You actually quoted the part I wanted you to quote, thank you. Now could you respond and clarify your proposition that because import/export rates are what they are in reality that nothing would change in the hypothetical? I do not understand how that could be maintained with such a drastic change in population spread.
You’re welcome, but that doesn’t change my answer. The math and the empirical evidence clearly prove you wrong. We can and do produce and distribute goods globally.
So you don’t plan to explain yourself but rather just claim the same thing over and over again. OK, looks like this argument is going to die out then, or at least until you decide to meaningfully respond to my inquiry.
I responded meaningfully many timmes, more than a hundred posts ago. I even posted thhem for you just yesterday. What part of the empirical evidence are you not understanding? We can and do produce and distribute goods on a global basis. What part of this can you deny? You cannot, and all the farcical, reality denying objections you have raised, from claiming that we cannot figure out how to move mining equipment without docks and cranes to claiming that the distances are too far is an utter denial of reality. You have presented no real reason that we cannot produce and distribute goods on a global basis. You are obviously unable to admit that the mathematical and the empirical evidence prove you wrong. Your cherished belief is more important than incontrovertible evidence to you. So what the point of being an atheist? That is exactly what atheists say about us, so how is it any different for you? You are a person of faith in reality. You are one of us. There is no need to pretend otherwise.
Income tax breaks.So, again - what do homosexuals need with marriage?
Seriously, this is crazy. Pete, this is not the way to win arguments or debates. You are willfully ignoring a valid objection to your premise. Yes, of course, everyone can see and admit and agree that we currently produce and distribute goods on a global basis. the PROBLEM is that if the entire world lived in Texas, how would goods be produced in and distributed from Russia, Canada, China, etc? You stating that you have family that commutes 25 miles or 50 miles to their farm is a meaningless statement in this scenario. If all the people live in Texas, WHO would be doing the producing and distributing in and from all the other parts of the globe?
You had to see the answers I posted in #212, because you just selectively quoted parts irrelevant to the objection from them. Then you claimed I had not answered the objection, which you must know is false because you quoted from them. Which means you did it on purpose. Why did you do that?
It’s not about math or at least not directly. It is about resources. Think food, water, public sanitation (so you can use the bathroom and don’t have human or other waste polluting the streets) the need to maintain livable clean air, and such things as maintaining heat and electricity, and air conditioning. then other very basic services like dentistry and mediciine. If supplies cannot be provided consistently on a long-term basis people will get sick and/or die. Shoving a lot of people into a small space is what they do in prisoner of war and etc. camps and it can lead to things like typhoid epidemics.
. I don’t support criticizing people on the individual level about problems they did not cause and a choice to have a large family is not my choice but to blame people for doing that is not fair I think. The solutions need to be more system-wide in my opinion.Basically my point is that I think they are related points b/c you can put people in to those spaces but many of them are likely to get sick and die quickly due to lack of water and poor sanitation and difficulty with food distribution. due to both of those factors. the number of people will overwhelm the resources and the high population density will seriously impair sanitation and drinking water and food distribution.
Have you read the thread? I have already addressed this issue among others. You can find all my answers on the thread. Thanks.
I’m afraid people might want to read a history of the Black Plague and how it tore through cities like lightning before they accept the word ‘live.’ I know this is all OT from the original but this discussion had been going on for pages so here is my 0.02. And I think both ‘sides’ on the population debate use the Texas argument as an example of population density and resources.
I have read every page on this thread and I agree with you about land and quite possibly food distribution; I think that might creatively be done but sustaining it over time would be hard. Where I do not agree is about maintaining water and electricity and heat and air conditioning and without those people often die rapidly due to epidemics.
Ok, thank you.
I explained myself fully, hundreds of posts ago. Your refusal to recognize answers detrimental to your position and your refusal to admit that both the mathematical and empirical evidence prove you wrong doesn’t change anything. Clearly, the math agrees the entire population of the world can live in an area the size of Texas at the population density of NYC, which is entirely acceptable. The empirical evidence that we can and do produce and distribute goods globally shows that we can indeed supply the human population with its needs, because we already do so. Therefore your contention that the world is overpopulated is demonstrable false. Thank you for participating.
So much of that was instigated not by secularists, but by alternate religious groups. Pledge allegiance for instance was a lawsuit brought by Jehovah’s witness. Some things become obvious, like the meaninglessness of an atheist swearing on a Bible in a court room, which only diminishes the significance of the Bible in the process. Atheists may have a shallow case against in god we trust on our currency, but those who point out that it’s a form of idolatry mocking religion have a much more legitimate cause. I tend to agree with them when I see where televangelists take things.
On constitutional basis, the founders wanted nothing to do with regulating private worship (save for where boundary issues come into play, which is the case today) and they also wanted nothing to do with regulating/ enumerating the space between consenting adults. Most of the laws doing so in regards to marriage were either religious based or blue laws intent on social engineering. Some religious blue laws come to mind about SC- they offered incentives for married protestants to settle in SC, which yielded false conversions, superficial marriages for profit, and once the property appreciated sufficiently, house flipping and move out of town after reverting to faith of origin. Presuming they remained married at all or simply went their ways in the wild west wholly unregulated. Can’t divorce? Change your name in another town USA, the law no longer sees you as married anymore.
Exactly, which is precisely why Kennedy took the position he did even if it does vex the Vatican. Failing to do so would mean no Catholic could be trusted to hold office. Protestant- Catholic relations have come a long way upholding that gentleman’s agreement. Canadians have seen fit to shore up separation of church and state even more in light of Islam attempting to justify state sponsored sharia law. Jews and Christians realized the wisdom of closing that door solidly and sharia law is no justification to override national law.
Agreed. The Bible instructs me to abide the Bible, not to force others to abide the Bible. Another thing that’s occurred to me is that the passages in question were hetero males speaking to hetero males. That is to say, a prohibition of hetero’s to be experimenting in such a way with the same sex. I abide that myself and would hope most hetero’s would refrain harming themselves psychologically.
Both true and false. While I may not prevent them from worshiping how they choose, I’ll not be quiet over prosperity preachers, political agenda ‘religion’ of westboro baptists, or Jim Jones cults claiming themselves to be Christian. Some departures are just too far off point to be considered reasonable under the umbrella. Parallel issue to islamic extremists hijacking islam. It’s an injustice to integrity. For instance, this is utterly insane, not to be confused with actual Christianity… neirr.org/AttleboroHistoryNew.htm I have no idea how to tangibly defend Christianity from that but I would hope legal eagles and theologians hammer it out. If you’re preaching the gospel of lucifer you don’t get the right to put out a shingle calling yourself Christian. Church of noodly appendage is truth in advertisement. So is the church of satan.Heck, to enjoy worshipping how I choose, I have to allow people to be able to teach outright heresy in their churches.
While I may share your feelings, I also cannot help but agree with gays having every reason to feel excluded from Christian & Judaic traditions. They tangibly have been, and continue to be, so long as leviticus & timothy interpretations stand as they are. I see them as human beings offered no place to materially exist by Biblical decree. The Vatican has decided for vague reasons or out of habit contrary to the science I’ve read that homosexuality is a behavioral flaw or a disease. What would Jesus do?
Very true, though that’s not relevant to the gay marriage debate. No one religion has a monopoly on traditional ideals of marriage, and the legitimate legal reasons behind the side seeking to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman have nothing to do with the Bible or religion.
Okay, even though we’re getting into moral and religious matters here - all of which, even value judgments of homosexual activity, are irrelevant to the marriage debate - I still just have to correct this irredeemably flawed interpretation:
I agree that Christian groups - including our own Catholic Church - have failed to help gay people feel included and wanted. This is a shame which we must all strive to rectify.
That’s an inaccurate and sloppy caricature of the Catholic position. Under no circumstances is homosexuality a “disease” - you can’t “contract” homosexuality as if some kind of bacteria or virus or cancer causes it.
Jesus was often quite brutal in the things he said to people. Telling someone he shouldn’t bother burying his father, calling a foreigner’s entire people “dogs,” telling certain Pharisees that they make people twice as fit for hell as they are themselves, etc.
