Okay I'm going to seriously try to explain to you why what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense. If you still think that robots are going to replace humans because of gay marriage, I'm done you can keep thinking that. It doesn't really effect me one way or the other.
1. This decline doesn't have anything to do with people being gay. It has everything to do with straight couples overall having fewer children. They're not giving preference for machines because there are fewer humans. The western nations have been turning away from blue collar production work and subsidizing new technology for a very long time, these articles prove nothing. More western nations were adopting white collar jobs and more technical jobs because we've advanced our technology to where production can mainly be done by machines. It was never because there aren't enough people to do it, it's simply because it's cheaper to use machine automation. There are more high skilled jobs that are going to be available when the baby boomer retire/die off, but these aren't blue collar assembly jobs, they're technical jobs that will require a high level of education and skill. We definitely already have enough people to fill these positions, but not all of them have access to the education to develop the skills required. Not to mention there are other countries with more than enough people who could fill these positions. But that would require these western countries to not be nationalistic assholes with xenophobic immigration policies.
2. Thanks to birth control. Not gay people, gay marriage being legal isn't going to make straight people have less kids, they're doing that all on their own. In fact many gay couples want to adopt the kids that straight people have and can't take care of but they can't because their relationships aren't recognized by the government. Single people are discouraged from adopting kids and people below a certain income are discouraged from adopting kids. If gay couples were recognized they would be able to have a joint income and be recognized as a couple making it easier to adopt children. It would also help if these agencies weren't filled with homophobic fuckwits. This is ignoring the fact that women are capable of birthing their own kids, and gay men can hire surrogates. I have a friend, she is a gay woman, she has 7 children that she gave birth to. Nothing about being gay makes people have less children. Having children is a personal choice for everyone, not just straight people.
3. Your own article states that there's no numerical proof that the number of women who do this is even significant. You still have yet to prove that gay marriage is increasing the population of gay people. You still have yet to prove that any of this has any effect at all on the number of children being born. That's because they don't. The nations that have gay marriage are more developed nations. These developed nations have access to contraceptives. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY PEOPLE. IT HAS TO DO WITH STRAIGHT PEOPLE WANTING LESS CHILDREN AND USING BIRTH CONTROL.
As a debater, you are supposed to explain why arguments are invalid, not explain why arguments are nonsense. Replace emotive words such as "nonsense" with more neutral and reasonable word "invalid" will do better to convince critical readers.
1 & 2. Decline in birth rate was a direct response to the statement you mentioned earlier "Straight people will stop having kids they can't take care of". I have not attributed decline in birth rate to homosexuals since homosexuals can't reproduce without technology aided tools. This decline together with the gradual disappearance of baby boomer generation will already cause population decline in the next few years. Adding to that, the issue of gay marriage will continue to aggravate this problem if number of people engaging in homosexual acts continues to rise. The support for automation was precisely due to the utilitarian argument that you have proposed and that is also the reason why the use of robots will be able to justify in terms of utilitarian argument when the population decline is going to pose serious labour problems to the world. We may be just quickening this development with the addition of gay marriage and the effects associated with it.
3. Gay marriage is not increasing the number of people who have natural tendency to be attracted to same sex. But it is increasing the number of people having homosexual acts. Do all gays necessarily engage in homosexual acts? There are gays who turned straight or abstain from homosexual acts. But given legalisation of gay marriage, there will likely be increase in the number of gays engaging in homosexual acts and less number of gays who turned straight or abstain from homosexual acts. It will also further impact the nurture environment and influence the people who may not have natural tendency to be attracted to same sex, resulting in more people engaging in homosexual acts.
This thread has moved a lot since I was here o.O Currently busy with uni work and don't have time to do more than skim everyone's arguments (much less write out a comprehensive rebuttal/argument like when I was on holidays last time), but all I can say is...lol.
1) I am amused that people seem to think referencing animal behaviour is a bad thing (a la cannibalism) when animal behaviour supports homosexuality, yet can simultaneously argue that homosexuality is bad because it's "against nature".
2) The robots-taking-over-the-world argument is still making giant leaps in logic. "If you allow X, it is only a small step to proceed to Y" is NOT a valid argument unless you can demonstrate why it would be such a small step. I'm not denying that it is possible, but it doesn't mean it will happen. We cloned Dolly the Sheep, but we don't have human clones running around everywhere. If you were to ask me whether sheep-cloning or gay marriage were more likely to lead to human cloning, I'd bet my life on the former. Your argument is akin to saying that eating an extra piece of toast every morning will --> more demand on bread market --> higher demand on farmers --> farmers need to increase wheat production to meet demand --> increased use of genetically modified organisms to increase wheat yield and/or quality --> other food producers use GMOs as well --> massive influx of GMOs on food market --> potential for mutations because scientists are messing with genes --> everyone gets cancer/turns into aliens because they're eating genetically-messed-with food. Oh, and since we're back on the genetics topic, maybe robots will take over the world as well. 
Moral of the story: don't eat that second piece of toast.
3) I don't agree that legalising gay marriage will cause would-have-been-straight people to "turn gay". On a similar vein, studies have shown that asking a depressed person whether they have ever considered self harm/suicide does not increase their risk of doing so by planting the idea in their head. I realise this isn't quite the same thing, but do you really think that the legalisation of gay marriage is psychosocially powerful enough to make straight people gay, when the mention of self harm/suicide isn't enough to push severely depressed people over the edge?
1) Referencing animal behaviour is an invalid argument since it does not serve any purpose to justify any actions in the face of human laws. Animal laws and human laws are on completely different tracks.
2) While many technology is advanced by significant scientific breakthroughs, there are a number of technology being slowed down or hindered not by scientific breakthroughs but by controversial issues. Cloning, mass production of robots to replace human, stem cell research, genetic engineering, etc. Dolly was cloned as early as 1996 but until so far, the technique has only be used on animals, not even clinical trials on humans. The amount of research in that field are also quite limited precisely because of the controversial issues. (https://en.wikipedia...i/Dolly_(sheep)). in March 2005 a non-binding United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, calling for the ban of all forms of Human Cloning contrary to human dignity, was adopted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning). For robots, the ethical issues associated with robots can be found under "Robots in Society" subheading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot). The level of advances in robots has long gone beyond automated manual tasks. However, there are still a lot of disagreements in ethics front for the robot to advance to the stage of replacing humans. The wider adoption of technology aided tools for gay couples will help to advance in this science ethics front. Technology aided tools such as IVF have been quite expensive and with wider adoption, it will drain a lot of resources in that areas and weighing on utilitarian arguments, robots would be cheaper to produce in the long run with economies of scale for mass production. Even if gay couples don't go for reproduction, they will still aggravate the problem of population decline with no reproduction and robots will still come into the picture as a viable solution for shortage of labour.
3) It was already mentioned earlier that homosexual acts are influenced by both natural tendency and nurture environment (http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation).
Some quotes from the source:
Quote 1: The proportion of adolescents reporting same-sex attraction is significantly higher than the proportion reporting same-sex sexual experience. In addition to attraction, opportunity has to present itself. Since opportunity is clearly socially structured, our expectation is that social influences should be stronger for behavior than attraction. He suggests possible socialization experiences might shape desire, but not subsequent adult sexual orientation. It is possible that genetic influence could operate on the pathway from attraction to behavior.
Quote 2: Researchers have provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men. Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality, or that parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child.
http://youtu.be/o-id4GKsaQk
