Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

I think you don't understand why so many people are choosing not to have children, or to stop at 1 or 2 children. There's too many fucking people. When and if we approach a time when there is not too many fucking people, well then, there won't be too many fucking people anymore. A good chunk of people who might choose not to procreate in a world where there are too many fucking people may choose differently in a world where there is not. This decline is a trend, nothing more.

I'm not really sure what this has to do with homosexuality or Catholicism though.

My gripe is this: I can't have children. Moreover, I WON'T have children. My husband has had a vasectomy, and I still take birth control just to be sure. If a pregnancy did occur, I would be unable (and moreover, unwilling) to carry it. Off to the nearest abortion clinic. Not happening. Now explain to me exactly how it is any business of the Catholic Church what my husband and I choose to do in the privacy of our own bedroom for the pure pleasure of it, with absolutely no "ifs ands or buts" about the possibility of procreating.
If you can illustrate how this affects anyone but us, maybe there is an argument against same sex relationships.

In a world where the dominant religion advocated male submission and oppression and had the power to legislate accordingly, the Catholic church would be first in the line of people whining about how people shouldn't force their religion on others.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:02 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  You've got it backwards. There is currently encouragement from the church to oppose homosexuality, and punishment(threatened in the form of the afterlife) for those who DON'T oppose it. The debate is not whether a sexual preference should be considered 'the same.' The debate is whether the human fucking beings with a specific sexual preference should be treated like all other human beings.

This photographer opposed gay marriage and got sued. He was punished for his views.

http://[url=http://www.outsidethebeltway...y couples.[/url]

Now having been punished, he will conform, but deep down inside he will never accept homosexuality as being equivalent to heterosexuality.

And you know, because you're projecting yourself into him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
18-10-2013, 04:13 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:49 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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

If no one died, Any positive fertility rate would sustain or grow the population. But everyone eventually dies even in worlds with long lifespans. Therefore everyone needs to be replaced to keep a population constant. If everyone is not replaced the population will inevitably decrease. If the period of decrease is long enough, the population goes extinct.

Radically diminishing the death rate wouldn't stop the inevitable consequence of a fertility rate of 2 or less. Radically diminishing the death rate would cause a spike in population but eventually the math would win. At least 2 children mush be born per couple if humanity is to continue indefinitely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:49 PM)nach_in Wrote:  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

If no one died, Any positive fertility rate would sustain or grow the population. But everyone eventually dies even in worlds with long lifespans. Therefore everyone needs to be replaced to keep a population constant. If everyone is not replaced the population will inevitably decrease. If the period of decrease is long enough, the population goes extinct.

Radically diminishing the death rate wouldn't stop the inevitable consequence of a fertility rate of 2 or less. Radically diminishing the death rate would cause a spike in population but eventually the math would win. At least 2 children mush be born per couple if humanity is to continue indefinitely.

Are you seriously thinking we're going to go extinct because some part of the population is gay? seriously? do you understand that there're more to demographics than only reproduction rates? do you understand that reproductive habits change over time?
Are you seriously so arrogant that you think you can predict the sex habits of the whole world centuries from now? and you're saying that because of that preposterous prediction you can legislate against a whole bunch of people?

What's next? legalize rape so fertile women are constantly pregnant?

[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, 04:20 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2013 04:32 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  At least 2 children mush be born per couple if humanity is to continue indefinitely.

The sustainability rate is 2.1 children per woman asshat, not per couple.

(18-10-2013 05:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  However Society can afford to do away with homosexuals.

Yeah and it's that same ignorant attitude by the Brits in the 50's that deprived the human race of 50 more years of the brilliance that was Alan Turing. You are a fucking idiot Hayseed. Just go ahead and jahblowme now.

(18-10-2013 05:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

But not nearly as fabulously. Homosexuality - making the world more fabulous one fag at a time. Big Grin

[Image: angel.jpg]

[Image: gay-1.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
18-10-2013, 04:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 03:17 AM)Chippy Wrote:  That's for the Catholics and other Christians, Jews and Muslims to argue. Catholics have their natural law based argument, Jews would presumably say because Yahweh says so and Muslims would say because Allah says so. I don't know if there is a distinctly Protestant argument against homosexuality beyond an appeal to scripture (I haven't seen one).

Hopefully the Catholic guy with some expertise in Thomistic philosophy will return and provide the natual law argument.

My point is if you are are genuine about wanting a debate then stick to the fucking topic. The matter in question is "Is homosexuality immoral?" Not "Is the Catholic Church well-managed?", "Are there other more immoral matters the Catholic Church should be concerned about?", "Why are there so many pedophiles in the Catholic Church" etc. etc.

Is homosexuality immoral? Discuss like fucking intelligent adults and not like retards.

Chipster, you don't get to chose the topic to be debated. Read that again.

The topic of the thread was stated to be :
"So then, Catholics........why do you see it as a moral right to be able to legislate against homosexuality?", not the "morality of homosexuality".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2013, 04:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Some Biblical texts reveal a bigoted attitude about homosexuality.

