Well, I did find it ironic for someone that eschews faith, you have a number of beliefs that you do not substantiate with evidence. I would recommend that you elaborate on a few of them and corroborate them with facts. It would lend it a more credible read rather than come across as a diatribe against Theism.
I have some questions.
Several things. The push for gay marriage is tied to a desire for gay couples to be able to make a commitment to a single partner. The state would be pushing gays away from each other by sodomy laws, which many conservatives support (but not all, I know many libertarians who oppose them on constitutional grounds). I agree the real issue is public acceptance of their status. As far as suicide is concerned, an interesting correlation is if the loved ones close to the gay man or woman shun the person or make them feel welcome in the family.
But then why does the church get involved in civil issues? It should be more concerned about the latter, not the former. The church could not be forced by the state to recognize a gay marriage anyway, I mean the CC does not even recognize the marriages of those who have a civil divorce and remarry. That state does not and should not force the Church to do so.
So gay citizens should be treated as non citizens? I believe they have the same rights as you and I do, even if I do not agree morally with the choices they make.
That’s just it. Its my scenario. Inventing other hypothetical assumptions and so on to apply, or red herrings, it does not matter to me, because that is not my scenario. Even worse your inventions are farcical in nature. Come on.…the weight of the mining equipment…Too far to drive to work…we cannot grow food over seas…people do not travel between continents for work…. All these hypothetical assumptions you invent are clearly things that we already do. How seriously can I take someone that denied the math and then denies the empirically disprovable nature of his own claims?
Well you didn’t outline what your scenario was, all I have to go on is, “Everybody lives in Texas, in a city 345 times the size of NYC with similar population density.” That’s it, you didn’t say anything else, that’s why I want to know the assumptions that this hypothetical is based on in your mind? Were the other continents colonized before everyone ‘moved’ into this massive city? Did the city just appear out of nothing or was it built over a large period of time using resources from around the world before people moved in?
Yes but would we be able to do them in the “everyone lives in Texas” scenario?
Do you ever plan to support this claim or are you happy to just have it dismissed over and over again?
You haven’t disproven anything, you have ignored it and admitted ignoring it, you never properly reinforced the hypothetical with any information so I had to make assumptions.
I did not mean to come across as saying being gay was in of itself destructive. I was trying to argue that the homosexual act is destructive medically to oneself, and to society. Gay lifestyle is the act of having homosexual relations.
I think we agree that gay marriage is really about acceptance. A gay couple could make commitments to each other if they really wanted too. Yes, the suicides should be looked at in light of family/friend acceptance for who they are.
The Church works for the common good society and instructs Her members to do so as well. This is why the Church and religious get involved with civil issues.
No, that was not my point, nor my conclusion. My point was that we discriminate on certain things, and therefore it is not always bad to discriminate. Sometimes it is bad to discriminate though. Gay people have the same rights as we do. They are free to marry a person of the opposite sex as I am. However just like them, I am unable to marry someone of the same sex.
Yes, I did. I stated that the entire population of the world could live in Texas. Nothing else, no flights of fantasy and imagination, nothing but that. I indulged your first objection because I assumed that you were going to be reasonable and pointed out its not any different than living in New York City. It is patently true and you refused to admit it. Then you started to posit ridiculous hypothetical situations that we cannot overcome, while ignoring the fact we have literally done so. So I did outline my scenario. There is no room for any opinion or ambiguity here. The math is very clear. The entire population of Earth could live in Texas at the same density of New York City. That’s a bare undeniable fact, that you seem unable to admit.
They do it in NYC. We know it is entirely within the realm of our technical capability. Since it is something we clearly do already, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
That seems like a broad but fitting definition, I mean I get what you mean. I tend to speak of lifestyles-plural-for either, because not all homosexuals are the same, as are heterosexuals. Some choose to live a life of celebacy, others committ to one partner, some have open relationships, and some are plain promiscuous-in both camps. I don’t approve of the last two.
We are in agreement then. I mean when people committ suicide, its tragic, regardless of the reasons or circumstances.
I think the church should do such. I think both conservatives and progressives agree about that, I just think often people disagree on what is best for society. Right now I would rather see a child raised by a gay couple than in an institution, if those where the only two choices.
I am glad that you see the difference between the two. Marriage or not, though, I do think same sex couples are going to try to adopt. Sure if there are other reasons to tell a couple no, thats not a problem. I know in the 70s my parents tried to adopt from Catholic agencies, but were turned away because they were not Catholic. The Church was discriminating but I don’t think my parents rights were violated, since they were able to go elsewhere to adopt my sister. The sticky point comes when the couple is turned away purely because they are same sex-when they would otherwise be qualifed to adopt a child, or when people want to pass laws barring same sex couples from adopting from anywhere.
