You're getting your cause/effect mixed up. Yes, as an economy grows, that often leads to delays in birth. But that is a consequence of the affluence, not a cause for the economic growth. It ultimately has a negative effect when those parents reduce their spending, and before the children reach peak spending.

Only if your name is Clinton. ;-)

The US economy is driven at about 2/3 by consumer spending. This is also affected by spending by age - with the greatest spending occurring by people in their 40's (due to having children, having reached a level of competency in their work field where they get larger pay increases relative to fixed expenditures, thus allowing for more discretionary spending and upgrades to things like housing, cars, and acquisition of things like boats and motorcycles).

If the overall population stalls, then there will be less spending, thus less growth. After WWII we had an explosion of birth (the baby boom). The economy of the '70's was as much a function of the decline in births during the depression and WWII as it was the oil shock. Likewise the economic boom of the 90's was as much a function of the baby boomers reaching their 40's as it was any governmental policy (no, it wasn't Clinton economic policy, nor the R budget compromises of the later '90's, although those things helped).

We are in a slump because us BBers have passed our peak spending and our children are still a decade away from their peak spending. We will remain in this stagnant economy until the mid '20's. It is too late to break this cycle with immigration, as spending is not merely a function of age, but of peak productivity. Those that haven't gained the skills and capabilities to be worth increased pay won't get it. Merely picking fruits and vegetables won't garner the increases in wages that will sustain increased spending. Had we allowed immigration of those in their early 20's and provided them small business loans back in the '90's, those immigrants would now be bolstering the economy - having bridged the gap between the BBers and their children. As it is, we've basically only "allowed" in those with low skills and little possibility for economic growth. This has been shortsighted and economically stupid.

I'm not sure how you come up with there being too many people on the earth. If you gave every human being 100 sq ft of living space, you could fit every man/woman/child currently living into the state of Texas. There's plenty of room. There are also plenty of resources, although not well distributed and managed due to gov't interference.

This is all a specious situation. Marriage is not a federal matter, period. Remove it from all federal level matters - DOMA was unconstitutional as there is no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. Remove all benefits from the tax code. Leave this to the individual states, where if it is not explicitly identified, then it should be left to the people. If people want to enter contractual relationships, let them do so - M/F, M/M, F/F, M/FF, MMM, etc. etc, etc. Let contract law deal with it.

Hiraghm - while I do agree that the natural relationship is at least one male and at least one female to foster pro-creation, that is less of a need in our modern, non-agrarian society. For economic growth we do need population growth, but without economic security, that is not going to happen of its own. We will only grow via immigration - with peoples looking to make a better life here than they could in their native land. Thus, we need to revamp our immigration system - no, not let in illegals, but change the levels of permissible immigrants of all abilities.

We've covered this several times before, but apparently your memory is very short: "If you really want equal rights under the law, then recognize marriage between humans and animals, and humans and inanimate objects."

Neither animals nor inanimate objects can give informed consent in the marriage issue.

Why do you continue to pose such false arguments?

I've asked you before, Hiraghm...

What difference is it in your life if a same sex couple marries in America?

Why is it any of your business to impose your beliefs upon another in this issue?

But Robbie, the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under law. Same sex couples simply want the same thing heterosexual couples want. When they get married they want it to be the same, accepted in other states the same way, etc.

Another example is that one is qualified in all states if one has driving privileges in one.

I'd also like to see that if a permit to carry is issued in one jurisdiction it is good all across America.

" and can only be naturally directed at other human beings.*of the opposite sex*"

There, FIFY.

sexual attraction to members of the same sex is no more natural than sexual attraction to rocks.

Biology does make mistakes, but rational people don't insist that they are not mistakes. Lactose Intolerance, allergies, cleft palates, sickle-cell anemia, these are caused by biology, but they are not "natural".

With apologies to khalling, she may not want to read on...

You simply cannot fathom... penis -> vagina in order to make babies. The function is to make babies; if a person is sterile, there is something WRONG with him, just as if a person is attracted to something other than a mature member of the opposite sex. The solution is NOT to convince him that he's fertile, but to repair what's broken.
If a man is impotent, the solution is to address the cause of his impotence, if possible, not to convince him that his middle finger is the same as a penis.

Sexual desire and romantic feelings do not exist so we can have fun, get high on endorphins, or argue on the internet. They exist to promote... not ensure... the perpetuation of the species.

There is no reconciliation between that mandate and abnormal sexual desires or romantic feelings.

No one is saying you *can't* put your penis wherever you like (provided any other humans involved are willing and cooperative). All most of us require is that you cease demanding that we equate your messed up attractions, however they are derived, with the natural, necessary, mating behavior of men and women.

Actually, there is an argument I can make against those other things that can't be made against same-sex marriage, which is that sexual orientation is controlled by biology, and can only be naturally directed at other human beings. Therefore, it is not a violation of anyone's rights to forbid a marriage between a man and a rock, because it is not possible for biology to instill such an attraction in a person, while it IS possible for biology to make a person attracted to members of the same sex.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the rest of your nonsense strawman arguments.

There's nothing inherently American in embracing absurdity.

If you really want equal rights under the law, then recognize marriage between humans and animals, and humans and inanimate objects. No argument you can make against these can't also be made against homosexual "marriage". The specious argument that inanimate objects don't have rights, animals don't have rights, and neither can consent is irrelevant, because a single (or multiple, come to think of it) humans ARE involved and they DO have "equal rights"; you can't justify denying their "equal rights" just because creatures or objects which *don't* have equal rights can't give consent. Their consent isn't needed.

Suppose one is sexually attracted to goats. If one is put in the hospital, one's goat/lover cannot come visit him/her, because right now s/he's not allowed to marry his goat/lover. Who are homosexuals to judge one's love of one's goat/lover as somehow less deserving of acceptance and recognition than their own love of their partners in anal spelunking?

The flaw in your premise is the suggestion that people with abnormal sexual appetites constitute a separate race and/or sex. They don't. A person suffering from homosexuality can marry now, today. They have equal rights.

What they don't have is legal pandering to their abnormality.

You know this, but you're going to continue to sing this one off-key note until the grownups get so tired of it they give in, and let you destroy American society to satiate your perversity.

Destroy American society? What could be more American than equal rights under the law?

So your strategy to destroy American society is a war of attrition...