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

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yes, its me that is the problem. I am the one who is so intellectually dishonest, that I refuse
to admit that both the empirical evidence and the mathematical evidence prove me wrong.

Well yeah, you actually are. You completely ignored the mathematical proof that both me and someone else gave you regarding resource production capabilities, you keep ignoring my posts that inform you that the math you presented does nothing to support your argument or to effect mine. The math you presented that you keep telling me and everyone that will listen “proves me wrong” is incorporated into my argument. I’ve told you this many times and you just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. You even said that you are ignoring my post so yes, your approach to this is massively dishonest and ignorant.

I am the one lying about being replied to. I figure if I just lie, refuse to recognize the actual evidence, and cry that I am being ignored, in the same post that I really received my replies, than I won’t have to admit that my cherished belief is wrong. Yeah, that’s me. I have so much riding on the idea that Texas could be a thriving metropolis that it would change my world view. You caught me…

No, you haven’t made any comments to me not replying to you because I reply to every single word you write every time, you are the one that cuts a vast majority of my posts from several hundred words to less than ten. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if you actually responded to the man point but you don’t do that, you pick something small and ignore the rest, most of which is the actual point of my argument and the evidence I present.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no problem with the math you presented.

I know. Now just as soon as you can admit that the empirical evidence disproves your position, we will be done.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well yeah, you actually are…

I have already addressed every single thing you talk about here. The mathematical and empirical evidence prove you are undeniably wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I have already addressed every single thing you talk about here. The mathematical and empirical evidence prove you are undeniably wrong.

You haven’t cleared up the assumptions the hypothetical is based on and you haven’t given any reason to assume that if everybody lived in one local position import/export would remain the same as it is while everybody is spread around the globe evenly.

I don’t even know why anybody would conclude that nothing would change if nobody lived in the places that we import items from. That is just massive and completely alters the nature of intercontinental trade as it is currently based on billions of people living and working around the globe rather than in one tiny state.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You haven’t cleared up the assumptions .

Yes I did. More than a hundred posts ago. The math and the empirical evidence both prove you wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yes I did. More than a hundred posts ago. The math and the empirical evidence both prove you wrong.

So hang on, your suggesting the empirical evidence is that we currently are capable of massive intercontinental export and import yet you chose not to respond to the comments I made regarding the plausibility of intercontinental import/exports within the hypothetical you set up?

This is the kind of dishonesty and ignorance that I’ve been mentioning.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So hang on, your suggesting…

I am pointing out that the math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong. We can and do produce and distribute goods globally. Farcical objections that deny that reality are intellectually dishonest. Bottom line is that you cannot admit you are wrong, you think its about “victory”, and I think it is about intellectual honesty.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I am pointing out that the math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong. We can and do produce and distribute goods globally. Farcical objections that deny that reality are intellectually dishonest. Bottom line is that you cannot admit you are wrong, you think its about “victory”, and I think it is about intellectual honesty.

So you still ignore my concerns about comparing reality to this hypothetical? I don’t know how I can say it any clearer, I am not denying that we export and import goods efficiently in reality, where the human population is spread around the globe. What I am questioning is the ability to do this anywhere near as effectively if everybody lived in Texas.

 

[jmcrae]

Taking good care of them and others requires many other kinds of important jobs and you will find that the whole cycle is dependent on many different factors, which one is more important is not something I can conclude on. So whether the production or care of children is more important is really up to you.

It’s not up to me; nature teaches it and God affirms it.

Indeed, why does this make child producing relationships more important than ones that don’t produce children?

Because children are where the future comes from.

Valuing the children is still the primary concerns but the relationships that produce them are not under any kind of threat, they dominate the globe, why should we value them over others and give them exclusive rights?

Because children are where the future comes from.

I find if we want to protect the children that are growing removing discrimination and prejudices would be very valuable.

I should think that a safe place for them to live and grow would be more important, but in any case, there is nothing “discriminatory” about denying people something they can’t make use of, in the first place. It’s like telling a blind man he can’t look at the sun - it’s not people being mean to him and taking away his right to look at the sun; it is just that it is physically impossible - same with homosexual marriage - nobody is taking something away from them; it is just that it is physically impossible.

 

[PJM]

=TheTrueCentrist;7822578]Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

**GOD already has one writen and it’s ignored by VERY MANY; so why waste the ink and paper?

1 st. Cor. 11:23-29**

God Bless,
Pat

**1 St. Cor. 11:23-29 **

" For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself

NUFF SAID?

God help us,

Pat

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So you still ignore my concerns about comparing reality to this hypothetical? I don’t know how I can say it any clearer, I am not denying that we export and import goods efficiently in reality, where the human population is spread around the globe. What I am questioning is the ability to do this anywhere near as effectively if everybody lived in Texas.

You can pretend no one has answered your questions as long as you want but I answered this more than 100 posts ago. You can argue in circles as long as you like but the mathematical and empirical evidence prove you’re wrong.

 

[Eugenius]

I understand that homosexuals want the secular financial and social rights that are now associated with marriage, i.e., inheritance, survivorship, hospital visitation, etc. Sadly, the church is more concerned about excluding others from these secular entitlements than they are protecting our marriages from being ravaged by harmful 50% divorce rates. Many of these rights can be obtained by having papers drawn up by an attorney.

Not long ago women were not allowed to own property or have credit in their name. I jokingly recommend returning to that kind of definition for “traditional” marriage and homosexuals wouldn’t want to be married, but then neither would anyone else in this liberal society where it is more about “having” instead of holiness.

If the Eucharist had some kind of perceived value in secular society you can be sure there would be all kinds of legislation to “protect” it from the heathens. Unfortunately the Real Presence of our Lord is ignored by society (and many Catholics too), so there is no perceived threat to protect.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You can pretend no one has answered your questions as long as you want but I answered this more than 100 posts ago. You can argue in circles as long as you like but the mathematical and empirical evidence prove you’re wrong.

Which post? I will happily admit my mistake for not recognizing this response. I simply did not notice it and do not recall reading it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Which post? I will happily admit my mistake for not recognizing this response. I simply did not notice it and do not recall reading it.

#79.

…Food isn’t grow locally, my kitchen is full of stuff from thousands of miles away…

#87.

As I pointed out, I have food from South America and I am using consumer goods from China…Your story contradicts the reality that we already experience.

#101.

… Going somewhere to work isn’t the same thing as living there. … I live in Kansas and our farm was 28 miles from my house. I have family that live 50 miles from land they work. We have custom harvesters come through to work, and they travel thousands of miles from Mexico up through Canada following the harvest. So do migrant workers all over the globe. From Guys on Alaskan fishing boats to guys cutting the harvest in Mendocino County. Miners don’t live in the mine, oil workers don’t live on rigs. They go to these places to work for however long the job takes and then go home. To the places they live…

#102.

…Clearly they can. Now you are essentially claiming that if people live in one place they cannot travel to another to perform work… People go all over the world traveling across continents to do contract jobs and then return home right now in the world we live in. I have a friend that just came back from teaching English for a while in Korea. Millions of troops travel overseas for tours of duty. It is entirely feasible that people could live in a city the size of Texas and do the same thing if they wanted too. Just like people live in New York City. Your contentions are obviously false.

#110.

Everyone in the world can clearly live in a city the size of Texas, they can go anywhere in the world they want and build whatever they want. In fact, we have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. You are just stunningly desperate to avoid admitting that you were wrong. The math disproved you days ago and you keep making up ridiculous excuse after excuse. Overpopulation is a complete myth. …the mining machinery would be too heavy…

When you tried to claim that we, a space traveling race, could not figure out how to move mining machinery, I realized that you were willing to say anything no matter how ridiculous or farcical in order to avoid admitting that the empirical evidence proves you wrong. I am not going to discuss any further objections which deny reality. Your cherished belief is demonstrably false. The math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

When you tried to claim that we, a space traveling race, could not figure out how to move mining machinery

I never said that, I just brought up the difficulty in moving mining machinery and even having a vast majority of resource gathering done intercontinentally. The time required to transport the resources make such a venture impossible.

I realized that you were willing to say anything no matter how ridiculous or farcical in order to avoid admitting that the empirical evidence proves you wrong.

You are welcome to your opinion.

I am not going to discuss any further objections which deny reality.

I don’t deny reality, I deny the plausibility of your hypothetical.

Your cherished belief is demonstrably false. The math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong.

You have shown none of this to be true, you’ve simply said, “we can do it with everyone spread across the globe, of course we can do it if everybody was not spread across the globe.” Such a conclusion is void of any reason or logic and I’ve tried to bring this to your attention many times.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have shown none of this to be true…

See what I mean? You did not apologize as you claimed you would or admit to the ludicrous nature of your objections. You go right back to denying reality. I don’t have to prove these things true. The empirical evidence does it for me. We can clearly produce and distribute goods on a global scale. You cannot deny our ability to do so and be intellectually honest. So why should I accept crazy statements like the one above

The time required to transport the resources make such a venture impossible.

Its obviously untrue and contradicted by the empirical evidence, but you stated the objection anyway. Knowing its untrue, because you have the same empirical evidence that we all do. The fact that you continue to state objections that you obviously know are false tells me that I am correct, you will say anything to avoid you admitting you are wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

See what I mean? You did not apologize as you claimed you would or admit to the ludicrous nature of your objections.

That’s because what you presented was not what you said you would. My request was for you to reasonably justify comparing reality to this hypothetical. None of the posts you presented addressed this, they all just assumed that if it could be done in reality nothing would change for the hypothetical.

You go right back to denying reality.

I don’t know how many times I have to go through the nature of my objections with you but it’s clearly not getting through.

I don’t have to prove these things true. The empirical evidence does it for me.

Do you mean the empirical evidence that in reality import/export between continents is viable? I agree that in reality it is plausible, why should we assume it would remain the same in the hypothetical where the population is not spread out across the globe? That’s what I’m asking you to prove true.