I agree its not always bad to discriminate. When people say they have a right to marry people of the opposite sex, they are already conceding that marriage is a right for adults. At one time, interracial marriage was forbidden, yet the courts eventually decided that it was unconstitutional to forbid that as well. So on what legal grounds to we base making the arbitary distinction that two consenting adults of the same sex cannot marry?
What is that based on?
Well unfortunately the hypothetical needs more if you are going to suggest people could actually “live” like that.
How do you know that it’s not any different to living in NYC? You seem to ignore the resource requirements of that many people and the difficulties that having everyone being localized in a small place makes transport and production.
You just admitted that the only thing you mentioned was everyone living in Texas, that in itself requires assumptions to be made regarding how they are living, how the city got there, whether everyone has always lived in a local place or whether everyone just migrated there after the city was built/magically appeared. We need to know what assumptions you are using if we are going to clarify how this hypothetical is running.
On the population density, yes it is. On the resource requirements, yes it is and both of those put together tell us that the entire population of the world could not sustain life on both American continents let alone in a city the size of Texas.
They could exist in a city the size of Texas but until the problem of resource requirements are met and shown wrong, then we cannot say that they could “live” there.
The development of a child is a very important time. It is critical they are cared for in a manner that best suites their development. The argument against gay adoption is that children need a father and mother. Fathers and mothers bring different traits to a family. A mother is the emotional rock of the family while a father provides a more protective role. Gay adoption would be putting children in fatherless or motherless homes.
The math says that it is clearly possible for the entire population of the world to live in an area the size of Texas at the density of New York City. You are wrong. There is no room for any opinion on the matter. We can clearly “live” at that population density. We already do so. You cannot truthfully deny it. We all have goods in our homes that come from all over the world. Clearly we can produce and transport, and deliver goods all around the world. We already do so. You cannot truthfully deny it. Yet you do.
False, the math shows that if everybody could live there the density of the city would be similar to that of New York, however the math also says that the two American continents do not have enough resources to sustain life for 6.9 billion people making it impossible for the entire human population to live there.
Says the person who admitted ignoring objections to what he is saying.
Yes, the population density isn’t the problem though, it’s the population size and the resource requirement.
I’m not denying it, you just aren’t addressing my objections.
I am questioning if in your hypothetical other continents have been colonized? This is an assumption that matters with regards to the possibility of acquiring resources which is the base of my objections. If they have been colonized, that is a step forward but does not make a strong basis for your conclusions. The reason we have decent resource trading between continents is because of the massive population spread across the world, in your hypothetical this wouldn’t exist. That’s why we need to clear up what assumptions you are basing the hypothetical on.
I agree when it comes to accommodations that’s is quite feasible. However, a couple of posters have misconstrued (purposefully or otherwise) the concept in order to advance their arguments. I doubt if any of them if asked where they live, they would presume the question pertains to a resource sustainability/feasibility standpoint.
I hear what you are saying, I’m not sure I buy into hard and fast gender roles like that, not that differences between men and women don’t exist, because they do.
Proof? I mean at one time, interracial marriage was not protected, nor was it seen as traditional. People opposed it on religious grounds! It seems such harm that same sex child raising would cause is more in the minds and perceptions of those morally opposed to homosexuality than in reality. The ability to procreate has nothing to naturally has nothing to do with ones ability to raise a child.
Well polygamy is by nature procreative, so if we use the natural order and ability to procreate arguement, we have no reason to exclude polygamous families from being allowed to adopt or have their marriages legally recognized. That arguement becomes I double edged sword.
No, it’s not the same thing. Reception of communion is a religious matter; the Church shouldn’t need the state’s help, nor should the state intervene.
“In the article, we argue that as a moral reality, marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together, and renewed by acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction.”
There are no resource or sustainability problems, that’s just another objection that ignores reality. We clearly have enough resources to feed the worlds population, because we already do so. We can clearly move those resources all over the world as we wish. We already do so. There is simply no room for opinion here. I have pointed this out repeatedly. They know it as well as I. They just cannot admit that their cherished belief, “the world is overpopulated” is wrong. That’s what this is really about.
There is no room for opinion here, the math and the empirical evidence all prove you wrong. You obviously cannot admit to being wrong no matter what. This isn’t giving a good fight, its not defending your position with gusto. All which I can respect. This is a different thing, this is tantamount to denying the earth is round, the earth orbits the sun, or that 1+1=2. You are completely and utterly cornered. So instead of disposing of your cherished belief, you deny reality. Which tells us that if you have a cherished belief, it doesn’t matter what the evidence or logic says. You should be a theist. Faith is OK here.