Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 07, 2012, 01:58:25 pm
-
A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/california-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional-court-rules/article2329542/
I wonder how many rounds the bigots have to lose before they concede the point?
-
oh thank lucifer it wasnt the weed law, i thought for a second id have to rethink my retierment locale.
-
I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.
-
because people would rather cling to a 4000 year old notion that homosexuality is sinful, as opposed to actually thing about it and realize that its no threat to them. pagan europe for the most part very tolerant of homosexuality, as was evident in greek and roman societies, but then the bible thumpers had to ruin it. if people wanna be gay by all means, more chicks for me.
-
I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.
Honestly, I think a big chunk of the problem is the use of the term "marriage" for a government-conveyed union in the first place. For a lot of people, marriage is a religious-based, even sacramental concept, so seeing that same term applied to unions that don't mesh with their idea of what marriage "should" be is what causes the outrage. If I had my way, I'd get the government out of using "marriage" entirely. Have it so that any two people, no matter their genders, can apply for a legal union status that conveys all of the same financial/medical/whatever benefits that civil marriage does today. Leave the conveyance of "marriage" to whatever religious/spiritual institutions choose to do so, by whatever rules they choose to. It won't silence the total whackjobs out there, but I think it will satisfy a lot of people on both sides.
-
I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.
Honestly, I think a big chunk of the problem is the use of the term "marriage" for a government-conveyed union in the first place. For a lot of people, marriage is a religious-based, even sacramental concept, so seeing that same term applied to unions that don't mesh with their idea of what marriage "should" be is what causes the outrage. If I had my way, I'd get the government out of using "marriage" entirely. Have it so that any two people, no matter their genders, can apply for a legal union status that conveys all of the same financial/medical/whatever benefits that civil marriage does today. Leave the conveyance of "marriage" to whatever religious/spiritual institutions choose to do so, by whatever rules they choose to. It won't silence the total whackjobs out there, but I think it will satisfy a lot of people on both sides.
On the one hand, yeah I think it would be a good idea to disentangle legal and religious definitions of marriage. On the other hand, I don't think the legal side should stop being called "marriage" just because it bothers some people, then it just feels like you're caving in to uh... tyranny of the majority, I guess.
-
Also, polygamy (for both men and women) should be allowed, right now most countries ban it, while it's an outright discrimination of Muslims (an most likely some other religions).
Of course, it should be somehow limited in order to prevent exploits like, for instance, prevent some clever people from "marrying" multiple "spouses" to get various tax cuts they individually get shared through the whole group, thus reducing the taxing to some silly amount. Or, for example, a man "marrying" 4 (already married or not) women who have one child each, therefore making the "family" have 4 children and thus be eligible for a free bus ticket for all of them, among other things.
I don't think it should be officially called "marriage", but people should be able to validate the act in the church of their choice (whether the church agrees for that it the church business). There's also a matter of language, what we call "marriage" in English refers to a lot of different rituals which most likely have different names depending on where the religion originated from.
-
Polygamy legalization should come with additional protections for spouses, largely wives who are exploited rather badly in many religions. (Certain forms of Mormonism and Islam come to mind.) Allowing poly-spousal unions should not be seen as a green light for people to start or continue practicing age old abuses and dehumanizing 'property' arrangements.
-
Hmm nope. The issue with homosexual marriages is not whether it is immoral. It is that marriage is supported by the state so that they can have and raise babies. Same-sex couples can't have babies. But today I probably wouldn't trust most heterosexual couples to raise kids. So I think first you'd need to fix education. Then tie tax benefits to raising children. Then sure, I can see homosexual couples getting "married," even if they call it "marriage" just to piss us off. ("A gay man can marry a woman just like any other man so they do have equal rights" etc.)
Given that homosexuality is immoral, trying to legislate against it on the grounds that it is immoral is useless and annoying.
-
Hmm nope. The issue with homosexual marriages is not whether it is immoral. It is that marriage is supported by the state so that they can have and raise babies. Same-sex couples can't have babies.
Were that so, why would we support marriage for the elderly or of sterile couples?
EDIT:
Actually, why would we allow unions of people who weren't planning on having babies. Why wouldn't we have adoption like systems in place making sure that the heterosexual, fertile couples who had petitioned for marriage had lifestyles and appropriate personalities for bringing children into the world?
. . .
Actually, that doesn't sound like too terrible an idea. . .
-
Because you also have no right to inquire whether they are able/willing to have children. There's no need with homosexual couples.
That would be solved of course by supporting raising children instead of bearing them.
-
How do you mean there's no need? If you don't allow same-sex couples to marry because they "can't have children" and you're attempting to save valuable money by excluding them from marriage, it would make logical sense to "get a return on investment" on hetrosexual couples too - as a significant percentage of hetro-unions do not result in children.
Let me break it down for you.
A) Homosexual couples can't have children
B) Marriage in terms of the state is for making children
C) Therefore homosexuals should not marry.
So - extrapolating from that
A) Elderly couples can't have children
B) Marriage in terms of the state is for making children.
C) Therefore elderly couples should not marry.
This is not even covering the fact that your suppositions are not strong - many homosexuals use various reproductive technologies to produce their own biological offspring (sperm banks, surrogate mothers, etc.) So homosexual unions sometimes DO result in children.
-
Preventing such couples who can't have children from marrying would require either private medical info or info about their sex lives, neither of which you can have.
But I (knowing very little of tax law) suspect it would be better to tie benefits more directly to raising productive members of society.
But really, I don't care about the money that much even. There are much better ways to get everyone more money that are going completely ignored. I'm against homosexual marriage because they call it marriage (instead of a civil union) out of spite, and because they claim that society has robbed them of their right to marry, when in fact they have the same rights as everyone else.
-
yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.
-
The issue with homosexual marriages is. . . that marriage is supported by the state so that they can have and raise babies. Same-sex couples can't have babies.
Okay, your argument is that gay people shouldn't get married because they "can't have babies." I can show multiple stories about homosexual couples who have sought out to do just that.
Preventing such couples who can't have children from marrying would require either private medical info or info about their sex lives, neither of which you can have.
No it wouldn't - you could simply prevent any couple over sixty from getting married - that would take care of a lot of unproductive unions. The ones who choose not to have children are usually fairly vocal about their reproductive choices.
But I (knowing very little of tax law) suspect it would be better to tie benefits more directly to raising productive members of society.
But marriage isn't remotely what you're saying it is, in context of a state.
But really, I don't care about the money that much even. There are much better ways to get everyone more money that are going completely ignored. I'm against homosexual marriage because they call it marriage (instead of a civil union) out of spite, and because they claim that society has robbed them of their right to marry, when in fact they have the same rights as everyone else.
How is it called "marriage" out of spite? It's called marriage because that's what we call unions between people who generally mate for a long period of time. Granted this definition has changed a bit given some marriages, but practices similar to it have existed for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures. It is indeed a cultural phenomenon. I don't know what you're on about.
EDIT:
So yes, I'd say homosexual people are missing out on some rights - they don't have the generally granted right to marry whomever they choose, put into a similar category as someone who would want to marry a child, but with many fewer sound arguments that support it being detrimental.
-
yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.
If that really were the case back then, then they would have had equal rights as far as marriage was concerned. But you know it wasn't, so why make that comparison?
-
yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.
If that really were the case back then, then they would have had equal rights as far as marriage was concerned. But you know it wasn't, so why make that comparison?
They did not have that right "back then" if by "back then" you mean the period of slavery in the United States.
-
I don't understand why people have problem with other people having different orientation. A person's sexuality is his/her own business, unless he/she actually interested in another person, then it becomes important for orientations to be compatible. And if catholic church has an issue with homosexuality due to some "sacred" text condemning it, then I don't see why homosexuals won't just leave the church or start their own religion. It'd make matters much simpler. And of course, government should stay out of it.
cuz a man can't reproduce with another man.
Therefore,
IT IS COM-PLETE-LY UNACCEPTABLE!
-
yeah, negros can marry someone of the same color just like everyone else.
If that really were the case back then, then they would have had equal rights as far as marriage was concerned. But you know it wasn't, so why make that comparison?
They did not have that right "back then" if by "back then" you mean the period of slavery in the United States.
Yes, that.
I don't know enough about taxes really, and I'm sorry I brought that up. But I don't think it makes sense to pay people just for being together, especially when they can just get divorced at a moment's notice. That would apply to all couples.
But I do think that calling it "marriage" is a deliberate act of aggression against anyone who believes differently. And heterosexual people do not have the right to marry anyone they choose either, so calling for "equal rights" is also a deliberate twisting of language that I cannot stand. If they had instead claimed that all people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they chose, they might have had better success.
This is what I think. It might be confusing that I started with what people should be up in arms about, instead of religious prejudices.
-
yeah, I want to hear a very specific and clear explanation of what your understanding of the legal status of interracial marriage in the majority of states before 1948, or in the south specifically before 1967.
-
I don't know enough about taxes really, and I'm sorry I brought that up. But I don't think it makes sense to pay people just for being together, especially when they can just get divorced at a moment's notice. That would apply to all couples.
Fair enough!
But I do think that calling it "marriage" is a deliberate act of aggression against anyone who believes differently. And heterosexual people do not have the right to marry anyone they choose either, so calling for "equal rights" is also a deliberate twisting of language that I cannot stand. If they had instead claimed that all people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they chose, they might have had better success.
Burden of proof is on you. Why do you think calling it marriage is an act of aggression. How do they currently have equal rights in terms of marriage. They DO claim, generally that people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they choose but understandably their argument mainly centers around same sex couples, because they are same sex couples.
This is what I think. It might be confusing that I started with what people should be up in arms about, instead of religious prejudices.
The way you put it and the argument you made were rather provocative shall we say.
-
If a white wanted to marry a black then that's cool. Whites have money and can make stuff happen. If a black wanted to marry a white then no go.
To be honest I don't know, and I thought you were referring to 19th century US. But educate me: how is allowing a man and a woman with different skin colors to marry the same as letting two men marry?