I totally agree with you, I’m just not sure how this is relevant. Who is advocating forbidding certain behaviors in this context? I thought we were arguing about gay marriage, not sodomy laws.
Please forgive me if I now caricature your observation, because I’m not sure I understand what your claim is.
That’s something firmly in the hands of individuals and the Church itself. I’ve had considerable in depth discussions in interfaith groups about this subject and we almost always come to unanimous consensus-- we could all be doing more to prevent bad marriages from happening in the first place.
There’s nothing holy about a human being owning another no matter who is the owner or the owned. Once every last excuse why you fail to fully appreciate your wife is gone, you’re free to appreciate your wife (and yourself). Same for wives appreciating their husbands. You’re more than just your job in life. Free society doesn’t decide what you over value wrongfully, or what you fail to value at all.
God doesn’t need my defense, legislation, or a pork chop around God’s neck to ‘earn’ my worship. That real presence cannot help but be obscured beneath every stitch of deceit, every manipulation, every madison avenue sales tactic used, to ‘sell’ God. People who have been over eager have been most guilty of harm to Christianity.
But it is relevant, unless of course, all manner of discourse/ evidence reference will abandon scripture. Judaic tradition is innately entwined law and religion. So too is the Christian tradition. Separation of Church and state can only go so far before it comes unhinged in illogical extremes. Rather than summarily toss scripture out of court, I think it best we examine it with greater depth in it’s context.
Homosexuals marrying, or socially forced to marry, heterosexuals is morally wrong. What on surface appears to be fulfilling a one man one woman criteria is an anathema to the very institution. The spirit of the law is circumvented. Heterosexuals need no instruction how to be heterosexual because it comes natural to them. We’re the majority, always have been, always will be, and when the law gets authored it’s presuming it’s universal. It presumes too much at times. Homosexuals have always existed in some percent or another and our relationship with them needs to evolve. That’s really all I’m trying to get across.
Reminds me of a phenomena in marriage- which matters more? What a man meant to say or what his wife heard?
The sloppy caricature is a mirror of the sloppy statements not bearing up to reality. The sloppy caricature stands firm as an opportunity for hierarchy to clarify the teachings to the flock.Jesus is credited with a single act of violence that brought no physical harm to a person- get these money changers out of my father’s house. His rebuke, memory serves me correctly, was exclusively reserved for those in positions of authority abusing it/ misrepresenting in service to self aggrandizement. Do you know of exceptions to that fairly narrow criteria? At what point in the teachings of Jesus did he take it upon himself to enforce by writ or sword universal conformity to any given thing? To my knowledge, never.
No worries about hurting my feelings. The truth never hurts me. Homophobia is a real phenomena in (many) males not exclusive to Christendom. I hope the Church will seriously examine it, and it’s relationship to Christian teachings. If the last thing someone heard before they were beaten to a pulp was leviticus, Christianity’s name is being evoked as justification. That needs to end permanently.
Promote the cause, defend marriage… nothing I’m doing in my life today has any impact as to the quality or quantity of healthy marriages in main stream America beyond the private encouragement I’ve offered counseling couples (in capacity of friend or relative) in trouble. I can say I’ve done my level best as a shipmate to catch my brothers in arms by the scruff of the neck and steer them away from breaking their marriage vows the way any big sis would. I will never willingly enter into a romantic relationship with a married man. More than that is an unreasonable expectation married individuals put on society.
What is true for yourself is not true for all because marriages are not in character identical to one another. No one has the power or the right to dictate too much in the arena of consenting adults. That said I will confirm your unspoken sentiments. I’ve borne witness to healthy marriages and note the achievement of grace between them. Fixating on another’s home will not improve our own. Fixating on our own, and using positive examples to emulate, will.
Glad to hear you acknowledge them at very least on this level. I’ve gotten my ear chewed on more than one occasion over the anger they feel towards the religious, and towards hetero’s. I’m still Catholic. I’m still hetero. I also still see injustice. Civil unions are in order in secular society and the burden of proof it harms your marriage is upon you. I’m more than willing to hear that evidence.