Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:23 PM)morondog Wrote:  And that is as it should be. No one should control the thoughts of another. But society makes laws to try to govern peoples' *actions* so that everyone gets a reasonably fair deal.

The point is Guitar_nut's predicition:

Quote:My greatest joy is knowing that, in hindsight, future generations are going to take a massive poo all over the backwards thinking of the bigots, just they have for pretty much every group that chose to treat a segment of the population as "different."

You'd better buy an umbrella

Is probably going to be wrong.

is that based on any historical fact? or is it just a hunch?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 05:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 04:55 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Great rebuttal. All men becoming women would be far more catastrophic than all people becoming homosexual, because as earmuffs stated, the ability to breed is still there.

Also, I really wish I could hear this natural law argument. Maybe I'll research it later on my own, since this thread has apparently devolved into calling each other fucktards. Dodgy

Its not a great rebuttal because it fails to address the fact that if everyone became a heterosexual that would not be catastrophic. Your focusing on the wrong thing.

If everyone became male, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became female that would be catastrophic. Now compare that to sexuality. If everyone became homosexual, that would be catastrophic. If everyone became heterosexual, we wouldn't miss a beat.

Society cannot afford to do away with males....Society cannot afford to do away with females.....Society cannot afford to do away with heterosexuals.

However Society can afford to do away with homosexuals. I'm sorry but it is a cold hard fact of nature that homosexuality offers little to no value to society. It could disappear today....in an instant....and humanity would march on not missing a beat.

That cold hard fact of nature alone is enough to justify not placing homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality.

You are a homophobic bigot. You should admit that to yourself, and smarten up your attitude to your fellow man.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The point is Guitar_nut's predicition:

Quote:My greatest joy is knowing that, in hindsight, future generations are going to take a massive poo all over the backwards thinking of the bigots, just they have for pretty much every group that chose to treat a segment of the population as "different."

You'd better buy an umbrella

Is probably going to be wrong.

History says otherwise. Not a whole lot you can do about that.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
18-10-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:30 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  For society to continue to exist, people need to reproduce and do so at rate of about 2.1 children per couple. This is simple math and should not be in dispute. Given the choice, not even heterosexual couples reproduce at that rate(you can look at demographics of 1st world countries). Unfettered access to abortion and birth control are bigger threats to society then gay marriage.

"threat", like killing all the ants in an anthill is a threat to the ant species

He already tried this on a different thread called "I was raised this way.."

We showed him that his data for population replenishment was off. He is retarded. Don't give him the audience.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ed?page=10

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ed?page=12

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ed?page=13
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:30 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  For society to continue to exist, people need to reproduce and do so at rate of about 2.1 children per couple. This is simple math and should not be in dispute. Given the choice, not even heterosexual couples reproduce at that rate(you can look at demographics of 1st world countries). Unfettered access to abortion and birth control are bigger threats to society then gay marriage.

"threat", like killing all the ants in an anthill is a threat to the ant species

Ants naturally die. If they die faster then they are replaced, ants will eventually go extinct.

In first world countries, people are dying faster than they are being replaced(by births). In first world countries any population increases are due to immigration. If the entire world adopted first world fertility rates, the world population would decrease and would continue to do so until fertility rates rose to a little more than 2. If fertility rates never rose above 2, eventually humanity would go extinct.

In countries where abortion and birth control are widely available, humans couples choose to have less than 2 kids on average. That is why I say it is a bigger threat to society than gay marriage. Society can handle a few gay marriages....even over the long run. Society cannot handle a long run fertility rate of less than 2 because humanity extinction becomes inevitable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:30 PM)nach_in Wrote:  "threat", like killing all the ants in an anthill is a threat to the ant species

Ants naturally die. If they die faster then they are replaced, ants will eventually go extinct.

In first world countries, people are dying faster than they are being replaced(by births). In first world countries any population increases are due to immigration. If the entire world adopted first world fertility rates, the world population would decrease and would continue to do so until fertility rates rose to a little more than 2. If fertility rates never rose above 2, eventually humanity would go extinct.

In countries where abortion and birth control are widely available, humans couples choose to have less than 2 kids on average. That is why I say it is a bigger threat to society than gay marriage. Society can handle a few gay marriages....even over the long run. Society cannot handle a long run fertility rate of less than 2 because humanity extinction becomes inevitable.

unless we diminish death rates and ageing. Developing countries won't adopt developed countries birth rates any time soon, so rest assured, humanity is no going anywhere... the world is bigger than you think and the future is less predictable than you presume

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
18-10-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:37 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The point is Guitar_nut's predicition:


Is probably going to be wrong.

History says otherwise. Not a whole lot you can do about that.

With regard to races. I cannot show that one race isn't substantially equivalent to another. However I can and did show that homosexuality isn't equivalent to heterosexuality. You claim that history says otherwise is false because history has yet to speak on this. You can't say racial intolerance is the same thing as intolerance of homosexuality. The situations are very different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In countries where abortion and birth control are widely available, humans couples choose to have less than 2 kids on average. That is why I say it is a bigger threat to society than gay marriage. Society can handle a few gay marriages....even over the long run. Society cannot handle a long run fertility rate of less than 2 because humanity extinction becomes inevitable.

Then why did your god create homosexuality? And whether or not a gay couple marries, they're not going to have kids biologically (unless they're a female couple... you did know that female couples have children biologically, right?).

Your population fears are bull. Go look up the trends; the Earth's population continues to increase. Overpopulation causes enormous problems. I have yet to hear of this 'underpopulation' crisis you're so afraid of. We're nowhere near it. As science improves our lifespans and health, resources will become a bigger and bigger concern.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
18-10-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:54 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 12:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi, and welcome to the forum. Please digest the following facts.

The John Jay survey revealed that almost forty-five hundred catholic clergy perpetrators in the USA had been reported by their own dioceses as child sex abusers since 1950, 4.3 percent of those actively working as priests in the period, and that at least ten thousand known victims had made plausible allegations against priests. The authors made the point that these figures were almost certainly an underestimate and that the church would face many more allegations in the years to come. Most victims were aged eleven to fourteen and eighty-one percent were boys. This is good evidence that most catholic priest paedophiles are homosexuals. Seventy-six percent of the allegations made against priests had never been reported to law enforcement authorities.

Estimates of the rate of homosexuality amongst Catholic American priests range from 23% to over 50% (http://www.latrompette.net/post/A-e005-R...of-God.htm , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26...550.html).

Richard Sype, who has authored six books about child sex abuse by priests, claims that

“Dioceses throughout the United States are now recording an average of 7 to 9 percent priest abusers of minors in their records.” (http://www.richardsipe.com/Dialogue/Dial...–23.html).

Now please answer these questions...

Given the disproportionately high rate of homosexuality in the catholic priesthood, and that most of them are, or have been, no doubt, sexually active in one way or another, don't you think it's rather hypocritical of catholics to be preaching against homosexuality?

Is not the rape of little children a heinious crime, whereas sex between two consenting
adults hurts no one?

Shouldn't the catholic church remove the plank from it's own eye before searching for the speck in others, particularly as it has protected the homosexual paedophiles in it's own ranks, thereby endangering thousands of children?

I agree that the Church should absolutely purge itself of the Clerics, Bishops, and enablers and homosexual sexually deviant clerics. In the past the punishments for such crimes would be considered cruel today.

However, most of the condemnations in this matter has not been coming from the diocese, bishops or clerics that are deviants. It has been coming from the faithful who abstain or have repented of such behavior.

RE
"I agree that the Church should absolutely purge itself of the Clerics, Bishops, and enablers and homosexual sexually deviant clerics."

I'll make the point again that 25 to 50% of catholic priests are homosexuals.

You also need to understand the following. The large majority of Catholic clergy, perhaps about 92%, have never molested children or adolescents, yet that doesn’t excuse them for protecting their colleagues, and failing to protect the children. The offenders didn’t live isolated lives; they were, and are, part of an old boys club, so the vast majority of priests always were well aware about much of what was going on. So we’re talking about an almost universal guilt amongst Catholic clergy.

I don't think you realise that if your wish came true, your church would simply cease to exist. There'd be no hierarchy left.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:37 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  History says otherwise. Not a whole lot you can do about that.

With regard to races. I cannot show that one race isn't substantially equivalent to another. However I can and did show that homosexuality isn't equivalent to heterosexuality. You claim that history says otherwise is false because history has yet to speak on this. You can't say racial intolerance is the same thing as intolerance of homosexuality. The situations are very different.

The only legitimate difference you've pointed out is that two people of the same gender can't make a baby through traditional methods. For that, you're willing to impose limited rights and tolerate discrimination against them. Say that out loud and see how pathetic it sounds. Good luck explaining yourself to the grand kids, and I hope you never have a gay child... it would deserve a better parent than you are currently capable of being.

"Well, grandpa grew up in a different time... things were different... we just... it was different."

The situation has repeated throughout history. Race, location, religion and belief, gender, income status... all of these have been cause for discrimination, yet none of them are the same. History has condemned the behavior of those who's fear and intolerance caused a minority group to suffer.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: