Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  George and Martha Washington didn't need a marriage license so neither should anyone else. The state shouldn't be involved in marriages.....heterosexual or homosexual or polygamous. Why should I need the permission of the state to marry someone?

I think you might not be aware of what the complaint is about, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. When you marry, you receive (as heteros) certain legal rights as a couple. The marriage itself is meaningless. You can sign a paper, or have a massive religious ceremony. The state doesn't, and shouldn't, care, how you go about it (for the most part). Where the discrimination lies is in the legal recognition of a 'union' between two individuals. If my wife is terminally ill, I can make decisions about her healthcare. If she or I die, the other will receive spousal benefits. We qualify for certain types of life insurance that protect widows/widowers. I can put her on my health insurance as a spouse. If she dies, I get the house. And the cat.

A gay couple is denied these same rights because they are not legally recognized as a couple. A man living with the same partner for 20 years, whose name is not on the home deed, has no legal right to the home he and his 'unrecognized' spouse lived in. A man who's partner is comatose cannot make life and death decisions or medical decisions because he is not considered 'family' or spousal. An unemployed gay man cannot receive 'family' insurance benefits from his partner's employer. But I can, because I married a girl. That's bullshit.

Trust me, most of them don't give a fuck about the ceremony. They're going to wear rings and have a ceremony whether you like it or not. It's the legal rights that they're after.

(18-10-2013 09:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I wouldn't ban gay parents from adopting, but adoption agencies shouldn't be forced to help gay couples obtain an adoption. Passing laws to force adoption agencies to help gays find children is legislating beliefs onto others. There are certainly enough gays to start their own adoption agency, they don't need to force their beliefs on others and make them do it.

That kind of bigotry is okay though cause its the right thing to do....right? Wrong. Let people be free to operate under their own belief systems. This whole its okay to believe what you want is long as you conform to what we tell you is right is just too Orwellian for me. Where is the value in being an individual if you can't operate on your individual beliefs?

Does a business front with a "Straights only" sign on it remind you of anything from the past? And what right does an adoption agency have to speak for the baby? The baby needs good parents; it doesn't give a flying rat's ass if they're gay. Babies don't know bigotry... that's taught to them later in life by shitty adults. I will agree with you that, in many situations, a company should be able to do business with whomever it pleases (and be judged by customers accordingly). But your adoption agency example is not one of those situations. That's a human life we're talking about, not a cake.

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
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
18-10-2013, 10:04 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 09:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because the state grants legal rights that are associated with it. You want to give all those up ? The state should do civil unions, nothing else. The rest can be left to the churches.

Sure.

Liar

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
18-10-2013, 10:09 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 09:50 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 09:31 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm sure it would, but I imagine you would have to force or pay women to become pregnant otherwise the fertility rate wouldn't be nearly enough to support a stable population. If everyone suddenly turned heterosexual, you wouldn't need to employ these draconian population life support measures.

Why would we possibly want to maintain the population we currently have? There is no need for many humans, there is no need to force women to birth babies left and right. I think a decreased human population is preferable, just not forcibly decreased by genocide or the taking of a persons life.

Overpopulation and low fertility rates are different problems. Don't conflate them. A low fertility rate can solve overpopulation but keep in mind the long term consequence of a low fertility rate is extinction. The math does not lie.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 10:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 09:50 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Why would we possibly want to maintain the population we currently have? There is no need for many humans, there is no need to force women to birth babies left and right. I think a decreased human population is preferable, just not forcibly decreased by genocide or the taking of a persons life.

Overpopulation and low fertility rates are different problems. Don't conflate them. A low fertility rate can solve overpopulation but keep in mind the long term consequence of a low fertility rate is extinction. The math does not lie.

No, a LOWERING fertility rate means extinction. A lower, but still constant fertility rate doesn't necessarily mean extinction.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 10:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 10:01 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I think you might not be aware of what the complaint is about, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. When you marry, you receive (as heteros) certain legal rights as a couple. The marriage itself is meaningless. You can sign a paper, or have a massive religious ceremony. The state doesn't, and shouldn't, care, how you go about it (for the most part). Where the discrimination lies is in the legal recognition of a 'union' between two individuals. If my wife is terminally ill, I can make decisions about her healthcare. If she or I die, the other will receive spousal benefits. We qualify for certain types of life insurance that protect widows/widowers. I can put her on my health insurance as a spouse. If she dies, I get the house. And the cat.

A gay couple is denied these same rights because they are not legally recognized as a couple. A man living with the same partner for 20 years, whose name is not on the home deed, has no legal right to the home he and his 'unrecognized' spouse lived in. A man who's partner is comatose cannot make life and death decisions or medical decisions because he is not considered 'family' or spousal. An unemployed gay man cannot receive 'family' insurance benefits from his partner's employer. But I can, because I married a girl. That's bullshit.

Trust me, most of them don't give a fuck about the ceremony. They're going to wear rings and have a ceremony whether you like it or not. It's the legal rights that they're after.

Most of what you claim above can be dealt with via legal instruments. I can give my partner power of attorney to make medical decision about me or create a will which leaves everything I own to her. Get rid of regulations on life insurance and the life insurance companies will offer you any kind of policy you want. Government benefits are a joke and make people slaves...get rid of them all I say.

(18-10-2013 10:01 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Does a business front with a "Straights only" sign on it remind you of anything from the past? And what right does an adoption agency have to speak for the baby? The baby needs good parents; it doesn't give a flying rat's ass if they're gay. Babies don't know bigotry... that's taught to them later in life by shitty adults. I will agree with you that, in many situations, a company should be able to do business with whomever it pleases (and be judged by customers accordingly). But your adoption agency example is not one of those situations. That's a human life we're talking about, not a cake.

An adoption agency is just a collection of people. Your talking about forcing one group of people to serve another....against their will. That is slavery you are advocating. Slavery is okay though as long as we are forcing the slaves to do the righteous thing right? Its only legislating your beliefs when the other...evil guys are doing it right?

The government shouldn't force adoption agencies to assist gays. The government shouldn't stop the formation of gay adoption agencies. Further the government should force a gay adoption agency to assist straight couples. It shouldn't force an atheists adoption agency to assist Catholic couples. People should be free to help and serve or not help and serve who they want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 10:36 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 10:18 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  No, a LOWERING fertility rate means extinction. A lower, but still constant fertility rate doesn't necessarily mean extinction.

A fertility rate of 2 or better is the minimum needed to sustain a human population over the long run. Now you can have a rate less than 2 and sustain a human population via immigration, or an increase in lifespan, etc, but only for a while. Once you are below 2 the math eventually catches up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 10:42 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
yeah, the math is right, but math is not the only thing society cares for... for instance, if population was diminishing dangerously, then probably reproduction would be encouraged and fertility would increase. Is that kind of things you fail to take into account

[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, 10:57 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 10:42 PM)nach_in Wrote:  yeah, the math is right, but math is not the only thing society cares for... for instance, if population was diminishing dangerously, then probably reproduction would be encouraged and fertility would increase. Is that kind of things you fail to take into account

Yeah, That's why I said you would have to force or pay women to have more babies.

Another artifact of our decreasing fertility rate is that once the population of the earth stabilizes...and then declines, we will have no incentive to move off planet....not in significant numbers anyways.

Why would God prohibit birth control? Maybe so we would outgrow this planet and begin to colonize others. I just don't see that happening now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 10:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Most of what you claim above can be dealt with via legal instruments. I can give my partner power of attorney to make medical decision about me or create a will which leaves everything I own to her. Get rid of regulations on life insurance and the life insurance companies will offer you any kind of policy you want. Government benefits are a joke and make people slaves...get rid of them all I say.

Is that what straight married couples have to do? No... so why should gay couples? You continue to avoid the key word, "equality." We are not denying heteros anything. We are extending equal rights to all people. I will not let you off the hook. You are promoting inequality based on sexual preference. Epic fail.

(18-10-2013 10:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  An adoption agency is just a collection of people. Your talking about forcing one group of people to serve another....against their will. That is slavery you are advocating. Slavery is okay though as long as we are forcing the slaves to do the righteous thing right? Its only legislating your beliefs when the other...evil guys are doing it right?

No. You, standing on the street, are an individual. You, standing on the street, should never be forced to do anything. The agency is a business, operating under government law and dealing with the public. Nobody is forced to work there. Nobody is forced to open an adoption agency or business of any kind. In addition, no business is forced to do anything except offer their business to all customers, not just customers picked by sexual preference... or color... or gender. If an employee doesn't want to help a gay couple, they don't have to. They can quit and take their shitty attitude elsewhere. That is not slavery. Your comparison is dramatic and idiotic.

If you went to Perkins and the waitress refused to serve you because you were religious, you'd be ok with that? If the public school turned your kids away because they believed in a god, you'd be ok with that? If a doctor refused to treat you and anyone who went to your church, that'd be acceptable? That's the world you're advocating. I see nothing good coming from your idea, other than regressing to segregation-era living.

Go ahead and sell me on the benefits of allowing businesses to segregate based on any standard they decide, including color, age, gender, sexual preference... you know, traits people have no control over.

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
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
18-10-2013, 11:18 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 10:57 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 10:42 PM)nach_in Wrote:  yeah, the math is right, but math is not the only thing society cares for... for instance, if population was diminishing dangerously, then probably reproduction would be encouraged and fertility would increase. Is that kind of things you fail to take into account

Yeah, That's why I said you would have to force or pay women to have more babies.

Another artifact of our decreasing fertility rate is that once the population of the earth stabilizes...and then declines, we will have no incentive to move off planet....not in significant numbers anyways.

Why would God prohibit birth control? Maybe so we would outgrow this planet and begin to colonize others. I just don't see that happening now.

Or maybe, evolution would select for women who have strong biological clocks, and the desire to have children? Or maybe scientists could construct an artificial womb? Or maybe we could convince women to help populate the planet without the need of forcing them to do it?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: