"Those who are able to marry but do not, and those who marry a person of
their own gender cannot contribute to the necessary population growth to
maintain a nation’s viability. This is a selfish and inward turn that puts
required growth in the hands of those who marry and raise responsible
children."Okay 2 things...1. Gay people are gay, do you
think they're going to have sex with the opposite gender if you ban
same-sex marriage?2. In-vitro and adoption allow same-sex couples to still
raise children, you would support blocking this, so you really don't care
about your complaint here anyway.
I would not want my daughter to marry a gay man so that he could help populate
the world. I think it unlikely that either she or her husband would be happy in
such a relationship.
I can't believe people make arguments like this, but apparently they do.
So, let's discuss. First, marriage has very little to do with procreation.
Heterosexual people the world over seem to be having sex whether anyone else
approves of it or not, and this appears to cause reproduction, especially in
areas where religion subjugates women and supresses a healthy attitude towards
sex, women and birth control. In addition, marriage has nothing to do with
whether or not gay couples can or will reproduce. Gay or straight, it's not
a condition to causing children. And most importantly, there were three billion
of us when I was born. Now there are seven billion; in 2050 estimates suggest 10
billion. Population depletion may be something of a false argument.
"Those who are able to marry but do not, and those who marry a person of
their own gender...."Are you advocating that people who choose
not to marry and have children be forced to do so? Do you believe that denying
same-sex marriage will cause gay people to marry straight?Many
people have raised your concern that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to the
end of civilization because fertile heterosexual couples won't have enough
children for society to continue. But no one has ever been able to provide any
evidence that prohibiting same-sex marriage changes the mind or behavior of
those who choose not to marry or who choose to marry and not have children. Nor
is there any evidence that prohibiting same-sex marriage will increase the
number of gay people who choose to have children. There is a very
valid reason why your scenario has never been brought up in court as a reason to
prohibit same-sex marriage and why the State of Utah dropped procreation
entirely from their stay appeal to the Supreme Court.
'Those who are able to marry but do not, and those who marry a person of
their own gender cannot contribute to the necessary population growth to
maintain a nation’s viability.' *'World population
hits 7 billion in record time' – By HayaEl Nasser – USA today
– Published by the Deseret news – 10/30/11'Today,
you are one of 7 billion people on Earth.' (sic) 'About half were
added just in the past 40 years, and 3 billion more are expected by
2100.' I think the viability is just fine. Since LGBT have been
exampled in every aspect in Human history. From two spirit Shamans in Ancient
America, Greece and Geisha's in Japan. It is unfortunate those
against marriage equality cannot do a Google search from…two years ago. Also, if you want to talk about raising children…
maybe those worried about propagating the species…
shouldn't put children up for adoption. FYI, LGBT couples are
x5 more likely to adopt children.
Sounds like a pyramid scheme, where increasing numbers of people at the bottom
pay for those at the top... Paradoxically, we see first world
nations' populations leveling off, but we're expected to have another
2 billion on planet earth within the next 35 years (mostly from developing and
emerging economies). How to feed, provide clean water and air, etc., for them
all?The research suggests that as women gain increasing levels of
education, economic well-being, and equality, they have fewer children. In
first world nations, there's less support for rearing children with
dwindling public funds for education and the need for two-income parents to
support families and all their material needs. In short, children are too
costly to have.In developing countries, women have fewer rights and
are often forced to have more children. While those children have less material
needs, their increasing desire to obtain the living standards of Westerners will
mean escalating global prices for everything from oil to clean air and water to
food to energy. Perhaps the one trend that could save the world is
a decreasing population in first world nations and a re-structuring of society
off the pyramid scheme.
Excellent commentary. To be sure, we all know that if you deny same-sex couples
the right to marry then they magically become straight, marry someone of the
opposite sex, and begin to procreate. Although, if most countries
currently deny SSM rights and the world population is "depleting" as
this author claims, then how is the solution to a "depleting" population
to continue to keep marriage to heterosexuals only? Seems like a
"depleting" population is indicative that the current status quo
isn't working - time to try a different solution. Joking
aside, I contest the "facts" in this article. With population in Utah,
the US, and the world exploding over the past century (continuous growth has
occurred for nearly a millennium) and statistical predictions that the
world's population will increase over 20% by 2050 (hitting 8.3 billion), I
do not think the word "depletion" means what this author thinks it
"...those who marry a person of their own gender cannot contribute to the
necessary population growth to maintain a nation’s viability. This is a
selfish and inward turn that puts required growth in the hands of those who
marry and raise responsible children."But isn't it true
that in many cases too numerous to count, those who marry someone of the
opposite sex do not raise responsible children, primarily because they
themselves are not responsible. Add to that the fact that many gay couples have
adopted or found other ways to have children of their own and have raised very
responsible children in the process. There are many arguments to be had on both
sides of the issue of gay marriage but the lack of responsible parenting is not
one of them.
Gay people, married or not are not generally going to procreate so marriage
makes no difference at all. It simply doesn't apply to the marriage
argument.There are exceptions however. I do know at least a couple
of gay couples where one of the partners was artificially inseminated and
"had a child". So a lesbian can in fact "add" to the
@Ruel Clark;LGBT couples are ALREADY NOT having children in many
cases. How does allowing them to marry change this?Denying LGBT
couples the right to marry doesn't increase the number of children born.
We have 7 Billion people in the world and have a hard time taking care of what
we have. We need more people to adopt children that have no home. This is the
way the gay people and others that are childless are contributing to society.
Is Ruel Clark living in some kind of alternate reality when he refers to a
"worldwide depletion of population levels"?When I was born
in 1959, the human population of Earth stood at three billion. Today it stands
at over SEVEN BILLION and climbing. It could conceivable reach NINE BILLION by
the time I die. Where is the depletion? The only thing I can infer
from Mr. Clark's comments is that he thinks the marriage equality movement
is part of some sinister plot to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone.
That is not the case. The human population always has been and always will be
predominantly heterosexual, and they will continue to procreate as they always
have, whether within or without the bounds of marriage.
I looked up birth rates on the internet and nearly every country has a positive
rate. 'No problem with depleting population.Gay people can
have just as many children as straight people. They can do it exactly the same
way as heterosexual people who are infertile. Or do you want infertile
heterosexual couples to be forbidden parenthood also?
If population levels are important (I believe they are), and stimulating stable
population growth is the goal, conservatives really, really need to get onboard
with raising the minimum wage. The damage done to struggling
families where both parents have multiple minimum wage jobs is a far, far bigger
issue than whether a couple of middle-aged homosexuals want to get married.It's not even close.If it takes the threat of gay
marriage to identify the very real & serious threats to forming families and
raising children, this is a good thing.
Thanks, Hutterite for making my intended comment and expressing it so well.Banning same-sex marriage will not increase the population any more than
allowing it will. Gays will not be procreating at a higher rate if we prevent
them from marrying. This letter has a big flaw in its logic. There are valid
arguments against allowing same-gender marriage, but this isn't one of
This is a canard. Assuming his point is correct (which it’s
not) the world would adapt just fine to a leveling off of our population,
although the days of earning 5%+ just for parking your money in a bank account
might be over but that hardly spells economic doom. That will only happen if in
conjunction with no population growth out technological innovation also came to
a standstill.As for the letter writer’s views on how
homosexuals should contribute to population growth, what is he advocating here -
establishing camps where gay people will be forced to produce the children that
their genetic makeup apparently has no desire to do… for the greater good?
‘Letter: Population depletion’ - Title Reply: Octo-mom. 8 children, no husband. 7 billion humans on earth. Depletion. I do not think this word means, what you think
What the?...Banning Gay marriage is going to INCREASE the population?Heterosexuals will magically start having more children because gay
people can't?The number of children people have is based on the
ECONOMY.If you are worried about the world having less children, Start with blaming the 1% who horde and own 85% of everything.Then, The 97% of the rest of us can have and raise more children.And the very small 2-3% of the homosexuals who either already have
children from previous marriages, or who do not can adopt the children
heterosexuals won't.Good grief, rationalizations run
Hey, Mr. Clark - you forgot to attack selfish people like myself who are
married, but for reasons that are none of your business, have chosen not to
I try not to resort to personal attacks. But this is seriously the
most absurd letter I have seen the Deseret news print. And
obviously, I have been here a long, long time.
I actually first thought this is letter was joke and the DesNews had been
punked, but I see that the author has written other sensible letters in the
past, so I will respond. I'm a member of the LDS church who quietly
deals with same sex attraction and has remained celibate, following what I
believe and what the church teaches. It is a painful sacrifice that I carry
almost totally alone since we don't talk about these things in the LDS
culture.It hurts that you would characterize "those who don't
marry" as "selfish." You must know that there are thousands of
single men and women in the church who are trying to quietly stay faithful. It
is painful to think that people judge as "seflish" without knowing our
story. What possible life choice could I make that you would approve of?
So you are advocating a man and a woman who do not love each other get together
for the sole purpose of creating children? And then do you want them to stay
together, still without loving each other, "for the sake of the
children"? This will teach children that marriage is joyless.Good plan.
Utah is Number one in the Nation at procreating, we can afford to let our birth
rates slide a little, since were not going to get more teachers.
Stunning, the lack of basic logic displayed in this letter.
Hopefully the letter writer will see the flawed logic of his argument by
referring to these comments.Tiago, your faith and humility inspire
me. Were I in your shoes, I doubt I could deal with such hateful messages so
gracefully. Well done!
To "Ruel Clark" you almost have it right about the damage that gay
marriage causes.If you look at the states and countries that have
had gay marriage for a long time, their marriage rates are very low. Low
marriage rates result in more children being born to single mothers. When
children are born into a family headed by a single mother, they are more likely
to be poor and/or involved in crime. Children that are poor and/or involved in
crime often end up living much of their life on welfare.So, the
result of gay marriage is higher dependancy and crime rates in the society
overall. Do we really want to raise our children in a nation that depends on
the government for everything?
@ Redshirt: You might have a point - if the marriage rates had not been
dropping BEFORE same-sex marriage became legal.
To "Kalindra" and has approving gay marriage improved things?You should also read "No Explanation Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands
the way of Scandinavia" in the National Review.While Gay
marriage is not the cause of the declining rates, it does add to the
acceleration of the decline.So again, why legalize something that
results in more harm to society?
@Redshirt1701"If you look at the states and countries that have had
gay marriage for a long time, their marriage rates are very low. Low marriage
rates result in more children being born to single mothers."Actually no. Massachusetts is 45th in the nation for out of wedlock births
(i.e. they have lower rates of out-of-wedlock birth than average, Utah is 50th
best in the nation, Mississippi 1st carrying the proud Mississippi tradition of
being worst in the nation).You see it turns out Massachusetts
residents are pretty smart about using contraception to avoid unwanted
Not here. Mormons are having enough kids for everyone.
To "Schnee" read "No Explanation Gay Marriage has sent the
Netherlands the way of Scandinavia" in the National Review. It explains what
happens to nations that continue to devalue marriage.If you look at
the ranking of states that have high out of wedlock births. Yes Massachussetts
is low, but that is an outlier.
An opinion piece by Stanley Kurtz, redshirt? Really?
To "mark" really, a liberal opinion backed up by nothing more than
dispairaging remarks about an author? That is the best you have?!