Burden of proof is on you. Why do you think calling it marriage is an act of aggression.
I'm not taking anyone to court over it, but that's what it seemed like, and that does influence my decision.
How do they currently have equal rights in terms of marriage. They DO claim, generally that people ought to be allowed to marry whomever they choose but understandably their argument mainly centers around same sex couples, because they are same sex couples.
Their catch phrase is "Equal rights for all," suggesting that heterosexuals can marry whomever they please, but homosexuals cannot.
This is what I think. It might be confusing that I started with what people should be up in arms about, instead of religious prejudices.
The way you put it and the argument you made were rather provocative shall we say.
Yeah, I'm sorry -- I get annoyed when it's implied that I think my religion ought to be forced on anyone.
-
If a white wanted to marry a black then that's cool. Whites have money and can make stuff happen. If a black wanted to marry a white then no go.
To be honest I don't know, and I thought you were referring to 19th century US. But educate me: how is allowing a man and a woman with different skin colors to marry the same as letting two men marry?
Because skin color is just as relevent as gender in that decision, unless you have an argument why it shouldn't be? Please address my response to your post, unless your goal is to troll.
-
You all do realize that the term marriage predates modern religion and in fact was not a religious ceremony originally, right? Getting annoyed because same-sex couples want to use a term that actually applies to the situation they want to enter is quite ironic.
Marriage was primarily a transfer of property rights through union of families prior to religion getting a hold on the gig. Marriage benefits were also not originally intended to raise the birth rate - that's a very modern policy goal that never required incentive in the past. Furthermore, allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage is likely to accomplish that policy goal - women in same-sex couples are still biologically able (and it seems quite willing, from anecdotal evidence) to have children, while same-sex male couples readily adopt children if that is their desire. In fact, one might argue that same-sex couples may even make better parents because they have to jump through so many hoops to even become parents - it's a very conscious decision.
Just because Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the rest recognize marriage does not mean they have a monopoly on the term. What same sex couples want is what heterosexual couples have. There is no reason to call it anything different, other than religious people thinking they have a monopoly on a term that predates their belief systems.
So no, calling a union between two people of the same sex (or gender, they're different things) a marriage is not an act of aggression, it's an act of clarification. They have just as much right to call it a marriage as anyone else... and frankly, any heterosexual who believes their marriage is threatened by a same sex couple calling their union a marriage has bigger issues to begin with. How does it affect you in any way, shape, or form?
-
i should point out that homosexual couples often adopt children who would have otherwise been raised by state institutions (such children rarely become "productive members of society", but children raised by homosextual parents are usually no worse off than those raised by straight couples). way i see it if the state is going to use a religious definition (or rather one religion's definition, there are religions out there that accept gay marriage) for marriage, then it has no place in the state at all. frankly marriage should be between you, your spouse, and your deity(s)/church. if you happen to be of a faith that supports gay marriage then you should be able to get married as per the tennants of your religion. using one religion's definition exclusively is discriminatory to people of other religions. marriage as an institution is bogus, people are going to breed by the simple fact that they have genitals and they want to use them. despite contraceptives there are plenty of unplanned births to keep the population going.
but what it all comes down to is money, nobody really wants to pay benifits to somone's same-sex spouse (because they hadn't had to before and like the status quo), and the irs wants to be able to get as much out of you as possible, so same sex spouses dont get to file jointly. civil unions should be a valid way for people to run a shared resource household. as far as the tax code goes civil unions should replace "marriage", as its about a financial arrangement and has nothing to do with the relationship statuses of those invloved. you have those bringing money in and those adult dependents (and children) that dont make any money, but are still part of the unit. and these arent non-productive members, they clean maintain the propery, raise children, prepare meals, contribute to group morale, etc. tax code should reflect that. as for benifits, well thats a different matter entirely. nobody wants to cough up. pass a law that depmands it and you get outrage from those buisnesses that suddenly are required by law to pay more money.
-
You all do realize that the term marriage predates modern religion and in fact was not a religious ceremony originally, right? Getting annoyed because same-sex couples want to use a term that actually applies to the situation they want to enter is quite ironic.
Marriage was primarily a transfer of property rights through union of families prior to religion getting a hold on the gig. Marriage benefits were also not originally intended to raise the birth rate - that's a very modern policy goal that never required incentive in the past. Furthermore, allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage is likely to accomplish that policy goal - women in same-sex couples are still biologically able (and it seems quite willing, from anecdotal evidence) to have children, while same-sex male couples readily adopt children if that is their desire. In fact, one might argue that same-sex couples may even make better parents because they have to jump through so many hoops to even become parents - it's a very conscious decision.
Just because Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the rest recognize marriage does not mean they have a monopoly on the term. What same sex couples want is what heterosexual couples have. There is no reason to call it anything different, other than religious people thinking they have a monopoly on a term that predates their belief systems.
So no, calling a union between two people of the same sex (or gender, they're different things) a marriage is not an act of aggression, it's an act of clarification. They have just as much right to call it a marriage as anyone else... and frankly, any heterosexual who believes their marriage is threatened by a same sex couple calling their union a marriage has bigger issues to begin with. How does it affect you in any way, shape, or form?
No I didn't.
-
No I didn't.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PYhrzREL3-0/TfkWAGmMZ6I/AAAAAAAAMUc/ySW5olR-AKc/s400/and%2Bnow%2Byou%2Bknow.jpg)
=)
-
Yeah I probably shouldn't have stepped into this thread. I think it was as a reaction to everyone's implying that anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 did so for religious reasons. So sorry for wasting your time.
-
IMAGE
The rainbow makes it funny
Yeah I probably shouldn't have stepped into this thread. I think it was as a reaction to everyone's implying that anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 did so for religious reasons. So sorry for wasting your time.
There is virtually no other reason for it. And all of them that I've encountered are misguided.
-
The rainbow makes it funny
Am I the only one who remembers those ridiculous "The More You Know" clips on some American TV networks? I think it was CBS or ABC, but I can't honestly remember. That's where that picture is from. :)
-
NBC
-
Heh, yeah, I remember those. Good times.
I honestly didn't know that little factoid about the term "marriage" predating its religious attachments either. Even looking beyond gay marriage, I'd always found it strange that government was in the process of certifying "marriages" in general, but if that's the actual original usage, then that shoots down the theoretical idea of applying some other term to everybody. From a practical standpoint, though, I doubt many people out there are aware of that fact, and even if they were made aware of it, a good number probably wouldn't take it to heart, so we're still stuck in the same unfortunate boat.
-
>>>implying that anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 didn't do so for religious reasons.
ok, start over, try and establish this, keep in mind we will ask the question "and why was that" and if it ends up with either "god said so" or something equivalent to "it just ain't natrul" then you have failed.
BTW the phrase "they want special rights" was _THE_ argument against interracial marriage and the civil rights movement. just in case you were unaware of that.
-
Heh, no thanks. I just said I shouldn't have posted here in the first place.
-
So. . . what are some arguments people have heard against it? The only real non-religious one I can think of would be that marriage has no part in the state, has anyone heard any others?
-
This woman explains the whole situation very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Iq4YD3Trg&feature=BFa&list=PLE764A630E498EB0C&lf=results_video
-
erudite post that unfortunately missed the root cause of this
The thing is churches started performing a number of semi-governmental roles around the fall of the Western Roman Empire and continued to do so well into the 19th century. One of them was, in fact, certifying this transfer of property. It's an essential bit of history and why we are where we are; pretending the whole thing is unreasonable/stupid/precedentless doesn't help any more than pretending that denying such rights is just.
-
What? Is my wife my property? Awesome! Thanks, legal heritage of the Western Roman Empire.
-
if people wanna be gay by all means, more chicks for me.
What about the lesbians tho... that can't be good...
How about proposition 8 and 1/2: Only ugly Lesbians are allowed to marry :)
-
In terms of arguments against gay marriage, I've heard a few that hailed to pseudo-science for validity and got smacked in the face with actual science, like the 'kids need a mom and a dad to develop properly' malarky. There was also the 'same-sex marriage is unnatural, only humans do it' attempt, but that was chopped when scientists discovered female tigers (or other large predatory felines) getting it on.
As it were, I don't think I've heard any secular arguments against same-sex marriage that have been able to stand up to the test of scientific analysis. They've pretty much all been debunked, and the only arguments left standing are nonsecular ones about 'morals' derived from religious manuscripts, which we shouldn't even be considering in the first place because of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since the prohibition of same-sex marriage is largely a religious construction, if it is passed without secular purpose, it can be construed as an establishment of a religious doctrine into federal law. Even if the 1st Amendment can't be called into play thanks to the twisting of words the Supreme Court is so fond of, there's always the 14th to come in and say that a ban on same-sex marriage denies homosexual individuals equal protection under the law.
As I understand it, the whole concept that homosexual marriage is bad stems from a religious background, and so once you remove that as a legitimate excuse to prevent same-sex marriage, all sexual orientations must be respected, else the 1st and 14th were written as jokes.
-
I dont see any reason why legal marriage should exist at all. Tax breaks and such should be tied to parenthood instead. Why should a married couple without children get any tax breaks? It is a discrimination of single taxpayers.
Abolishing legal marriage would solve gay marriage, polygamy/andry, marriage with animals and things and who knows what marriage related non-issues will pop up in the future.
-
Parenthood shouldn't come with tax breaks either - the United States needs to work on stabilizing population numbers, not exploding ones.
-
Parenthood shouldn't come with tax breaks either - the United States needs to work on stabilizing population numbers, not exploding ones.
what is this i dont even
The United States is one of the comparatively few industrialized states in the world to have a positive population growth rate, and it's been holding steady at or around 1% for decades. Really the only reason it's still positive at all is because of immigration. Many are actually declining at a rate of around half a percent per year. Europe, as a whole, has a population growth rate of less than 0.2%.
1% isn't an explosion. Not even close. Most places you hear about having a population "explosion" are the developing states. There's a well-identified trend for this kind of thing. In an unindustrialized region, population birth rates are high and deaths are proportionally approximately equivalent, resulting in slow net growth. In regions that are in the process of industrialization, the death rate massively decreases due to the increased standards of health, improved medicine, urbanization, etc., while the birth rate remains high. This results in the aforementioned population explosion. Probably the most visible example of this in the last century is America, and the Baby Boom. Coming out of the Depression, the birth rate was still high, but advances in medicine (the widespread introduction of the polio vaccine years prior and the newer introduction of antibiotics like penicillin) and a general trend of industrialization significantly reduced both infant mortality and death due to disease. Finally, in regions where industrialization has already occurred for the most part, the death rate is still low compared to both prior states of living, but now the birth rate decreases proportionally, due to several factors including but not limited to: lower infant mortality and early childhood deaths in turn reducing the number of offspring required for at least one to mature; A more general awareness of contraceptives; Non-agricultural or family/personal employment resulting in significantly reduced need for children to help out around the house; etc., etc.
In short: I call bull****. The United States has one of the most stable population growth rates in the world and that doesn't need to change in either direction.
(And for once my Human Geography class was good for something. Yay college!)
-
In answer to the question, "what needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[6] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[7] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
It's going to take way more than tax breaks to diffuse the incoming population bomb.
In short: I call bull****. The United States has one of the most stable population growth rates in the world and that doesn't need to change in either direction.
Ah, we could always use more people. And ever since global obesity surpassed global malnutrition I think a little overpopulation would be a good thing.
A negative population growth rate is really, really bad for dependency ratios, savings rates, the workforce and economic growth. Japan's slowdown is mainly due to its terrible demographics. One of the strongest advantages the US has going forward is that its population is still growing while that of China and other countries is shrinking and aging even faster.
-
You missed my point as well. There is no "incoming population bomb". It's happening now and has been happening for the past few decades all over Africa, the Middle East, and South America. Those still-industrializing regions contribute massively to the world population growth rate until the point they stabilize demographically, at which point likely as not they'll enter a slight population decline.
Somewhat of a case in point, one of the only reasons the United States still has a positive population growth rate is because of immigration. It's sure as hell not from people having lots of kids.
I repeat: The United States growth rate is healthy. Forcibly changing it in either direction is a bad idea.
-
I repeat: The United States growth rate is healthy. Forcibly changing it in either direction is a bad idea.
So are you against immigration reform, basically increasing immigration? I'm not going to start an abortion discussion because that will just go to the dogs. But there's really no danger of the US having more people than it can feed any time this century, even if it ends up with well over a billion people.
-
Reductio ad absurdum. Try again.
The current United States population growth rate is the very next best thing to the definition of "sustainable". What you seem to fail to realize, or perhaps willfully ignore, is that by the very way immigration policy works, the legal growth rate cannot and will not grow significantly. The absolute number of people, obviously, will increase, but the rate as a percent will not now or barring very significant reform change in either direction. Furthermore, the land area of the United States being used to produce crops is over 40% of the available landmass. That's over 1.5 million square miles. Over 1 billion acres. That's as of now. But where does all of it go, you ask? Over 25% of the corn crop is used in ethanol production alone. Millions of tonnes more crops are used in commercial applications, or other non-foodstuff functions. The farmland available in the United States right now could comfortably feed 500 million, 800 million, perhaps even yoru hypothetical billion people. Even taking the argument to it's (il)logical conclusion, there is very little legitimate threat in the form of population growth.
Also, I feel the need to remind you that, assuming 1% growth annually, compounded continually, it takes 72 years for a population to double. That means it will be well over 100 years before the U.S. even conceivably reaches 1 billion population, by which point the infrastructure damn well be in place, or the failing isn't in the population sector.
-
Reductio ad absurdum. Try again.
The current United States population growth rate is the very next best thing to the definition of "sustainable". What you seem to fail to realize, or perhaps willfully ignore, is that by the very way immigration policy works, the legal growth rate cannot and will not grow significantly. The absolute number of people, obviously, will increase, but the rate as a percent will not now or barring very significant reform change in either direction.
Hey, no offense intended. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about, either.
That's over 1.5 million square miles. Over 1 billion acres. That's as of now. But where does all of it go, you ask? Over 25% of the corn crop is used in ethanol production alone. Millions of tonnes more crops are used in commercial applications, or other non-foodstuff functions. The farmland available in the United States right now could comfortably feed 500 million, 800 million, perhaps even yoru hypothetical billion people. Even taking the argument to it's (il)logical conclusion, there is very little legitimate threat in the form of population growth.
Illogical indeed. But thanks for the information. It's a matter of land use as well as productivity and crop selection. If the United States supported the population density of Israel, a desert country self sufficient in food production, it would have a population of 3 billion. Food for thought.
-
Herp derp, I missed the word "no" in your last post. My mistake.
-
Glad that's cleared up. Maybe I should stop being so sarcastic though.
The potential for food production since the invention of industrial nitrogen fixation is so great that carrying capacity, overpopulation, Malthusian catastrophe and so forth are not even useful concepts in modernized countries. Even in countries where malnourishment is significant, that's usually a distribution and institutional problem rather than a resource one. It still seems like some people hear about peak oil or peak phosphorus and equate slightly increased food prices with an across the board crisis.
-
It still seems like some people hear about peak oil or peak phosphorus and equate slightly increased food prices with an across the board crisis.
Slightly increased food prices? Peak oil is a legitimate threat that could very well lead to a Malthusian catastrophe leaving billions dead. Because contrary to other resources, it has very wide uses in the economy and most importantly, is also burned for energy. I can agree that Malthusian catastrophe is unlikely for other resources, tough.
-
What? Is my wife my property? Awesome! Thanks, legal heritage of the Western Roman Empire.
lrn2read.
-
My point was that children do not need to be subsidized.
-
anyone whos covering more asses than their own should get tax breaks. while you could breed to the point where you dont owe the irs anything because you are claiming a ****ton of dependents, that is really impractical. the irs can only refund the taxes you pay, and the amount you would save on taxes would pale in comparison to the extra money you would need to spend to care for more children. when it comes down to it the cost of having more kids in the first world is astronomical, and that is why our birth rates are where they are. now we do have lower class people who breed like rabbits, but kudos to the ones that hold a job and dont need to rely on other social services to care for their kids. these people most certainly deserve a tax break.
but children are one thing. you can claim a stay at home spouse as a dependent as well. i think the same should apply to any adult in your household that does not earn an income, including same sex spouses. point is you are supporting others on your income, and as stated in my previous post this bestows a number of things beneficial to society. again they are deserving of tax breaks. ultimately dependants add up to deductions, not FREE MONEY (tm). while these deductions do reduce your taxes, if you make a lot of money (if you for example live in the middle class bracket) and are required to pay more taxes, then these deductions will have a proportionally lesser impact on how much less you are required pay. when you get into households with a number of dependants, but also a number of wage earners, then the net income vs deductions gets tilted into the irs's favor and you pay more tax (less dependents to go around). without even touching on gay marriage i think that joint filings shouldn't be limited to spouses anyway, as there are other socially beneficial living arrangements where multiple people share a property.
again, taxes are one thing, benefits are another matter entirely. throwing a switch and forcing companies to pay them to same sex spouses would be one hell of a ****storm. to be fair these companies should be allowed the time to adjust their buisness models to pay the additional benefits, but its still something that would ultimately need to be done should gay marriage be accepted.
-
Slightly increased food prices? Peak oil is a legitimate threat that could very well lead to a Malthusian catastrophe leaving billions dead. Because contrary to other resources, it has very wide uses in the economy and most importantly, is also burned for energy. I can agree that Malthusian catastrophe is unlikely for other resources, tough.
I don't think so. But, I don't feel like arguing either. So you win.
-
Slightly increased food prices? Peak oil is a legitimate threat that could very well lead to a Malthusian catastrophe leaving billions dead. Because contrary to other resources, it has very wide uses in the economy and most importantly, is also burned for energy. I can agree that Malthusian catastrophe is unlikely for other resources, tough.
I don't think so. But, I don't feel like arguing either. So you win.
Proof by opponent exhaustion. Q.E.D. :D
-
Okay, I feel like elaborating on that point a few sentences more now. The thing about Hubbert linearization is that it doesn't distinguish between falls in production due to demand or supply reductions. There's a great deal more accessible oil out there than most peak oil curves seem to indicate. It's just lower quality and more expensive oil, like shale or Venezuelan heavy crude, that doesn't make economic sense to go after when there are cheaper alternatives like renewables. The price of gas isn't a whole lot lower than solar, wind or coal anymore, after all the continual price deflation and tech levelup. The only people claiming peak oil is going to end civilization are the Chomsky/Jenkins types who make a career out of showing everyone else how edgy and radical they are.
-
we will stop using oil when alternatives become less expensive than the cost of gas. it will be a gradual decline and the industries that depend on gas will have plenty of time to adapt to alternatives.
-
There's a great deal more accessible oil out there than most peak oil curves seem to indicate. It's just lower quality and more expensive oil, like shale or Venezuelan heavy crude, that doesn't make economic sense to go after when there are cheaper alternatives like renewables.
Yeah, what you just described sound very much like peak oil.
Renewables are an intermittent energy source, so direct cost per mwh comparisons are misleading, not to mention that I really doubt they will approach fossil fuel cost levels anytime soon, if you disregard various subsidies. They are also just an energy source, while oil is an energy carrier and a vital industry chemical. Countries with both abundant means and determination for renewables (such as Germany) are a global exception rather than a rule, and yet still it wont be enough by itself to mitigate peak oil.
The only people claiming peak oil is going to end civilization are the Chomsky/Jenkins types who make a career out of showing everyone else how edgy and radical they are.
Peak oil will not end a civilisation (tough it may be a great threat to many things we take for granted today), but an increase in oil price coupled with peak population at the same time may very well result in a Malthusian catastrophe. Mostly in the third world, I mean.
-
Peak oil will not end a civilisation (tough it may be a great threat to many things we take for granted today), but an increase in oil price coupled with peak population at the same time may very well result in a Malthusian catastrophe. Mostly in the third world, I mean.
It won't (http://personales.ya.com/jesusramos/pdf/Arizpe_et_al_2011_web.pdf). What you're suggesting is so ridiculous that I can hardly find anything about it. The world can switch to different energy sources without anyone starving. Most sub-Saharan African countries consume very little oil anyway.
The main problem for agriculture is going to be global warming, but even then that will largely cancel out future gains in agricultural productivity, not reduce the food supply.
-
Most sub-Saharan African countries consume very little oil anyway.
I call stepping back from the post-industrialized rural community in the western world that I live in to the economic circumstances of non-urban sub-Saharan Africa something pretty akin to the end of civilization as we know it. YMMV, of course.
Also, what does peak oil and the impending (alleged impending, okay, happy now?) Malthusian cataclysm have to do with Prop 8? If anything, Prop 8 increasing the number of married couples would seem to decrease the number of single households, and therefore increase efficiency in resource consumption, delaying the inevitable (right, right, allegedly inevitable, okay, happy now?) badness...
-
I call stepping back from the post-industrialized rural community in the western world that I live in to the economic circumstances of non-urban sub-Saharan Africa something pretty akin to the end of civilization as we know it. YMMV, of course.
Why do I keep discussing politics on the internet? Why can't I help myself?
-
Not sure, but I like how you argue. None of this blaming religion for everything. Your arguments have been mercifully religion free.
-
Thanks, Scotty. I appreciate it. Allahu akhbar to you.
Anyway, Melvin, my point is that there are plenty of other ways people are getting power, like solar powered batteries or coal or whatnot, that the almost every country could switch to with barely noticeable (say, 5%) reductions in whatever their current living standard is. Since I'm so bad at sorting wheat from the troll-chaff, I felt obliged to reply to you.
-
dots stolen by nuke
-
It won't. What you're suggesting is so ridiculous that I can hardly find anything about it.
Indeed you cant, your source does not seem to adress my argument at all.
Peak oil is not only some fringe argument as you tried to imply, but a credible threat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-professors-flattening-oil-production-trump.html
Most sub-Saharan African countries consume very little oil anyway.
Does not work that way. They consume little because they cannot afford more, not because they dont need it, so they are more vulnerable. Increase in oil price will thus hit primarily these poor countries. Famine in Somalia during oil price spike was the first sign of things to come.
The world can switch to different energy sources without anyone starving.
You dont know that, and nobody really does until we try. What we know is that there is not a single economy on this planet where oil is not of vital importance.
-
You dont know that, and nobody really does until we try. What we know is that there is not a single economy on this planet where oil is not of vital importance.
There's France, the country with the highest GDP per ton Co2 emitted, due to it's vast array of nuclear reactors. I don't think that they would be impacted as much as you think by rising oil prices, although this is only a hypothesis.
-
It won't. What you're suggesting is so ridiculous that I can hardly find anything about it.
Indeed you cant, your source does not seem to adress my argument at all.
Peak oil is not only some fringe argument as you tried to imply, but a credible threat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-professors-flattening-oil-production-trump.html
I appreciate you reading my source. The point is that, although costs are associated with peak oil, nowhere in my paper's discussion is mention of starvation or anything you're talking about during its discussion of world agricultural production and fossil fuel inputs.
The papers you mentioned did discuss large costs associated with peak oil, but also stated that the world could adapt to it and nowhere was starvation, malnutrition, or anything at all related to population constraints mentioned. If anything, the report assumes that population will continue to grow. The one specific prediction that the Hirsch Report did make was that the peak would result in expensive capital replacement costs spread out over a decade or so. Five percent of GDP per year, maybe less. Expensive, but hardly in the way you suggest.
My argument is that peak oil will not appreciably affect world population growth. And I'm pretty sure it won't. Here's How to Feed the World in 2050 (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf) by the FAO. Peak oil is not even mentioned as a potential threat to the food supply. Again, I can't find anything saying peak oil won't lead to some population crisis anymore than finding a source showing Peak Lithium leading to famine. *grumpiness removed*
For what it's worth, if you're okay with citing internet articles, here's (http://peakoil.com/enviroment/global-suicide-2020-we-cant-feed-10-billion/) some dude who thinks there will be a population crisis, but doesn't even consider Peak Oil a major cause. Still bull****. But it is a better argument for Malthusian collapse.
-
One of the things that people neglect in these kinds of debates is the HUGE prevalence of petroleum-derived fertilizers. You subtract those, or raise their price like you're going to have to when the demand-curve spikes and you will see the price of industrialized food production spike through the (metaphorical) roof.
-
Petroleum-based fertilizer meme. (http://depletedcranium.com/once-again-fertilizer-is-not-petroleum-based/) I don't think so.
The closest thing you can get to that is stuff like nitrogen fixation requiring large amounts of energy, but you can get solar for about twice the price (which is constantly deflating), which, I guess, is inconvenient but food prices would still be lower under that regime than they were for most of history. And when you go down the list of all the energy sources out there, there probably aren't many places in the world that absolutely cannot generate or import electricity if any one particular source happens to disappear.
-
Heh, yeah, I remember those. Good times.
I honestly didn't know that little factoid about the term "marriage" predating its religious attachments either. Even looking beyond gay marriage, I'd always found it strange that government was in the process of certifying "marriages" in general, but if that's the actual original usage, then that shoots down the theoretical idea of applying some other term to everybody. From a practical standpoint, though, I doubt many people out there are aware of that fact, and even if they were made aware of it, a good number probably wouldn't take it to heart, so we're still stuck in the same unfortunate boat.
If people ignore this factoid when it's presented to them, of course the problem continues.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=63438.msg1250532#msg1250532
The fact that this argument was had 3 years ago in this very forum tells us much...
-
I'm not sure where the idea of petroleum derived fertilizer came from. Fertilizers consist of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus. These are all elements. Petroleum is a hydrocarbon. You cannot transmute a hydrocarbon or any other material into a different element unless you're a magician.
Maybe someone got confused between peak phosphorus and peak oil. Or maybe someone was just trolling an ecology forum. Either way, it doesn't make any sense.
-
Heh, yeah, I remember those. Good times.
I honestly didn't know that little factoid about the term "marriage" predating its religious attachments either. Even looking beyond gay marriage, I'd always found it strange that government was in the process of certifying "marriages" in general, but if that's the actual original usage, then that shoots down the theoretical idea of applying some other term to everybody. From a practical standpoint, though, I doubt many people out there are aware of that fact, and even if they were made aware of it, a good number probably wouldn't take it to heart, so we're still stuck in the same unfortunate boat.
If people ignore this factoid when it's presented to them, of course the problem continues.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=63438.msg1250532#msg1250532
The fact that this argument was had 3 years ago in this very forum tells us much...
So, you wait a week after this post, when the topic has moved on to--y'know, how the hell did the topic get to this anyway?--, and you dig up a snippet of conversation we had three years ago, to do...what exactly? I mean, let's look past the fact that you either have a scary-good memory, or else you're going almost stalker-level on me. Let's even overlook the fact that I'm in a very different place now at a personal level than I was back then. What you're saying is that your un-elaborated three-word point in the middle of an intense back-and-forth should have left some sort of lasting impression on me, as opposed to Ryan actually taking the time to explain the historical concepts involved. Yeah, sure.
-
Chill, all. This is the internet.
-
Heh, yeah, I remember those. Good times.
I honestly didn't know that little factoid about the term "marriage" predating its religious attachments either. Even looking beyond gay marriage, I'd always found it strange that government was in the process of certifying "marriages" in general, but if that's the actual original usage, then that shoots down the theoretical idea of applying some other term to everybody. From a practical standpoint, though, I doubt many people out there are aware of that fact, and even if they were made aware of it, a good number probably wouldn't take it to heart, so we're still stuck in the same unfortunate boat.
If people ignore this factoid when it's presented to them, of course the problem continues.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=63438.msg1250532#msg1250532
The fact that this argument was had 3 years ago in this very forum tells us much...
So, you wait a week after this post, when the topic has moved on to--y'know, how the hell did the topic get to this anyway?--, and you dig up a snippet of conversation we had three years ago, to do...what exactly? I mean, let's look past the fact that you either have a scary-good memory, or else you're going almost stalker-level on me. Let's even overlook the fact that I'm in a very different place now at a personal level than I was back then. What you're saying is that your un-elaborated three-word point in the middle of an intense back-and-forth should have left some sort of lasting impression on me, as opposed to Ryan actually taking the time to explain the historical concepts involved. Yeah, sure.
I only looked at this thread now, I remembered that this theme about marriage and religion had been discussed here on HLP and looked it up using the search function.
I apologize if I gave the impression of a personal attack, it was just coincidence that you were the one in the link (and if you notice two replies before mine, Knight Templar gave a huge response about it, but it's size makes a link have less impact since he had multiple points, not just this theme).
It just annoys me to see the same point having to be replied to over and over again, like the argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and evolution.
-
Yeah, I definitely took your post the wrong way, and I'm sorry about that. The thread you linked to wound up being a particularly ugly one, from a generally toxic time in GD's history, and I guess seeing it dredged up like that made me wince pretty hard. There are certainly a lot of statements I made in there that I'm cringing at right now. I can see your overall point that repeating certain facts over and over again gets extremely old; obviously what happened in that thread didn't leave nearly as much of an impression on me at the time as Ryan's post did now.
-
While I'm at it, I'll take advantage of this date, topic and the suggestion that I was stalking you to present you this:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gBxmzB4u3Ts/Tzj026F7gEI/AAAAAAAAe2E/wmrwAK_jYpM/s320/1.png)
:nervous:
-
I feel kind of sad that I've actually seen that episode. :lol:
On a related note, apparently I've been using the word "factoid" wrong for years, and I'm not the only one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid#Other_meanings). Besides feeling sheepish, now I understand why you italicized that word, because it was kind of the opposite of what I meant in the first place. :p