We can clearly produce and distribute goods on a global scale. You cannot deny our ability to do so and be intellectually honest. So why should I accept crazy statements like the one aboveIts obviously untrue and contradicted by the empirical evidence, but you stated the objection anyway. Knowing its untrue, because you have the same empirical evidence that we all do. The fact that you continue to state objections that you obviously know are false tells me that I am correct, you will say anything to avoid you admitting you are wrong.

You have never once responded to my concerns regarding the comparison of the hypothetical to reality, that is what you said you would respond to but instead you just kept up with the assumption that nothing would change the intercontinental import/export rates that we have in reality.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

So hang on, you are opposed to the notion that homosexual relationships should be permitted to become married, correct? Yet you are quite happy for them to have the same rights as married heterosexual couples, correct? But you don’t think that a separate institution should be set up that grants all of the same benefits as marriage, correct?

So do you want homosexual couples to be able to receive the same benefits as married couples or do you think they should receive different benefits? Because if all of the above premises are true then you would be fighting for gay marriage.

Well, sort of. If wanting them to be able, for instance, to visit each other in the hospital constitutes “having the same rights as married heterosexual couples,” then yes, I would want that.

I’m just not sure it constitutes that. While consenting adults should be able to extend such privileges to each other without legal trouble, a solution that allows this needn’t be explicitly connected to the marriage debate because these rights needn’t even be limited to romantic partners… at least, I don’t think so. I admit it gets complicated when we get concrete about it, though.

The concept of a “permanent union” as proposed by marriage is already diluted with quite a high divorce rate.

True, and unfortunate. Practical ways of remedying this can be difficult to enact but ought to be sought and welcomed by all.

Why should it be exclusive? I don’t understand why marriage should be as exclusive as it is? Why do you consider that a good thing or something worth fighting for?

Sorry, I should have clarified: in the sentence to which you were responding, I meant “exclusive” to mean “between only two individuals.”

You’re quite correct, though, to lump the question, “Why must it be only between opposite-sex partners?” with the question, “Why does it have to be no more than two individuals?” The questions go together, and I believe they have similar answers, though the latter is nonetheless a distinct question.

Not to sound petty, but this brings to mind the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… The only thing I will say is that as an American, I value freedom, for all. Even if that means that others exercise of freedom involves them doing things I don’t like, or even find morally objectionable. Heck, to enjoy worshipping how I choose, I have to allow people to be able to teach outright heresy in their churches.

You don’t sound petty at all, JohnnyReb, don’t worry.

I agree about the pursuit of happiness, but the pro-traditional marriage side in this debate isn’t seeking to limit freedom. Gay couples are free to live out their lives as they please, in general and in relationships with each other.

We seek not to ban certain behaviors that we consider “morally objectionable” or that involve “things we don’t like” (at least here in our country today; we’re not talking about Uganda here). It’s rather a matter of what legal status should be permitted to apply to the relationships whose right to exist and exist publicly all sides nonetheless agree upon.

You don’t come across as a bigotted person to me at all. I can see you do care about people and are only concerned about the truth. I concur with these feelings, you did a good job describing how I feel as well.

Thank you, JohnnyReb, you too. The compassion your posts express is sorely needed in the contemporary world today, especially among us Christians whose message that God is love and of the Incarnation, the Gospel, etc., must first be made credible by our own behaviors.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Well, sort of. If wanting them to be able, for instance, to visit each other in the hospital constitutes “having the same rights as married heterosexual couples,” then yes, I would want that.

By the benefits of marriage I mean all of the legal benefits of marriage, I can list a few for you.

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I’m just not sure it constitutes that. While consenting adults should be able to extend such privileges to each other without legal trouble, a solution that allows this needn’t be explicitly connected to the marriage debate because these rights needn’t even be limited to romantic partners… at least, I don’t think so. I admit it gets complicated when we get concrete about it, though.

I agree, the patient should be able to decide who gets visitation rights and priorities, not the government.

Sorry, I should have clarified: in the sentence to which you were responding, I meant “exclusive” to mean “between only two individuals.”

You’re quite correct, though, to lump the question, “Why must it be only between opposite-sex partners?” with the question, “Why does it have to be no more than two individuals?” The questions go together, and I believe they have similar answers, though the latter is nonetheless a distinct question.

I wasn’t actually lumping those two questions together. I was asking why the exclusivity of marriage to not permit members of the same sex to marry is something worth fighting for? Why is it a good thing?

We should stay away from polygamy, a completely different debate that would sidetrack this one. If you would like to though, we could discuss it in another thread…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…
Do you mean the empirical evidence that in reality import/export between continents is viable? I agree that in reality it is plausible, why should we assume it would remain the same in the hypothetical where the population is not spread out across the globe? That’s what I’m asking you to prove true.

Other than another farcical reality denying objection qualifying this statement, we are almost there. As you clearly admit we can and do produce and distribute goods globally. Now if you can just admit that means you were wrong, and that everyone can live in an area the size of Texas, that would be great.