Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[Filthy_Tugboat]

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.

So still not bothering to actually respond to my argument? If you’re right you should be able to destroy my argument, but you haven’t, you’ve blatantly lied about what I’ve said and when asked to support the assertion, you ignored me and repeated the lie, that seems intentional to me. You’ve misrepresented my point of view time and time again, even when I corrected you, you continued to tell me that I denied the math and was blatantly wrong.

If I’m so wrong, why not respond to my argument and support your assertion, you haven’t addressed my objections at all, and you never made a comment on the math of resource sustainability. You didn’t even want to clear up the base assertions of the hypothetical, something that should improve the quality of this debate.

All of this is still open, you can still take all of my argument and show that I am wrong, I don’t care that it has taken days and over 10 posts for you to actually respond to what I am saying, go for it now and I’m happy to pretend this childish rant of you being right and me wrong never happened.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thank you for your cordial and precise response, Filthy Tugboat.

“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.”

I have only read the abstract and might read the lot if I get time but this to me has several big implications. It proposes that marriage should only be acceptable when reproduction is possible and that the behavioral part of the reproductive purpose should be fulfilled.

One of those implications is that it permits only a couple capable of naturally baring children are permitted marriage regardless of the genders of those marrying.

Don’t worry, it doesn’t propose - explicitly or implicitly - “that marriage should only be acceptable when reproduction is possible” or that “only a couple capable of naturally bearing children [should be] permitted marriage.”

They consider that objection in the body of the article, though for our purposes here let me just point out that even the abstract itself says this union is "of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."

Where should one stop when preventing some people the right to marry who they wish?

Keep in mind that, regardless of where one stands on the issue, this position does not advocate “preventing some people the right to marry who they wish.” What it advocates is preventing a legal restructuring of the institution of marriage. While it would, of course, be a bad idea on a personal level for a gay man to marry a woman or a lesbian to marry a man, if they did attempt such a thing nonetheless, it’s not like their sexual orientation would legally disqualify it.

Or to make a comparison: a few years ago a lesbian in California sued eHarmony because it provided options only for a “Man seeking woman” and a “Woman seeking man.” She argued that these limited options constituted discrimination against her, but they didn’t. It’s discrimination if a business says, “Gay men and lesbians are not welcome to purchase our services.”

It’s not discrimination if they simply cannot make use of the services offered.

Likewise with marriage: there is no slippery slope on this issue, because even the very notion of “banning gay marriage” is a gravely misleading phrase. It’s more an opposition to restructuring the institution itself.

Should we ban people from getting married if they follow a different religion? If they’re a different race?

Again, no one’s advocating “banning people from getting married” any more than eHarmony was refusing to let gay men and lesbians register in that case I mentioned above. Rather it’s that we think it supremely unwise to restructure the institution of marriage in a way that divorces it from conjugal unity and procreative potential.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Thank you for your cordial and precise response, Filthy Tugboat.

Don’t worry, it doesn’t propose - explicitly or implicitly - “that marriage should only be acceptable when reproduction is possible” or that “only a couple capable of naturally bearing children [should be] permitted marriage.”

The problem there is when you have heterosexual individuals who cannot reproduce naturally. While the CC may or may not permit such individuals from getting married, you see no cry from say, Evangelicals, to prevent such individuals from getting married. Marriage is not about procreation scripturally speaking. Its about preventing fornication.

Keep in mind that, regardless of where one stands on the issue, this position does not advocate “preventing some people the right to marry who they wish.” What it advocates is preventing a legal restructuring of the institution of marriage.

Thats a matter of semantics because individuals who wish to marry persons of their same gender are prevented from doing so.

While it would, of course, be a bad idea on a personal level for a gay man to marry a woman or a lesbian to marry a man, if they did attempt such a thing nonetheless, it’s not like their sexual orientation would legally disqualify it.

Of course not.

Or to make a comparison: a few years ago a lesbian in California sued eHarmony because it provided options only for a “Man seeking woman” and a “Woman seeking man.” She argued that these limited options constituted discrimination against her, but they didn’t. It’s discrimination if a business says, “Gay men and lesbians are not welcome to purchase our services.”

It’s not discrimination if they simply cannot make use of the services offered.

Likewise with marriage: there is no slippery slope on this issue, because even the very notion of “banning gay marriage” is a gravely misleading phrase. It’s more an opposition to restructuring the institution itself.

What private organizations do and what the government does are not always the same, nor is failure the provide a service the same thing as using the law to prevent certain services to be provided.

Again, no one’s advocating “banning people from getting married” any more than eHarmony was refusing to let gay men and lesbians register in that case I mentioned above. Rather it’s that we think it supremely unwise to restructure the institution of marriage in a way that divorces it from conjugal unity and procreative potential.

This is how freedom should work. I don’t agree with the woman either, because plenty of other sites provide same-sex matching services. She was free to go elsewhere to obtain the services she sought.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Thank you for your cordial and precise response, Filthy Tugboat.

Same to you actually, I didn’t even plan to enter into other ‘debates’ on this thread, I just saw this and it caught my attention. Thanks for posting the material.

Keep in mind that, regardless of where one stands on the issue, this position does not advocate “preventing some people the right to marry who they wish.”

Well, yes it does, the current system in some areas do not permit marriage between people of the same sex. Regardless of whether that is the way it has always been, it is still preventing homosexual marriage.

What it advocates is preventing a legal restructuring of the institution of marriage.

Indeed, why is it preventing that? How is that a good thing to do? The reasons it offered in the abstract appeared to be rather whimsical and only accepting the heavily biased heterosexual point of view. It negates all reasonable protection of the minorities and outright discriminates against homosexuals by preventing them the same rights of heterosexuals.

Or to make a comparison: a few years ago a lesbian in California sued eHarmony because it provided options only for a “Man seeking woman” and a “Woman seeking man.” She argued that these limited options constituted discrimination against her, but they didn’t. It’s discrimination if a business says, “Gay men and lesbians are not welcome to purchase our services.”

I disagree with what she did but this article was not dealing with a private business, it is dealing with the government, something that should represent and promote equality and should most certainly protect and fairly represent the views of the minorities.

It’s not discrimination if they simply cannot make use of the services offered.

Regarding a private business, agreed.

Likewise with marriage: there is no slippery slope on this issue, because even the very notion of “banning gay marriage” is a gravely misleading phrase. It’s more an opposition to restructuring the institution itself.

I agree, the semantics have gotten in the way of this on going debate within many communities.

Again, no one’s advocating “banning people from getting married” any more than eHarmony was refusing to let gay men and lesbians register in that case I mentioned above.

I apologize for poor word choice, “preventing people from getting married,” would have been accurate.

Rather it’s that we think it supremely unwise to restructure the institution of marriage in a way that divorces it from conjugal unity and procreative potential.

The term “conjugal” does not necessarily imply male and female, it implies marriage which has most often been associated with male and female. So honestly, I don’t think it will divorce anything from the “conjugal unity”. The pro-creative potential is irrelevant as many that are currently married do not possess this potential, so unless you advocate preventing their marriage as well I don’t see how this point should be considered valid.

And yes, I did have to look up the term “conjugal”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So still not bothering to actually respond to my argument…

I responded to your argument…

There is no room for opinion here, the math and the empirical evidence all prove you wrong.

See here in the bolded? That was my response. Refusing to admit that reality contradicts your objections is like not admitting the sky looks blue. You are undeniably, demonstrably wrong. Why not admit it?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The problem there is when you have heterosexual individuals who cannot reproduce naturally. While the CC may or may not permit such individuals from getting married, you see no cry from say, Evangelicals, to prevent such individuals from getting married. Marriage is not about procreation scripturally speaking. Its about preventing fornication.

The reasoning in the article does not in any way lead to the conclusion that infertile individuals cannot get married.

Also, if you don’t mind, in this thread I will not be addressing the Catholic Church, Scripture, Evangelicals, fornication, etc. in this context. We’re dealing here with matters of public policy in the United States, which means that religious motives and reasons - while not irrelevant - cannot Constitutionally be the basis for laws. With that principle I at least wholeheartedly agree.

That’s a matter of semantics because individuals who wish to marry persons of their same gender are prevented from doing so.

But to put it that way - “individuals who wish to marry persons of their same gender” - presupposes in the first place that it is valid to speak of such an arrangement as “marriage.” That is the very thing in dispute, so to call it semantics is to beg the question.

What private organizations do and what the government does are not always the same, nor is failure the provide a service the same thing as using the law to prevent certain services to be provided.

(1) True, but if eHarmony’s limited options did not constitute discrimination, neither does a state’s refusal to legally restructure the existing institution of marriage.

(2) Concerning the providing of “certain services,” I agree that people should be able to leave their property to whomever they want, give power of attorney to whoever they want, permit hospital visitation rights to whomever they want, etc. But that’s not the same thing as gay marriage, or even gay civil unions, which single-out same-sex relationships specifically and which we do not need to fix the law to ensure that individuals’ practical rights - whatever the context - are protected.

Same to you actually, I didn’t even plan to enter into other ‘debates’ on this thread, I just saw this and it caught my attention. Thanks for posting the material.

No problem. Both sides of this debate are guilty of caricaturing the other and of legally dubious rationales, so I wanted to inject into the debate what I consider the actual valid argument for maintaining the traditional marriage structure.

Well, yes it does, the current system in some areas do not permit marriage between people of the same sex. Regardless of whether that is the way it has always been, it is still preventing homosexual marriage.

Well, this is the very thing in dispute. If a relationship between two same-sex individuals cannot constitute what marriage is and ought to be understood to be, then by definition it’s not “marriage” that’s being prevented.

But I respectfully acknowledge that therein lies the dispute: a relationship between two same-sex individuals can indeed be a valid marriage according to what George in the article I linked to calls “the revisionist view” of marriage.

It’s just that many people in this country - including me - hold rather to what George in the article calls “the conjugal view,” i.e. the one that sees organic bodily union and procreative potential as basic reasons for legally recognizing any particular kind of sexual relationship in the first place.

Indeed, why is it preventing that? How is that a good thing to do? The reasons it offered in the abstract … discriminate against homosexuals by preventing them the same rights of heterosexuals.

Well, no. If marriage is - and again, I acknowledge this is the very thing in dispute - an exclusive and permanent union between two individuals capable of organic bodily union that is the type of act which naturally results in human reproduction, then it’s not discrimination to refuse to recognize under the umbrella of the institution other kinds of sexual relationships.

In other words, it’s only discrimination according to the newer view of marriage, and as the definition of marriage itself is what is in dispute, neither side should legally be allowed to offer reasons that presuppose either definition. The charge of discrimination does presuppose what George in the article calls “the revisionist view.”

The term “conjugal” does not necessarily imply male and female, it implies marriage

True, sorry for the ambiguity. In the context of the article I linked to above - which sparked our particular exchange - “conjugal” is used according to the legal and social context that necessarily includes the capacity for organic bodily union. Obviously this is not something same-sex individuals are capable of - which is not to discredit or belittle in any way the love a same-sex couple have for each other.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The pro-creative potential is irrelevant as many that are currently married do not possess this potential, so unless you advocate preventing their marriage as well I don’t see how this point should be considered valid.

A common objection from the pro-gay marriage side, but I believe an unfair one. Married couples afflicted by infertility, or couples in which the woman has already gone through menopause, nonetheless renew their vows and express their commitment through the kind of bodily union that naturally results in procreation, whether it actually does or not.

Especially with modern medicine, what constitutes infertility is highly subjective, and the malady can often be healed or mitigated today. Sexual activity between members of the same sex, on the other hand, does not even approximate the kind of corporally unitive, potentially procreative act that has always been the basis for the legal creation and maintenance of an institution like marriage.

And yes, I did have to look up the term “conjugal”.

Oh, it never occurred to me to question whether you knew the word. Based on your reply, I’d never have known you had to look it up if you hadn’t said so.

Conclusion/Summary (at this point of the discussion): Our reasoning may seem a little bloodless, abstract, mechanical. But I really don’t think it is. The people on my side of this debate see marriage as an institution not simply celebrating love - were that the case, there’d be absolutely no reason same-sex relationships should not legally constitute marriage (as well as polygamous ones, polyandrous ones, etc.).

But we see the very foundation of the institution itself as one that necessarily elevates the specific kind of love that both best approximates (through monogamy and fidelity) the stability which children deserve to experience and whose carnal expression is of the kind that actually *can result *in children, the bearing and raising of whom is its natural (though not necessary) fulfillment.

We don’t want to discriminate. We don’t want people to be unable to visit their loved ones in the hospital, or to be prevented from receiving what their loved ones would have wanted them to inherit. These are valid issues that should be addressed. But we think it unwise and destructive to dilute the uniqueness of this type of relationship - so relevant to everyone’s future - through extending the social and legal attributes associated with it to other types of sexual relationships.

Even though we disagree, I hope you can see that we’re not a bunch of unreasonable, homophobic, theocratic conspirators - you haven’t implied we are, so I’m not criticizing you; I simply feel that that is generally the picture painted of us in the media.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The reasoning in the article does not in any way lead to the conclusion that infertile individuals cannot get married.

Also, if you don’t mind, in this thread I will not be addressing the Catholic Church, Scripture, Evangelicals, fornication, etc. in this context. We’re dealing here with matters of public policy in the United States, which means that religious motives and reasons - while not irrelevant - cannot Constitutionally be the basis for laws. With that principle I at least wholeheartedly agree.

Yeah, we agree here.

But to put it that way - “individuals who wish to marry persons of their same gender” - presupposes in the first place that it is valid to speak of such an arrangement as “marriage.” That is the very thing in dispute, so to call it semantics is to beg the question.

Well yes and no. The option of granting civil unions to same sex couples, who may call it a “marriage” if they wish, is not addressed. Christian marriage is a sacrament, but that does not apply to secular civil unions.

(1) True, but if eHarmony’s limited options did not constitute discrimination, neither does a state’s refusal to legally restructure the existing institution of marriage.

How so? If Walmart fails to carry a brand of milk I like, I go to another store and by it. Its not like Wally World is advocating that the milk not be sold anywhere. In other words, this compares apples to oranges, one operates in the private realm and does not possess a monopoly on what it offers-eharmony is hardly the only place to obtain the services of online dating-furthermore, the failure of eharmony to offer same sex services has no real impact on the legal standing of same sex couples.

(2) Concerning the providing of “certain services,” I agree that people should be able to leave their property to whomever they want, give power of attorney to whoever they want, permit hospital visitation rights to whomever they want, etc. But that’s not the same thing as gay marriage, or even gay civil unions, which single-out same-sex relationships specifically and which we do not need to fix the law to ensure that individuals’ practical rights - whatever the context - are protected.

I have no problem here either, because these things are really my concern. I’m not concerned with forcing people to accept homosexual behavior as moral. I do not believe that. I only ally with homosexuals as far as I believe they should be treated with dignity and respect, and the same legal constitutional rights that you and I enjoy should be enjoyed by them. I am not concerned about winning the culture war. One reason that the gay community really stays away from the church as they preceive us as their enemy. I do not want to be a stumbling block to people.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I responded to your argument…See here in the bolded? That was my response. Refusing to admit that reality contradicts your objections is like not admitting the sky looks blue. You are undeniably, demonstrably wrong. Why not admit it?

The response is completely wrong though and heres where your ignorance shows. The only math you’ve pretended proved me wrong, happened to be the math that i incorporated into my argument. If you weren’t ignoring my argument and actually responded and evaluated it, perhaps you would know that.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Well, this is the very thing in dispute. If a relationship between two same-sex individuals cannot constitute what marriage is and ought to be understood to be, then by definition it’s not “marriage” that’s being prevented.

But I respectfully acknowledge that therein lies the dispute: a relationship between two same-sex individuals can indeed be a valid marriage according to what George in the article I linked to calls “the revisionist view” of marriage.

It’s just that many people in this country - including me - hold rather to what George in the article calls “the conjugal view,” i.e. the one that sees organic bodily union and procreative potential as basic reasons for legally recognizing any particular kind of sexual relationship in the first place.

“Organic bodily union”, what is that? It appears to be a term with no direct meaning but is supposed to imply heterosexual sex. Why should we permit marriage as this being one of two grounds?

The term “procreative potential” appears to have the same problem as already mentioned, some couples lack this potential regardless of their genders. There are also couples with no intent to have children, I would suggest that they do not have “procreative potential” even if they are fully functional. Perhaps a survey should be given to everyone trying to get married that questions their intentions regarding children.

Well, no. If marriage is - and again, I acknowledge this is the very thing in dispute - an exclusive and permanent union between two individuals capable of organic bodily union that is the type of act which naturally results in human reproduction, then it’s not discrimination to refuse to recognize under the umbrella of the institution other kinds of sexual relationships.

In other words, it’s only discrimination according to the newer view of marriage, and as the definition of marriage itself is what is in dispute, neither side should legally be allowed to offer reasons that presuppose either definition. The charge of discrimination does presuppose what George in the article calls “the revisionist view.”

Fair enough.

A common objection from the pro-gay marriage side, but I believe an unfair one. Married couples afflicted by infertility, or couples in which the woman has already gone through menopause, nonetheless renew their vows and express their commitment through the kind of bodily union that naturally results in procreation, whether it actually does or not.

Especially with modern medicine, what constitutes infertility is highly subjective, and the malady can often be healed or mitigated today. Sexual activity between members of the same sex, on the other hand, does not even approximate the kind of corporally unitive, potentially procreative act that has always been the basis for the legal creation and maintenance of an institution like marriage.

Fair enough, I’m beginning to understand the gist of your argument now.

Conclusion/Summary (at this point of the discussion): Our reasoning may seem a little bloodless, abstract, mechanical. But I really don’t think it is. The people on my side of this debate see marriage as an institution not simply celebrating love - were that the case, there’d be absolutely no reason same-sex relationships should not legally constitute marriage (as well as polygamous ones, polyandrous ones, etc.).

But we see the very foundation of the institution itself as one that necessarily elevates the specific kind of love that both best approximates (through monogamy and fidelity) the stability which children deserve to experience and whose carnal expression is of the kind that actually can result in children, the bearing and raising of whom is its natural (though not necessary) fulfillment.

We don’t want to discriminate. We don’t want people to be unable to visit their loved ones in the hospital, or to be prevented from receiving what their loved ones would have wanted them to inherit. These are valid issues that should be addressed. But we think it unwise and destructive to dilute the uniqueness of this type of relationship - so relevant to everyone’s future - through extending the social and legal attributes associated with it to other types of sexual relationships.

Even though we disagree, I hope you can see that we’re not a bunch of unreasonable, homophobic, theocratic conspirators - you haven’t implied we are, so I’m not criticizing you; I simply feel that that is generally the picture painted of us in the media.

Not at all, you appear to be extremely reasonable in our exchanges, which always helps.

So you don’t want “marriage” to be changed to permit equality among homosexuals and heterosexuals but you are quite happy to fight for equality as long as they are under a separate institution that permits the same benefits as marriage does for heterosexuals. Here’s the problem now it’s just come to a problem of semantics, any opposition doesn’t mind them having the benefits of marriage but rather doesn’t want the term marriage to incorporate others. I don’t really understand why a separate institution should be set up that offers the exact same legal attributes as marriage but incorporates people who do not currently fit into the accepted definition of marriage. Why is the institution of marriage so exclusive, why can’t we change that?

Why do you consider it destructive to, “dilute the uniqueness of this type of relationship?” The relationship between married couples I personally feel is completely separate to the institution of marriage itself. So the relationship that is being diluted appears to be the heterosexual relationship. How does permitting gay marriage dilute the heterosexual relationship?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The response is completely wrong. though and heres where your ignorance shows. The only math you’ve pretended proved me wrong, happened to be the math that i incorporated into my argument. If you weren’t ignoring my argument and actually responded and evaluated it, perhaps you would know that.

My response is verified by the math and the empirical evidence it is clearly not wrong. The math cannot be denied. The entire population of the world can clearly live in an area the size of Texas at the population density of new York City. One only need divide the land area of Texas by the world population to arrive at the indisputable truth. Neither can the empirical evidence be denied. We can and do produce, distribute, and consume resources on a world wide basis. My response is completely accurate. There is no room for any other opinion without denying the obviously true mathematical and empirical evidence. You are demonstrably wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

My response is verified by the math and the empirical evidence it is clearly not wrong.

How was your response, “There is no room for opinion here, the math and the empirical evidence all prove you wrong.” Verified by the math? A statement claiming that an argument is mathematically verified is not mathematically verified, it has nothing to do with math.

The math cannot be denied.

It’s a good thing I’m not denying the math, it’s unfortunate that you haven’t recognized the other 4 times I’ve stated this though.

The entire population of the world can clearly live in an area the size of Texas at the population density of new York City.

Change the word “live” to “exist” and I will agree with this statement.

One only need divide the land area of Texas by the world population to arrive at the indisputable truth.

Your extrapolations from the math are disputable and I am disputing them, not the math itself.

Neither can the empirical evidence be denied. We can and do produce, distribute, and consume resources on a world wide basis.

Yes, and this is made possible everyone living around the world rather than all in one local space.

My response is completely accurate. There is no room for any other opinion without denying the obviously true mathematical and empirical evidence. You are demonstrably wrong.

You have not demonstrated it and have ignored my argument, so rather than tell everyone that I am “demonstrably wrong” why not demonstrate that I am wrong and we can save another week of pointless banter.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How was your response, "…

You deny the math yet again…Post #60.

… 266,853 square miles in Texas, 6.9 billion people. giving you a population density of 25,856 to the square mile. Slightly less than New York City…

Here is the demonstration. See it here? With this mathematical demonstration and the empirical evidence that we can and do move goods all over the world, there is no room for any other opinion. It is clear that the entire population of the world can* live* in Texas at the density of New york City. You are wrong, as demonstrated.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You deny the math yet again…Post #60.

That comment was made before the math was even presented.

Here is the demonstration. See it here? With this mathematical demonstration and the empirical evidence that we can and do move goods all over the world, there is no room for any other opinion. It is clear that the entire population of the world can* live* in Texas at the density of New york City. You are wrong, as demonstrated.

So another little rant that completely misrepresents what I’m saying?

Do me and yourself a favor, quote the whole thing because then it won’t make it look like you are blatantly lying about what I am saying.

 

[jmcrae]

So the relationship that is being diluted appears to be the heterosexual relationship. How does permitting gay marriage dilute the heterosexual relationship?

When we as a society say that there is nothing particularly special about the relationships that typically produce children and provide long-term stability for children, what does that tell us about how we value our children?

Is there, or should there be, a safe place that children can live, and grow? And if so, then should we value those places and situations more highly than others?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

When we as a society say that there is nothing particularly special about the relationships that typically produce children and provide long-term stability for children, what does that tell us about how we value our children?

Special according to whom? How does permitting relationships that do not produce children have any effect on the relationships that do? Why should we value the ones that do more than the ones that don’t?

Is there, or should there be, a safe place that children can live, and grow? And if so, then should we value those places and situations more highly than others?

Of course not, they are valuable for different reasons.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…So another little rant that completely misrepresents what I’m saying?..

Nobody is misrepresenting what you are saying. My quotes do not change what you posted. You deny that everyone can live in an area the size of Texas at the population density of New York City. That is your position.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Nobody is misrepresenting what you are saying. My quotes do not change what you posted. You deny that everyone can live in an area the size of Texas at the population density of New York City. That is your position.

Correct. Now before telling everybody that I’m wrong, perhaps you can actually look at what i’m using to support my position. Or clear up the assumptions the hypothetical is based on, for all yo0u know, you might end up convincing me of your position.

 

[faithfully]

Why is that view primarily held by religious people then? I contend that the alleged harms do not exist and are merely an attempt to justify a law based on religious beliefs (gays shouldn’t marry.)

As evidence, I present this publication by the AAP and various other major research organizations:
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC6
it concludes that homosexual parents have no effect on the health or well-being of children.

It seems to me if you check statistics you will find the majority of the US population is in FACT religious. You could take about any topic that is voted on and find that the majority of the people that voted either way are in fact religious.

I suppose many don’t want it to be legal for gay people to be married because THEN it seems the govt butts itself into religion stating that we somehow have to break our own beliefs and actually marry these people within and inside our sacred places of worship. That’s a guess…

Finally, I don’t see how your original question makes any since. How would one PROVE that a person taking communion is not in fact Catholic. Would we require some for of identification? Now all people have publically express their religion they are allowed to choose freely? Should this be on a drivers license? Under or address. Baptised AND practicing Catholic? Carry a note with a stamp like a bank book indicating the last time confession was attended and soul is all in order??? Please suggest a reasonable way to enforce such an insane suggestion?

Please suggest how it would be equally easy to identify an individual not technically in the position to receive the eucharist as it is a gay couple walking down the isle together to get married…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Correct. Now before telling everybody that I’m wrong, perhaps you can actually look at what i’m using to support my position. Or clear up the assumptions the hypothetical is based on, for all you know, you might end up convincing me of your position.

I have already responded to your position. I do it in nearly every post as plainly as I can. **The math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong. ** I just pointed this out in post #144. You are just arguing in circles now. Every one can do the math, and every one can see the empirical evidence. And demonstrate for themselves that you are wrong. I invite everyone who cares to to do the math, and look in their cupboards at the goods from all over the world. That’s the end of the argument for reasonable people. Everyone in the world can clearly live in an area the size of Texas, at the population density of New York City.