thing stopping every person on the planet from being homosexual. Anyone who seriously suggests that making homosexuality legal would result in everyone turning gay is most likely deeply in denial of their own sexual orientation.

If the aim is to prevent human extinction then efforts are wasted on criminalising homosexuality. The best method would be to limit access to education, outlaw fossil fuel usage, ban intensive farming methods, criminalise the use of none-renewable resources, restrict access to advanced technology, suppress political corruption and eradicate organised religion. If after all that, we still end up facing extinction, I think we can maybe start blaming homo's.

 

Can't wait to hear how complaints of "declining white population" aren't racist. :rolle:

Let's see...how to argue against something that is completely baseless, unsound, and laughable. Why don't we begin with the fact that the assertion that "homosexuality = extinction" requires the acceptance of the following premises:

1. Legalization of homosexuality leads to increased rates of homosexuality.
2. Eventually everyone will become homosexual.
3. Homosexuals are incapable of having children.

Taking into account that all three of these are false, I think we can safely reject this argument.

 

my thoughts?

humans are a plague so fuck it

 

This.

 

My argument for homosexuality is that it kind of helps keep the world population down, even though such a large population of humans are heterosexual and many couples have multiple kids. The world is already way overpopulated, so less humans is good. Plus human beings are sick, selfish creatures that don't really deserve to have such an amazing place to live, since we don't take good care of it at all.