We need both fair distribution AND contraceptive methods.
You still have issues with your above- First your argument is based on the assumption that the world is overpopulated, please prove this. Second you now have to deal with the added assumption that a fair distribution of resources (which given your inclusion of it with contraception means you do view it as a major factor on the your overpopulation assumption) would not solve your assumed overpopulation problem. Third your solution is based on the assumption that the moral and logical method of solving this overpopulation is to limit the number of births instead of limiting the number of people using resources and taking up space (i.e. killing off the old people instead of the young)-please prove.
No, I have a high opinion of them and you do not. Your argument fails logic because if the Church allows heterosexual sex, then does that mean that the Church believes that heterosexuals cannot control their urges?
The Church allows all heterosexual activity, or just those heterosexual activities that are open to life and are within the confines of marriage? Big difference between your faulty understanding of what the allows in regards to heterosexual sex and what it actually teaches.
And once again, I’m saying that we now know that homosexuality is normal in a certain % of the population. Even the Catechism states that the genesis of this is unknown.
There is also a certain part of the population that are sociopaths. The problem with how you are trying to use the term “normal” is that it can be used to defend pretty much anything as “normal”. Homosexuality is “normal” in that it seems to occur naturally, it is not “normal” in that it contradicts the evolutionary development of our sexual reproduction systems. Homosexuality is a normal (occurs naturally) abnormality (runs counter to the biological purpose of sexual reproduction used by our species).
As for the CCC- it address the issue in a completely different manner than what you are trying to use. The focus of the CCC is morality. X% of the population being or doing something has no impact on something being moral. The CCC states that being a homosexual (which it states is a disorder) isn’t immoral, but engaging in homosexual activity is immoral.
No, but finances have a great deal to do with the viability of marriage.
Which doesn’t actually answer my point.
We are rethinking the way we prosecute drug crimes, if at all.
So you are arguing that homosexuals are like drug addicts and are unable to control their sexual behavior due to an unhealthy addiction?
Postmodernism is working just fine in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and Latin America.
Really? That’s why those places are all happy go lucky without any sort of internal conflict or conflict between other postmodern societies? Another question I have is how you came up with the idea that the only postmodern societies are in Western European, Canada, Australia, and Latin America.
You are the bigot. Why is this economic system designed for men? Why can’t women participate in it?
The bigot would be the person who decides that women have to conform to an economic structure that has been largely unchanged from the days of “men go to work, women stay at home.” Which is more unjustly discriminatory and bigoted toward women, an economic system which allows for women to have children and a career (my stance), or one in which women have to pick between having children or a career (our stance)?
No. Because it is unreasonable to deny sex to people, contraception is the responsible way to protect against the expected outcome, which is pregnancy and STDs.
Prove it is unreasonable to deny sex to people. You can start with laws against prisoners engaging in sexual activity while in prison, laws against children having sex with adults, laws against adults having sex with animals, laws against adults having sex with their adult siblings, parents, or close relatives, laws against prostitution, laws against soldiers having sex while deployed, etc.
No it’s not, but it’s the latest one of too many.
One is too many, but you still need to address how the sex scandal somehow had a huge impact on the trust in the Magisterium.
Not if it interferes with the rights of the nonreligious.
Ah, so the nonreligious have more rights than the religious. But, please tell me how nonreligious objections to polygamy and close relative marriages is somehow not in the same category as religious objections to polygamy and close relative marriages. You can also let me know why it was perfectly ok for the nonreligious to deny the religious (Mormons and Muslims) polygamous marriages here in the US and most of the “postmodern” world.
No, because gays are a definite subset of our population and are here to stay. In America they are as common as Asian-Americans (5%). Should people be allowed to reject them from their businesses simply because they feel like it? It’s not based on religion. It’s based on hate. Nothing in the Bible supports such rejection. Would Jesus do this? Governor Brownback of Kansas (himself a Catholic) was correct to oppose such a law that would allow this hate.
Hate would be reducing someone’s religious beliefs to just them “feeling like it” simply because their religious beliefs don’t agree with your own beliefs. As for nothing in the “oh hey the Catholic Church is the one who compiled it” Bible not supporting the Church’s and most other Christian faiths’ views on homosexuality- sure it doesn’t.