Yahweh ordered homosexuals killed;

“The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13 NJB.)

No other significant cultures at the time anywhere in the world had a problem with gays. Other cultures had an attitude very similar to that of Greece and Rome; they simply accepted it between consenting adults. This is probably the original source of the discrimination against millions of innocent homosexual people in the Christian and Islamic world.

In the New Testament Saint Paul wrote

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6 9-10, NIV.) and

“That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their men folk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion” (Romans 1:26-28.) Paul assumed he had the right to make derogatory comments about people’s sexual preferences, yet once again he was totally out of touch with society at large. The Roman world, generally speaking, did not have an issue with homosexuality.

Paul was unmarried and supposedly celibate, which was very unusual for a Jew, as they were strongly encouraged by priests to get married and have children. He imagined his God had burdened him with an infliction, although he was never honest enough to admit what it was. I’m not the first commentator to strongly suspect that Paul was, in fact, a homosexual himself. His anxious, obsessive nature may have been partly due to his own sexual frustrations. His Jewish upbringing was the source of his prejudice against himself.

Over the centuries many Christian societies have been poisoned by an intolerance of homosexuality, and these teachings are largely to blame.

Churches have always known that if they can make people feel guilty about their innermost self, they can wound the ego and thereby control the person. Hence their obsessive preoccupation with people’s sexuality.

Churches don’t like homosexual couples because, on average, they don’t have as many children, which means there’s less little feet in the pews. Homosexual couples are often more affluent too, and the typical church man knows that’s not good for business. Affluent people get educated, and, on average, are less likely go to church. Church attendance throughout Europe declined dramatically in the last fifty years as families got smaller and education levels rose. Is it any wonder “God” has such a bad attitude to homosexuality?

Jesus has nothing to say about homosexuality. If jesus was god, and god was as homophobic as many Christians imagine he is, Jesus would have had much to say on the issue, but there’s not a word about it in the gospels. I think the reason is obvious; the gospels were written under the supervision of the Roman government at the time. They weren’t prejudiced against gays, and what’s more, didn’t want to create divisiveness between people in the empire. Today’s governments should take a leaf out of their book.

Consider this from another angle. According to Christians, “God” invented homosexuality – he must have, as he invented everything. Animals often exhibit homosexual behaviour, and he created them too. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and it’s clearly not “unnatural” or “unclean.” So why did “he” forbid it in the Old Testament? At that time, there was a shortage of Hebrews. Jerusalem was under threat from Babylon. There’s no offspring from homosexual encounters, no young men to take up arms to protect priests. Priests, who were, in effect, the government, were obsessed with making Israel a powerful, united nation, so they could fight off threats from enemies. Increasing the numbers of Jewish progeny amongst the common people fortified their own safety and power, so they wanted men married and producing children.

Now that there are enough people in the world, in fact probably too many, particularly in Israel, it’s time Christians envisaged their imaginary god implementing plan B: one where Adam and Steve, Amanda and Eve, are loved and respected, and have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
18-10-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:10 PM)Ohio Sky Wrote:  I think you don't understand why so many people are choosing not to have children, or to stop at 1 or 2 children. There's too many fucking people. When and if we approach a time when there is not too many fucking people, well then, there won't be too many fucking people anymore. A good chunk of people who might choose not to procreate in a world where there are too many fucking people may choose differently in a world where there is not. This decline is a trend, nothing more.

A trend which is only enabled by unfettered birth control and abortion. Most people stop at 1 or 2 children because they don't want any more and not because the world is over populated. When world population has declined long enough, Society may have to take away unfettered birth control and abortion in order to reverse the trend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:19 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Are you seriously thinking we're going to go extinct because some part of the population is gay? seriously? do you understand that there're more to demographics than only reproduction rates? do you understand that reproductive habits change over time?
Are you seriously so arrogant that you think you can predict the sex habits of the whole world centuries from now? and you're saying that because of that preposterous prediction you can legislate against a whole bunch of people?

What's next? legalize rape so fertile women are constantly pregnant?

If you read this thread, you would realize I said that birth control is more of a threat than gay marriage....that the world can tolerate the small percentage of gays that exist.

So all that crap you wrote above....doesn't apply to what I said. You wasted everyones time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 04:41 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 04:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 04:19 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Are you seriously thinking we're going to go extinct because some part of the population is gay? seriously? do you understand that there're more to demographics than only reproduction rates? do you understand that reproductive habits change over time?
Are you seriously so arrogant that you think you can predict the sex habits of the whole world centuries from now? and you're saying that because of that preposterous prediction you can legislate against a whole bunch of people?

What's next? legalize rape so fertile women are constantly pregnant?

If you read this thread, you would realize I said that birth control is more of a threat than gay marriage....that the world can tolerate the small percentage of gays that exist.

So all that crap you wrote above....doesn't apply to what I said. You wasted everyones time.

ok then, so lets allow rape and force women to be your brooding mares, so we don't run out of people in 3 or 4 hundred years from now... I'm not wasting anybodies time, you're trying to waste the entire history of female rights though

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: