Comments about ‘Letter: Population depletion’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 5 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

Centerville, UT

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.

American Fork, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, Utah

"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.

Salt Lake City, UT

'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.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

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.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

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 means.

Burke, VA

"...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.

salt lake city, utah

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 population.

Huntsville, UT

@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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Charleston, WV

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?

Bountiful, UT

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.

Wanda B. Rich
Provo, UT

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 them.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

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?

Salt Lake City, UT

‘Letter: Population depletion’ - Title


Octo-mom. 8 children, no husband.

7 billion humans on earth.


I do not think this word means, what you think it means.

Everett, 00

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.

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 amok...

Salt Lake City, Utah

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 procreate.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments