Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 11:48 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 11:18 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  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?

Evolution works to slow. Artificial wombs are a solution, but do you really want factory produced humans?

You could pay women to have babies, but I think there will be a time when money ceases to exist as the ubiquitous tool used in the exchange of goods and services. What happens when all services are provided by cheap robots and any good you want is printed out on your 3D printer/replicator?

Probably what we will do is just indoctrinate our women into believing it is their moral obligations to have babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 12:01 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2013 12:08 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Okay. Addressing some points that have generally come up.

First, it is not only a LOW fertility rate that means extinction. A fertility rate that is too high means the same thing. Overpopulation beyond the carrying capacity results in dieback. Worse, it results in significant degradation of carrying capacity which eventually results in massive dieback, because the "sweet spot" of the carrying capacity is much lower. (Actually, the sweet spot is significantly lower than the carrying capacity. Life at the carrying capacity is either pretty brutal or shooting off past it and into trouble.) The world population is nowhere near stabilizing due to underfertility, much less decreasing, but we are seeing environmental degradation tied to population increase that raise serious doubts about how habitable this world is going to be in a few centuries. That's not just, "oh, we've filled up all the rooms in the house, let's find a new house". That's "crap, we burnt down all the rooms in this house WHILE WE WERE IN THEM OW THIS BURNS THIS BURNS WE'RE DYING!" (EDIT: Or, slightly less flippantly, "we filled up all the rooms in the house, and then demolished three of them, and one of the rooms had all our food in it and the others had the water heater and circuit breaker.) Yes, underfertility is an issue in theory, but it's the exact opposite of the problem we're facing right now.

SECOND, however plausible or implausible it might be the I-in-the-sky notion of colonizing other worlds might... MIGHT... get impetus from overpopulation. (Though I'd say it's just as likely, if not moreso, to impede space exploration by giving more local problems for the "but we've got problems down here" people to gripe about.) But an overpopulated world, however motivated, won't develop the capacity. Technological innovation is not the domain of nations with high fertility rates, but of stable fertility rates. Fifth and sixth and eighth children don't get sent to college to become engineers and astrophysicists. You want otherworldly colonization? Stop breeding and start inventing. It's not the lack of colonists that's the problem, it's the lack of tech. Also, you might want to stop supporting the side of the culture war that villainizes university professors and keeps trying to hamstring the science curriculum. That's not getting us into space either. Just a thought. (Personally, I vote for orbital habitats. Human interstellar flight is a long way off. No pun intended.)

And third? NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY! The choice facing society isn't "Okay, these people who want same-sex marriages, will either get them because we allow them, or won't and so they'll go marry the opposite sex and have kiddies." That is not what happens when they can't get same-sex marriages. Not. In. The. Slightest. What happens is that they set up housekeeping with each other anyway, married or not, and still have no kids. Or maybe they do through sperm donors, and would either way. (Though they're more likely to if securing guardianship to their partner is easier. What does that? MARRIAGE!) Meanwhile, the straight folk still get married to each other and keep on breeding, whether there's same-sex marriage or not. Either way, allowing or opposing same-sex marriage has pretty much no effect on the fertility rate. So why the heck are we talking about it here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
19-10-2013, 12:18 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 11:17 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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.

Instead of getting a marriage liscense, straight couples should just sign a contract which spells all that out.....just like homosexual couples....that's equality. You know the cool thing about contracts? Is the two parties get to draw up the terms of the marriage....not some asshat politician....that's freedom.

(18-10-2013 11:17 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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.

Nobody is forced to adopt or use an adoption agency. Don't like the adoption agencies policies, don't adopt, or go to an adoption agency you do like and give em your money instead. Forcing adoption agencies to service gays is a violation of the individual freedoms of the operators of the adoption agency. What if the government said you couldn't open an adoption agency that served gays exclusively. Isn't that a violation of your rights? I think it is.

(18-10-2013 11:17 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  If you went to Perkins and the waitress refused to serve you because you were religious, you'd be ok with that?

I'd ask for another waitress and if the service was good, I'd give that other waitress a big tip.

(18-10-2013 11:17 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  If the public school turned your kids away because they believed in a god, you'd be ok with that?

Give me school vouchers and I can send my kids anywhere I want.

(18-10-2013 11:17 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  If a doctor refused to treat you and anyone who went to your church, that'd be acceptable?

I wouldn't have a problem with a doctor that refused to do a vasectomy because the wife didn't agree to it on religious grounds. I wouldn't have a problem with a doctor that would do a vasectomy regardless of the wife's religious feelings. The doctor is free individual too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 12:23 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2013 01:36 AM by Dark Light.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
I haven't bothered reading all 271 posts, so forgive me if this has been covered.

I will say to the Catholics, it genuinely offends a lot of people that you want to impose your religious bullshit on others. How would you feel about another religion passing laws that restrict your freedom? What if the Muslims were successful in passing laws which required to to observe Ramadan? What if the Jews were successful in passing law which forbade you from eating pork? What if Hinduists were successful in passing a law that forbade you from eating meat?

That's what I thought. It would offend you, yet their god(s) commands it. If you think your god hates homosexuality then let him be the judge and jury. If there is a God, and he is a good one, then he is surely a better judge than you lot.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
19-10-2013, 12:38 AM (This post was last modified: 19-10-2013 12:41 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 12:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  So why the heck are we talking about it here?

You must have missed the part in this thread where a thought experiment was conducted that showed homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality in the same was whites and blacks are equivalent. Basically if everyone suddenly turned into a homosexual, it would be disastrous because of the low fertility rate which would ensue. If suddenly everyone turned black, the world really wouldn't change much.

If homosexuality and heterosexuality were truly equivalent, we should be able to reverse the positions without any ill effect.

The question is why do Catholics have a moral right to legislate against homosexuality? I don't like that question and think it a bit ill conceived, especially for an atheist forum. However I will say that Catholics have a rational reason to structure society in such a way that it holds homosexuality in lessor regard(or heterosexuality in higher regard). That reason being that heterosexuality is necessary for society while homosexuality is superfluous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 12:51 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 12:23 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I will say to the Catholics, it genuinely offends a lot of people that you want to impose your religious bullshit on others. How would you feel about another religion passing laws that restrict your freedom? What if the Muslims were successful in passing laws which required to to observe Ramadan? What if the Jews were successful in passing law which forbade you from eating pork? What if Hinduists were successful in passing a law that forbade you from eating meat?

I'm sure a lot of Catholics were offended by the government passing a law which says they have to provide birth control to their employees. Progressive bullshit imposed on Catholics by others.

You see Dark Light, the problem you are spot lighting isn't an artifact of religion. Religion just happens to be tied to the whipping post at this moment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 12:58 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 12:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 12:23 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I will say to the Catholics, it genuinely offends a lot of people that you want to impose your religious bullshit on others. How would you feel about another religion passing laws that restrict your freedom? What if the Muslims were successful in passing laws which required to to observe Ramadan? What if the Jews were successful in passing law which forbade you from eating pork? What if Hinduists were successful in passing a law that forbade you from eating meat?

I'm sure a lot of Catholics were offended by the government passing a law which says they have to provide birth control to their employees. Progressive bullshit imposed on Catholics by others.

You see Dark Light, the problem you are spot lighting isn't an artifact of religion. Religion just happens to be tied to the whipping post at this moment.

Nope. I have a problem with the same government bullshit too. They shouldn't have to pay for it. They should point to that and say they don't want the government forcing them to go against their beliefs, and also point to that and say we don't want to do the same to others. Oh, and it absolutely is an artifact of religion. To say otherwise is an outright lie. I know it. You know it. You know I know you know it. Don't bullshit me. You aren't that stupid.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
19-10-2013, 01:00 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 12:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 12:01 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  So why the heck are we talking about it here?

You must have missed the part in this thread where a thought experiment was conducted that showed homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality in the same was whites and blacks are equivalent. Basically if everyone suddenly turned into a homosexual, it would be disastrous because of the low fertility rate which would ensue. If suddenly everyone turned black, the world really wouldn't change much.

If homosexuality and heterosexuality were truly equivalent, we should be able to reverse the positions without any ill effect.

The question is why do Catholics have a moral right to legislate against homosexuality? I don't like that question and think it a bit ill conceived, especially for an atheist forum. However I will say that Catholics have a rational reason to structure society in such a way that it holds homosexuality in lessor regard(or heterosexuality in higher regard). That reason being that heterosexuality is necessary for society while homosexuality is superfluous.

Ah. Must have missed it coming up. This thread just took off and I haven't been able to track all the posts. Read all of them, but didn't exactly memorize them.

Regarding the rationale you describe, couldn't it simply be reversed, by saying that a measure of tolerance and acceptance for minorities is necessary for society but that discrimination against them is superfluous? ... and worse, of course.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 01:00 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Ah. Must have missed it coming up. This thread just took off and I haven't been able to track all the posts. Read all of them, but didn't exactly memorize them.

Regarding the rationale you describe, couldn't it simply be reversed, by saying that a measure of tolerance and acceptance for minorities is necessary for society but that discrimination against them is superfluous? ... and worse, of course.

The counter claim would be that society survived just fine when it did discriminate against minorities. Therefore it does not appear that a measure of tolerance and acceptance of minorities is necessary for society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 01:25 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 12:58 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Nope. I have a problem with the same government bullshit too. They shouldn't have to pay for it. They should point to that and say they don't want the government forcing them to go against their beliefs, and also point to that and say we don't want to do the same to others. Oh, and it absolutely is an artifact of religion. To say otherwise is an outright lie. I know it. You know it. You know I know you know it. Don't bullshit me. You aren't that stupid.

If religion suddenly vanished, the phenomena would continue. It is an artifact of man's nature to impose his will and morality on others. Religion is often just the tool he uses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: