Intelligent Design

What I wish the Pope had said

Spread the love

Like many readers, I watched the Pope’s speech earlier today. It was in many ways a beautiful speech, which brought members of Congress to their feet (many with tears in their eyes) in a standing ovation. While the issues it addressed were all vital ones, I was a little disappointed at the issues it didn’t address, or barely mentioned. Perhaps there was a good reason for that. But then I decided that instead of whingeing, I would do something constructive: write an alternative speech that the Pope could have delivered, covering all the issues that I felt he needed to draw people’s attention to. I don’t write speeches for a living, so I apologize to readers if my poor effort doesn’t read as well as His Holiness’s address. Anyway, here goes.

————————————————————————————————————-

Dear friends,

It is with deepest humility that I stand before you all today, and I thank you for the privilege of being able to address this Congress. Before I begin, I’d like to bow my head in silent prayer for a minute, as we remember the tens of millions of unborn children who are killed every year, around the world. I’d also like to pray for their mothers, and for their fathers too. I hope you will all join me in prayer. Thank you.

The theme of my address today is justice. America is rightly proud of its legal system, which values justice above all else. The motto of your Tennessee Supreme Court is, “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” To that I say, “Amen.” But sadly, we live in a world where billions of people are denied the most basic forms of justice. These people are killed, tortured, imprisoned, forced to flee their countries, denied the right to earn a decent living, and denied the right to speak and worship freely. The catalogue of injustice committed by man against man is immense: where to begin? I have chosen to begin my speech with the most vulnerable people of all: children. And the greatest injustice to which a child can be subjected is to be robbed of a life.

The tragedy of abortion

Abortion is a global tragedy, and there is no country in the world which is altogether free of this hideous injustice. And it is an injustice – not only against children, but also against mothers, who often feel that they have no choice but to terminate the lives of their unborn children, and against fathers who want to care for their children but who are unable to find work. It is the duty of the State to remedy this injustice by creating a supportive environment where child-rearing is affordable for mothers, no matter what their background, and where fathers and working mothers can easily obtain a job that allows them to support their children. Even in affluent countries, there are many economic barriers that discourage companies from hiring more people – especially when they are parents of young children. The Church has always stressed the dignity of work, and today, I would ask the members of this House to work together in the task of dismantling these economic barriers to employment, and give couples a real choice: the choice to start a family.

However, the foremost duty of any State is to prevent the destruction of innocent human life. That includes children who are in the womb. What, then, shall we say of a State that continues to fund organizations which, instead of assisting pregnant women who are suffering from poverty, abort their children instead, and make a tidy profit from doing so? Something very wrong is happening here. Tragically, over one-fifth of all pregnancies in this country are terminated by abortion, resulting in the deaths of over one million children a year. I ask you all to remedy this injustice. God willing, this Congress can do it, this President can do it, and the members of the Supreme Court can do it.

The injustice of children dying from extreme poverty

I’d now like to speak of the millions of children around the world who die of famine and disease every year. These problems are soluble – indeed, the United Nations Millennium Project is currently making great progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals for 2015. Yet there is much that remains to be done. Six million children die before their fifth birthday every year, and only half of all women in developing countries receive adequate maternal care. Those numbers should appall us. We should remember the words of our Savior: “Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink.’” This will be our fate, if we fail to help the world’s suffering children.

Leading scientists tell us that we will have to spend over a trillion dollars a year, over the next few decades, in order to combat global warming, and the President of the United States has made a very public commitment to fight this problem. I have previously spoken of the need to protect our Earth. Since it is our common home, justice obliges us to leave it in a condition which is fit for our children and grand-children to grow up in. In order to do that, it may prove necessary for governments around the world to spend large sums on making our environment safe. But if we compare the threat to human life caused by ecological breakdown with the twin specters of famine and disease, it should be clear which problem is the more pressing. Millions of children are dying every year, right now. The world currently spends about $50 billion per year on the Millennium Development Goals program. That’s just one-twentieth of what we’re proposing to spend on global warming. If we can afford to do that, then we can certainly afford to eliminate extreme poverty. Let’s do it.

But it is not only governments, but individuals, that need to give generously – and wisely. There are some tasks for which bureaucracy is ill-equipped. Smaller organizations are often better at targeting those in need, and individuals would do well to choose carefully, when deciding which charitable organizations they will give to. Above all, however, we should remember the dignity of the poor, when we give. I believe we can most effectively help parents in developing countries by offering them practical assistance that enables them to earn a decent livelihood, and thereby support their children.

Children and the refugee crisis

In the past few weeks, children have been in the news, as we see thousands of refugees fleeing war-torn countries every day, in search of a peaceful life. It is a great tragedy that many children, traveling with their parents, have died during the long voyage to freedom. Some have criticized these people for fleeing their native lands, referring to them disparagingly as “economic migrants.” No; what they seek is to live in a free and just society. It is not a crime for people to seek freedom, for the desire for freedom is part of our very nature. In recognition of this fact, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” I therefore call upon the members of this Congress to open their hearts to these refugees, and accept their share of the international community’s responsibility for finding a home for these people.

There may be some who will ask, “Where will it all end? What if the thousands whom we are being asked to find homes for end up becoming millions?” Others worry about the danger that a small minority of people fleeing war zones may espouse ideologies of violence, and that they may foment violence and unrest in this country, if they are allowed to settle here. My answer is that we should never, ever succumb to the temptation to despair. At the same time, we should never let our hearts rule over our heads. We need to be generous, but at the same time, intelligent and creative in finding solutions to people’s needs, while safeguarding the country in which we live. For example, in addition to accepting more refugees, America could assist developing countries which are willing to take them, but which lack the financial resources to build emergency homes for them. And if there are legitimate fears of certain individuals fomenting violence in refugee communities, then it is of course perfectly proper for governments to vigilantly monitor those communities – for by doing so, they protect and uphold the public good.

The elderly

I have spoken about justice towards the world’s children, especially the unborn and those who are newly born and suffering from famine and disease. I’d now like to address the needs of individuals at the other end of life: those who are nearing death. The first group of people I’d like to talk about are the elderly. It is a great scandal that even in the 21st century, there are elderly people living in affluent societies, who cannot find shelter at night. If we accept that the elderly have a right to life, then we must also accept that these people have a right not to freeze to death. A government which fails to guarantee them that right is failing in its most basic duties. The Church speaks of sheltering the homeless as a corporal act of mercy – and so it is, when performed by individuals. But in a prosperous society where governments can raise large amounts of money to help people in need, care for those who are both old and destitute is not an act of mercy, but an act of basic human justice.

Elderly people are often told that they shouldn’t be a burden on other people. We even hear of elderly people who spend long periods in hospital being described as “bed blockers.” Some physicians, who really should know better, talk of “quality-adjusted life years” as they attempt to calculate who would benefit more from treatment: the young and able, or the elderly and disabled. Such talk has no place in a just society. If anyone has earned the right to be a burden on society, it is old people. They should be proud, not ashamed, of being a burden. And to the “hard-headed realists” (as they like to call themselves) who wonder where all the money for costly medical treatments is going to come from, I would like to point out that in times past, when society was a lot poorer than it is now, we somehow managed to look after our elderly without euthanizing them. The Hippocratic Oath has been a part of Western medical practice for 2,400 years. Doctors taking this oath swear to “do no harm,” when they recite these words: “I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief.” It is the duty of a just society to uphold the values enshrined in this oath – for the inhumane alternative is to regard human lives as expendable, when they are judged to be too burdensome on society at large. Would you want to live in a society like that?

Euthanasia is often presented by the media as a “choice.” I have a simple answer to that. If it’s a choice, then why is it that that two-thirds of patients requesting euthanasia are women? People who are elderly, poor, sick and vulnerable can be manipulated in many different ways, both by relatives who might want them out of the way and by well-meaning doctors, nurses and caregivers who may mistakenly believe that they are acting in their patients’ best interests by raising the subject of euthanasia, and asking them if they want to avail themselves of that choice. But to people who are easily intimidated, even to raise the subject of euthanasia is to restrict their choices. For these poor folk are no fools; they can take a hint. To ask a patient if they want to die is to imply that their life is so worthless that maybe they should die. A just society will never allow its elderly people to be subjected to such a false “choice.”

We hear a lot about Alzheimer’s in the news, but we don’t hear so much about an affliction that the elderly are far more likely to suffer from: loneliness and the feeling of being unloved and unwanted. Eventually, we can be sure that science will find a cure for diseases afflicting the brain, but science cannot cure the suffering of the human spirit. Old people need families, and they need supportive communities. They need to be recognized and validated. What they don’t need to be told that they are no longer fit to work, or contribute anything useful to society. Governments cannot create jobs for elderly people, but they can certainly remove the obstacles to them finding work. They can also assist and encourage elderly people who wish to serve their community by doing volunteer work.

Prisoners

There is another group of people who are nearing death that we don’t get to hear about much: prisoners who are on death row. Although the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor,” it adds that in situations where non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety, these are a more suitable way of promoting the common good, for the State can render a convicted criminal “incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.” The Church cares about people’s bodies, but it cares most of all about their souls. In keeping with my predecessors, I reiterate their call for the death penalty to be suspended, in those countries – including this one – where the common good can be defended without having recourse to it.

And I might add that even in a violent and chaotic society where the death penalty might be deemed necessary, criminals who are condemned to death still have the right to be killed cleanly and quickly. There can be no excuse for painful and prolonged executions which torture their victim over a period of as much as 45 minutes. That is not justice; it is barbarism.

The vast majority of prisoners in this country will never end up on death row, but they have other basic rights which must be recognized. The most fundamental of these is the right to serve out their sentences in an environment which is free from the threat of violence – especially sexual violence. Rape is an all too common fact of life within prison walls. It can be prevented, and there are other countries around the world whose prison systems ensure a high level of safety for prisoners, around the clock. Crime deserves punishment, but violence is not a punishment. For the aim of punishment is to redeem the person who is punished, and bring him to an awareness of the wrong he has done. Violence does not redeem; it brutalizes and degrades the human spirit. It is time to stop prison violence.

The child abuse scandal within the Catholic Church

Violence is also a problem within society at large, and it goes without saying that a just society will do its utmost to ensure that those who are most vulnerable to violence are protected from it. In recent decades, the Church has had to confront the scandal of its own pastors seducing and sexually abusing children. Our Lord had terrifying words for anyone who would do a thing like that: “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea.” I would like to humbly express my deepest remorse and my profound apologies to the people of America, for the Church’s failure to address this problem, for so long. I therefore call upon the Catholic bishops to not only co-operate with the authorities in preventing child abuse, but to be proactive in doing so: if they have good reason to even suspect that a priest or member of a religious order is abusing children, they should notify the authorities immediately, and turn over all records.

How violence affects women

Many women also have to live with the continual threat of physical and sexual violence. This is a problem that Western governments are confronting head-on, and that the Church is, at last, discussing openly. All I will say here is that the solution lies in educating men and boys, from a very early age, to respect the dignity of women. However, adversarial solutions, which seek to pit women against men and train them to “fight back,” won’t work. Men are not “the enemy.” We know this because the book of Genesis tells us that at the beginning of human history, God made them male and female. The two sexes are made for each other. Which brings me to the topic of marriage.

The institution of marriage

It should be obvious to everyone that the common good of society is served by an institution in which a man and a woman swear life-long fidelity to one another, and engage in intercourse which is open to the gift of life. None of us would be here today if such an institution did not exist – for without it, there might be isolated families, but there would be no society. Marriage is the glue that holds society together, at the family level. Take away that glue, or replace it with non-adhesive goo, and society collapses like a house of cards. What has been overlooked in the contemporary debate about gay marriage is that marriage is, by its very nature, essentially monogamous. However, there is no inherent reason why a relationship between two people of the same sex would need to be monogamous; hence it is a mistake to call it marriage. At the same time, we need to constantly keep in mind that gays and lesbians are children of the same God as everyone else. They are our neighbors, to whom we are bound to show charity. In defending marriage, we must never stoop to bigotry. All of us, after all, are sinners.

The dignity of labor and the dignity of business

Before I conclude my address, I’d like to say something about working people. I spoke previously about the dignity of work. Man is an animal who needs to work; it is not good for us to be idle. Work, no matter how menial, provides people with the joy of knowing that they are doing something useful, which someone else values enough to pay them for. And most of the money that workers get is spent on providing for the people whom they love most: members of their families.

Commensurate with the dignity of work is the dignity of business. You can’t have one without the other. Businesses need workers; workers need business. The investment of capital is a noble task: it not only contributes to the common good by supplying a product or service which benefits society, but it lends dignity to the lives of those who work to bring about this goal. And that is why I say that capitalism is not a dirty word; it is a good thing. Like every good thing, it may be justly regulated when its actions endanger the common good. However, business – that is, private enterprise – is not simply for the good of society; it is for the good of the individuals who built it. And the beauty of capitalism is that these individuals, by advancing their own good within the limits of the common good, can create opportunities – jobs, products and services – that benefit many other people, in countless ways. Money doesn’t make the world go round; love does that. But it is certainly true that free enterprise makes the wheels of society turn. And in so doing, it helps families too – which is precisely why it is so important for governments to step aside and let business do what it does best.

America is a country which justly prides itself on being the land of the brave and the home of the free. May it ever remain so, and may we never forget the obligations which we owe, in justice, towards other people in our society – especially the young and the old, the lonely and the needy.

God bless America.

56 Replies to “What I wish the Pope had said

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    Didn’t hear the speech or know he was there. Its so dumb to see the Pope received with tears when they oppose the most important points.
    i like your list on abortion/marriage etc.
    I don’t like the kids refugees thing. Those people made the problem/and america and other nations don’t owe them a home and wealth. They should plan on going back but they never do. Its their fault and probably people don’t need to leave. it might be the those who see a chance for easy immigration.
    The death penalty is a moral response to murder and a moral duty for us to do it I think.
    Did the Pope wimp out on the issues?

  2. 2
    Popperian says:

    Since Barry doesn’t seem interested in a seeing my question, perhaps you will. Are there genuine moral problems to solve?

    For example.

    It should be obvious to everyone that the common good of society is served by an institution in which a man and a woman swear life-long fidelity to one another, and engage in intercourse which is open to the gift of life.

    There are people fall in love with members of the opposite sex and people who fall in love with members of the same sex. Many of which want to get married, raise a family, etc., but could not, until recently. Was / is this a moral problem, in practice?

    There is no shortage of people who want heterosexual relationships which can sustain the population. And, even then, there is adoption, surrogates, etc. IOW, the real issues is practical matter about people in concrete situations.

    For example, I’ve heard arguments along the lines that if same-sex marriage is “good” then everyone would marry someone from the same sex and we would go extinct. But that denies that there are actual moral problems to solve in a concrete sense.

    So I would again ask, is there such a thing as genuine moral problems to solve?

  3. 3
    Visnu says:

    “Politicians having tears in their eyes”? It doesn’t move me… I’m yet to meet an honest politician…

  4. 4
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Robert Byers,

    Thank you for your post. I’m not suggesting that the death penalty is unjust, as a punishment for murder; rather, what I’m saying is that it’s unnecessary, in a society where life imprisonment is a viable option.

    That said, I can accept that in some murder cases which are particularly heinous, the State may have a legitimate reason for inflicting the death penalty on an individual. However, if it does that, it should execute that person quickly and cleanly – e.g. by firing squad. No-one deserves a long, drawn-out death.

  5. 5
    daveS says:

    Nitrogen asphyxiation would seem like one of the most humane methods of execution, despite the fact no one uses it.

  6. 6
    vjtorley says:

    Hi Popperian,

    There is an important difference between technical problems and moral problems. From a technical standpoint, there is no difficulty in a couple getting a surrogate to have a baby for them. But from a moral standpoint, we have to consider the injustice done to the child, in being pro-created in such a fashion.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    Two comments made about the Pope’s speech to Congress”

    First, One commentator said: the Pope threaded the needle perfectly. In other words he didn’t say anything to offend anyone.

    Second, A Catholic who is very versed on Church policy said: “I could not understand anything he said in terms of Church doctrine.” He used the term subsidiarity a couple times but that is such a vague concept that it practically has no meaning.

    I did not hear it or read a transcript but just pass on what a couple said.

  8. 8
    HeKS says:

    @vjtorley #6

    The problem for Popperian is that he denies the existence of any objective moral standards, values or duties, so there can be no state of affairs that can be objectively identified as an actual moral problem that needs to be solved. There can only be states of affairs that are contrary to his own moral preferences, and these only need to be resolved to the extent that he and his fellow travelers need the world to conform to their own preferences.

  9. 9
    sean samis says:

    Regarding:

    The institution of marriage

    It should be obvious to everyone that the common good of society is served by an institution in which a man and a woman swear life-long fidelity to one another, and engage in intercourse which is open to the gift of life. …

    Same-sex marriage does not interfere with, impede, or otherwise harm this institution.

    … None of us would be here today if such an institution did not exist – for without it, there might be isolated families, but there would be no society. Marriage is the glue that holds society together, at the family level. Take away that glue, or replace it with non-adhesive goo, and society collapses like a house of cards. …

    The institution of marriage is not required for procreation; without it, humans would still exist.

    Without it, society would be different, but since humans are social animals, some society would exist even without the institution of marriage. It would be different, but not necessarily worse.

    … What has been overlooked in the contemporary debate about gay marriage is that marriage is, by its very nature, essentially monogamous. …

    This is historically and sociologically false. Polygamy and infidelity have been common in human societies since the dawn of time. Polygamy is recognized and permitted in the Bible, and still practiced in some places even today.

    … However, there is no inherent reason why a relationship between two people of the same sex would need to be monogamous; hence it is a mistake to call it marriage. …

    Ditto with relationships between two people of different sexes; there is no reason “a relationship between two people [of different sexes] would need to be monogamous.” Heterosexual infidelity and polygamy happen.

    If different-sex relationships are called “marriage” there is no reason to call same-sex relationships anything else.

    …At the same time, we need to constantly keep in mind that gays and lesbians are children of the same God as everyone else. They are our neighbors, to whom we are bound to show charity. …

    Tho’ I no longer believe in any god, I agree with the sentiment this expresses. We are bound to show charity to all.

    …In defending marriage, we must never stoop to bigotry. …

    By using the language of “defense” you have violated your own suggestions. Same-sex couples don’t attack marriage, they just want legal recognition of their marriages.

    Marriage equality does not attack marriage; it opposes the State-sanctioned imposition of a particular, narrow, religious definition of marriage.

    Such an imposition is impossible without some bigotry; one cannot advocate imposition of their own beliefs on others without eliding into bigotry; it goes with the territory.

    All of us, after all, are sinners.

    Very true.

    sean s.

  10. 10
    sean samis says:

    Popperian @2:

    Are there genuine moral problems to solve?

    Yes.

    Hunger
    Poverty
    Opportunity inequalities (educational, occupational, etc.)
    Economic inequality
    Violence (from War to crime)
    Racial, gender, sexual-orientation bigotry

    … and so forth.
    Just a quick list…

    sean s.

  11. 11
    Andre says:

    Sean

    What about other moral dillema’s

    I want rape to be decriminalized because my moral code calls it good for spreading my genes.

    I want to have paedophilia decriminalized because I have no issue with sodomizing small children its fun and it amuses me to no end.

    I want cannibalism to be legalized, after all we are just animals and I can eat what I want.

    I want murder to be legalized so that I can help mother nature get rid of the helpless.

    Why does your moral dillema’s have any preference over mine?

  12. 12
    rhampton7 says:

    FYI – from COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

    IV. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY
    a. Origin and meaning

    185. Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical[395]. It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth[396]. This is the realm of civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen”[397]. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity[398] . . . .

  13. 13
    sean samis says:

    Andre @11;

    I think the simplest answer is to tell you that you’ve forgotten what the phrase “moral dilemma” means.

    A moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action.

    Your list does not present any actual dilemmas; it’s just a shopping list of things you want to do conjoined to unsupported rationalizations for these wants.

    The only unifying theme seems to be that these are things you’d like to do; but as anyone who’s thought about morality knows, one’s wants have little to say about what is moral. “I want X legalized because I like it” is the kind of argument we all learned to ignore in middle school.

    So the question goes back to you: why should anyone take your list seriously when it appears that even you don’t?

    If you do think you have a serious point to make, I suggest you start by demonstrating some serious thought before writing.

    sean s.

  14. 14
    Andre says:

    Sean

    Are morals objective? There are many here who would argue that they are not. If they are not then I have a legitimate subjective moral code. How do we then work out which is right?
    All the points you list show that we have a issue with too many people on the planet so I think culling is in order to get rid of the Human mouths that are putting pressure on the system and who in all likelyhood also contribute to man made climate change.

  15. 15
    J-Mac says:

    Someone once asked one of the most challenging questions regarding the moral conduit of the catholic church:

    “Jesus was the poorest of the poor. Roman Catholicism, which claims to be His church, is the richest of the rich, the wealthiest institution on earth…How come, that such an institution, ruling in the name of this same itinerant preacher, whose want was such that he had not even a pillow upon which to rest his head, is now so top-heavy with riches that she can rival – indeed, that she can put to shame – the combined might of the most redoubtable financial trusts, of the most potent industrial super-giants, and of the most prosperous global corporation of the world?”

    Mark 10:21

    “You (catholic church)lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

    The second picture on the page says 1000 words:

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&.....5113314613

  16. 16
    sean samis says:

    Andre @14:

    Are morals objective?

    Yes. Let’s step through this.

    Objective” (as an adjective) means “based on facts rather than feelings or opinions, not influenced by feelings; existing outside of the mind, existing in the real world

    Mathematics are objective; as are its cousins Logic and Reason.

    A Fact: human beings and other living things are fragile, vulnerable, and limited creatures; humans–to be specific–have definite biological, social, and psychological needs and vulnerabilities.

    Objectively, we can say that EVIL is something that causes (or threatens to cause) an unnecessary harm.

    Something that is GOOD is not EVIL. Something that is GOOD also promotes health, welfare, happiness, etc. or it also promotes justice, equity, fairness.

    PLEASE NOTICE SOMETHING: whether something is EVIL or GOOD has almost nothing to do with preferences or wants.

    How do we then work out which is right?

    Faced with any moral choice; the first question is: would this choice cause an unnecessary harm? If it does or risks it, then you’re done: it’s probably EVIL and not GOOD.

    How do we work this out? With Logic and Reasoning from Truth and/or the Facts of Nature.

    This is, of course a very brief summary of objective morals, but I think it’s a good summary.

    … we have a issue with too many people on the planet so I think culling is in order to get rid of the Human mouths that are putting pressure on the system and who in all likelyhood also contribute to man made climate change.

    Certainly human overpopulation is an objective problem. Is “culling” a NECESSARY solution, or just one you prefer? If it’s NOT necessary, then it’s EVIL, and we’re done with it.

    sean s.

  17. 17
    Axel says:

    Here is a brief, witty, but profoundly moving take on Pope Francis’ endeavours to reconvert the Catholic church to the mindset of Jesus, as we find it in the Gospel. Imho, it’s ‘a keeper’.

    http://aleteia.org/2015/09/23/.....is-moment/

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    The Pope should just shut up, IMO. The Catholic Church is part and parcel of all the problems that plague humanity. The Holy Roman Empire introduced the evil practice of dividing the land for price instead of an inheritance as it used to be. They turned Europe and the Middle East into an empire of perpetual war and forteresses. They invented evil capitalism which is responsible for the division of the world into the filthy rich and the filthy poor. Then they created a church full of men who don’t like the company of women. What is wrong with this picture?

    The prophet Daniel spoke of the real power behind the Catholic Church, a foreign god who divided the land for a price and had no regard for the desire of women. You heard it here first.

    My advice to the Pope is this. Be cool, il Papa. Elijah is prophesied to come and restore all things. And as Shakespeare would have put it, “he shall be to Rome as the osprey to the fish, who takes it by sovereignty of nature.”

  19. 19
    harry says:

    Axel @17,

    That was an interesting take on Francis. Allow me to propose another view of Francis.

    From Francis’ recent speech to congress:

    The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

    This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.

    If one is going to advocate sparing the lives of those few convicted of crimes for which there is a death penalty, one ought to also earnestly and openly advocate for the global abolition of the death penalty for those who are completely innocent children being “legally” executed by the billions around the world through surgical abortion and abortifacient drugs.

    Francis too often boldly denounces evil which anybody in their right mind knows is evil, and is timid when it comes to denouncing the entrenched evil of our times. This is pathetic. To illustrate the point: It takes no courage or integrity to condemn racism and slavery today. When the American Abolitionists condemned them it took real courage. Their doing so came at the cost of enduring hatred, persecution and in some cases imprisonment. This is exactly what Christ promised His followers they would have to endure. It will take the same kind of commitment to bring about the global abolition of the imposition of the death penalty upon innocent children.

    When JPII first came to the U.S. he boldy proclaimed that “abortion is an unspeakable crime.” Francis sounded like he was going to address the topic with his “The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,” but then turned the discussion to the death penalty instead. Ironically, when one considers that the group most often the victims of state-sanctioned executions are innocent children, one must agree that a “global abolition of the death penalty” is indeed urgently needed.

  20. 20
    vjtorley says:

    No, Sean Samis, overpopulation is NOT an objective problem. You can find out why in my e-book, Embryo and Einstein: Why They’re Equal – especially section H (Do Women in Third World Countries Need Access to Legal Abortion?) and section I (Does Overpopulation Make Abortion A Practical Necessity?).

    You also dispute my premise that marriage is essentially monogamous on the grounds that polygamy has been widely tolerated. That doesn’t follow. Marriage is not a creation of human law, so the fact that the law tolerates deviant forms of marriage in many countries is irrelevant.

    The fundamental purpose of marriage as a social institution is the creation of a bond within which child-rearing can take place. And before you throw a shoe at me and ask, “What about infertile couples?”, consider this. Imagine that you arrived on a strange planet with intelligent beings who reproduced asexually. Would you expect to find an institution like marriage? I would not. If it weren’t for the fact that we reproduce sexually, marriage wouldn’t exist.

    800 years ago, St. Thomas Aquinas exist pointed out that the raising of human infants requires a heavy parental investment in their education. That’s basically why, in the case of the human animal, dads need to stick around and commit to their mother of their children. A society where fathers don’t do that is a society that’s in the process of falling apart.

    I might add that even in societies where polygamy is tolerated, it’s a privilege of rich guys who can afford to support two families – and, I might add, that’s what they’re expected to do. Even in Muslim countries, only about 5% of marriages are polygamous. Such marriages come at a cost, however: they exclude poorer men from the marriage market. Mandatory monogamy is a great leveler: it applies to rich and poor alike.

  21. 21
    Popperian says:

    That said, I can accept that in some murder cases which are particularly heinous, the State may have a legitimate reason for inflicting the death penalty on an individual. However, if it does that, it should execute that person quickly and cleanly – e.g. by firing squad. No-one deserves a long, drawn-out death

    When demanding the Israelites kill men, women and children in the Bible, couldn’t God have just made them disappear? Death by the sword is not necessarily quick or clean.

    Did they deserve it?

  22. 22
    Popperian says:

    There is an important difference between technical problems and moral problems. From a technical standpoint, there is no difficulty in a couple getting a surrogate to have a baby for them. But from a moral standpoint, we have to consider the injustice done to the child, in being pro-created in such a fashion.

    While I appreciate your clarification between moral and non moral problems, I don’t think this quite answers my question, which was, are their genuine in that there are moral problems we must face, in practice?

  23. 23
    harry says:

    Popperian @21,

    If God is the Author of human life and the Universe and holds us and it in existence instant by instant, then He has the authority to sanction the killing of a group of humans by any means He chooses — even if His doing so doesn’t make sense to you.

    Those who were killed in this way, and who were innocent of any grave evil, or who had repented of grave evil they were responsible for, upon dying and eventually entering into eternal joy, are to this day praising Him for His authorization of their being put to death, as they now see why He commanded that from a perspective which we cannot have in this life.

    God’s authorization of killing in the Scriptures is the exception and not the rule. His command, “Thou shalt do no murder” was the rule, and when He became one of us and walked among us, He insisted on a higher standard of loving our enemies and doing good to them. “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” is the new rule, fulfilled by those who keep His commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you.” He loved you unto a humiliating, horrific death on a cross.

  24. 24
    Popperian says:

    The problem for Popperian is that he denies the existence of any objective moral standards, values or duties, so there can be no state of affairs that can be objectively identified as an actual moral problem that needs to be solved. There can only be states of affairs that are contrary to his own moral preferences, and these only need to be resolved to the extent that he and his fellow travelers need the world to conform to their own preferences.

    The problem for those that try to explain the growth of moral knowledge and moral problem solving though justification through an infallible source of moral standards, values or duties is that no one has explained how they can infallibly identify and interpret an infallible source in such a way that they could apply them in practice. IOW, it’s unclear how they have any other recourse than to conjecture solutions to moral problems, then criticize them. That is, would use their own reason to determine when to defer to the infallible source, which is what someone would have done had they not believed in that infallible source. Human reason and criticism always comes before the infallible source.

    You might feel “obliged” to follow any such moral standards, values or duties, but that doesn’t help if you do not actually know what they are when it comes to actually applying to genuine moral problems, in practice.

  25. 25
    Popperian says:

    If God is the Author of human life and the Universe and holds us and it in existence instant by instant, then He has the authority to sanction the killing of a group of humans by any means He chooses — even if His doing so doesn’t make sense to you.

    As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, once you open the door to this line of “logic” we cannot know that God isn’t using abortionists as “surgeons” to “cut out” evil in todays world, just because it wouldn’t make sense to you either.

    However, the very same arguments one could use to “justify” God demanding the death women and their unborn children by the sword could be used to “justify” the actions of abortionists.

    For example, if a women is evil enough to want their child to die, then one could argue that their child’s death would be God’s punishment for her evil. And being raised in such a family, such a child would have just been evil as well. IOW, it’s unclear how you could know that God isn’t just using abortionists as a “surgeon” to “cut out” evil that exceeded some limit that we cannot comprehend.

    Are you saying we can unambiguously rule this out? If so how?

    God’s authorization of killing in the Scriptures is the exception and not the rule. His command, “Thou shalt do no murder” was the rule, and when He became one of us and walked among us, He insisted on a higher standard of loving our enemies and doing good to them. “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” is the new rule, fulfilled by those who keep His commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you.” He loved you unto a humiliating, horrific death on a cross.

    Any modern day leader claiming to have commanded genocide based on supposed divine instruction would be convinced of war crimes and tried for murder. Is this not moral progress or God just changing his mind for what appears to be arbitrary reasons?

  26. 26
    Seversky says:

    If you believe that there is some sort of individual personality which survives the death of the body then the death penalty is unnecessary. it means that the victim has moved on, however unwillingly, to a different, possibly better, domain of existence but that being has not been permanently extinguished.

    If there is nothing that survives the death of the body then whether the death penalty is applicable depends on the answers to two questions.

    First, is it an appropriate and a proportionate punishment for the offense of unlawfully taking the life of another human being? The offender has deprived the victim of the what would have been the rest of their life for good. It is irrevocably and irretrievably gone. Why should the offender be able live out the rest of their life when they have denied that possibility to the victim?

    Second, are there ever cases where it can be safely applied? We are all well aware that there are cases where people have been convicted on what, with hindisght, was the flimsiest of evidence, where they have been exonerated based on DNA evidence and/or the exposure of police and prosecutorial misconduct, where potential exculpatory evidence has been withheld. Against that, is there any reasonable doubt about the guilt of Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgeway, for example? In other words, is trial by jury a sufficiently reliable test of the evidence on which to base a death sentence?

    In my view, it is an appropriate and proportionate punishment for the likes of a Ted Bundy but the number of cases where there is more room for doubt means we should always err on the side of caution where there is the slightest doubt.

  27. 27
    harry says:

    Popperian @24,

    The rejection of objective morality with gainsaying and sophistry such as yours leads to much human suffering that wouldn’t exist if humanity accepted the natural moral law expressed in the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments. Humanity would find that life on this Earth becomes as happy and as good as it can be for now (until Christ returns), if it obeyed His command to love God first and our neighbor as ourselves.

    The most horrendous evils perpetrated upon humanity, those that history eventually condemns as horrific, immoral catastrophes, are always the bad fruit of gainsaying sophists who can only be convincing temporarily. The basic goodness God built into humanity eventually brings it to its senses again.

  28. 28
    sean samis says:

    vjtorley @20:

    You also dispute my premise that marriage is essentially monogamous on the grounds that polygamy has been widely tolerated. That doesn’t follow. Marriage is not a creation of human law, so the fact that the law tolerates deviant forms of marriage in many countries is irrelevant.

    If marriage is not a legal creation; if it is a social creation, then there is no basis for calling any form of it “deviant” except for your subjective rejection of it.

    The fundamental purpose of marriage as a social institution is the creation of a bond within which child-rearing can take place. …

    That is one theory, and not a persuasive one. Why should prehistoric or ancient practices govern us today? Marriage has had many purposes throughout history, and has many purposes today. These purposes are consistent with same-sex marriage.

    … And before you throw a shoe at me and ask, “What about infertile couples?”, consider this. Imagine that you arrived on a strange planet with intelligent beings who reproduced asexually. Would you expect to find an institution like marriage? I would not. …

    Well, first of all, the question of infertile couples is a legitimate one; and it undermines the claimed fundamental link between marriage and procreation.

    But more importantly; I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree: I don’t imagine that I can perform some arm-chair exercise and come up with an answer which I am so certain of that I’d impose its consequences on others. You seem more inclined to think you are able to do that.

    I have absolutely no idea what to expect from an asexual society on a planet I know nothing about. Your confident assertions are little more than science fiction, of the pulp variety.

    … If it weren’t for the fact that we reproduce sexually, marriage wouldn’t exist.

    Or so you confidently assert with absolutely no evidence but your own omphaloskepsis. Even if this navel-gazing is true (which is quite uncertain) that does not mean that societies whose members reproduce sexually benefit from a restrictive definition of marriage.

    800 years ago, St. Thomas Aquinas exist pointed out that the raising of human infants requires a heavy parental investment in their education. That’s basically why, in the case of the human animal, dads need to stick around and commit to their mother of their children. A society where fathers don’t do that is a society that’s in the process of falling apart.

    This is entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage does not interfere with fathers fulfilling their obligations.

    I might add that even in societies where polygamy is tolerated, it’s a privilege of rich guys who can afford to support two families – and, I might add, that’s what they’re expected to do. Even in Muslim countries, only about 5% of marriages are polygamous. …

    This makes polygamy a minority form of marriage, but not a deviant form.

    … Such marriages come at a cost, however: they exclude poorer men from the marriage market. Mandatory monogamy is a great leveler: it applies to rich and poor alike.

    Now you’ve changed your tune. In this statement, marriage is no longer “essentially monogamous” as you said before, now monogamy is artificially imposed on marriage for social leveling.

    I would never have thought you a Socialist or a Leveler, but then I don’t rely on my intuition as much as you do.

    sean s.

  29. 29
    sean samis says:

    Popperian @24:

    The problem for those that try to explain the growth of moral knowledge and moral problem solving though justification through an infallible source of moral standards, values or duties is that no one has explained how they can infallibly identify and interpret an infallible source in such a way that they could apply them in practice. …

    I agree. Deities cannot be a source of an “objective morality” except for those few to whom the deity may have spoken FACE-TO-FACE. Everyone else receives second-hand information (at best) and they have no way to validate what their prophet tells them. They should not regard such prophecy as “objective” or “infallible”.

    As Popperian says: Human reason must always trump supposedly “infallible sources”.

  30. 30
    Popperian says:

    @Harry#27

    The rejection of objective morality with gainsaying and sophistry such as yours leads to much human suffering that wouldn’t exist if humanity accepted the natural moral law expressed in the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments.

    I’m criticizing your explanation for the Ten Commandments, not following then. Nothing you have said, nor the existence of the Ten Commandments, conflicts with my criticism. And if it’s “sophistry”, then please explain how it is possible to infallibly identify and interpret an infallible source.

    Again, I’m pointing out that reason, in the form of deciding when to defer to the supposedly infallible source, comes first. This would include the Ten Commandments. Do you work on the Sabbath? Should one be jealous and hold children accountable for their Father’s actions to the third and fourth generations? Do other human beings belong to our neighbor?

    To present an example, are you a Calvinist? If not, why? Calvinists will point to a vast amount of scripture to support their view that God has the right to create living, sentient beings for the explicit purpose of eternal damnation. Again, once you’ve opened that door, with you being the pottery, who are you to question?

  31. 31
    harry says:

    Human reason must always trump supposedly “infallible sources”.

    Human reason must first remain rational.

    It is a “no brainer” that the Universe and the life within it were not mindless accidents. We now know that the odds of the Big Bang producing a Universe where life would become a possibility were 1 in 10^10^123 (See Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe). The double exponentiation results in a number so large that it gives the assertion that the fine-tuning of the Universe for life was intended by an intelligent agent far more certainty than we are expected to have that the laws of physics will continue to operate in a consistent manner. It is far more likely that gravity will stop working tomorrow than it is that the Universe being fine-tuned for life was dumb luck.

    Atheism’s lame, desperate, irrational response to this is multiverse theory. That response should be very enlightening to those who are genuinely agnostic regarding the existence of God. If that is the best the godless can come up with to counter the facts — countless unobservable universes with absolutely no evidentiary basis whatsoever, universes the existence of which must be taken on blind faith — then it should become obvious that only a very small and very reasonable faith is required to believe in one God, and an enormous, blind, irrational faith is required to believe in atheism’s countless, imaginary, not-so-lucky universes, required by atheistic dogma in order to make ours just as accidental as the rest, but still the universe that won the universe-tuning-lottery that some universe had to win eventually.

    And then there is the fact that the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us is life, which we now know is digital-information-based nanotechnology, and also the fact that every other instance of significant functional complexity known to us, and certainly every other instance of digital-information-based functional complexity known to us, are all known to have had intelligent agency as a causal factor in their development. One might reasonably conclude, since significant functional complexity is only known to come about via intelligent agency, that the most functionally complex phenomenon known to us — life — most likely came about through intelligent agency.

    The only causally adequate explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe and for the emergence of the life within it is intelligent agency.

    Human reason must first trump blind-faith-based, irrational adherence to atheistic dogma that modern science has rendered more irrational than ever before. Only then can one begin to consider whether there can be an infallible source, because to do so requires a rational mind.

  32. 32
    JimFit says:

    “What about infertile couples?”

    Some infertile couples cannot have children due to a problem they didn’t choose to have (etc health problems or economical problems), its not the same with homosexuals who consciously don’t have children, the majority of them doesn’t even suffer from a physical problem (etc sterility).

    Homosexuality is unnatural, there is no scientific evidence that the anus is made for sex, the physiology of homosexuals no matter what they choose was created for reproduction with a woman. Homosexuals also have a lot of problems that straight couples don’t have, that must be enough to ban not only same sex marriages but same sex relationships as well.

    “Domestic violence is the 3rd largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.” — Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

    Some straight couples also don’t have children consciously but that doesn’t change the fact that marriage exists to maintain a family. (it is an objective truth that children with divorced parents do face problems)

    People get married to create a close environment for the kid to grow up. Marriage is based on our physiology and its not something subjective, for humans its not enough to be monogamous, you must also signify to the rest of the community that you are monogamous with a woman, marriage came naturally and its based on the objective fact that children to be created you need sperm and ovum and no neo-marxist propaganda can change that..

    Popperian you ask

    When demanding the Israelites kill men, women and children in the Bible, couldn’t God have just made them disappear? Death by the sword is not necessarily quick or clean.

    Did they deserve it?

    Murder is objectively evil if you are a Christian, so…God didn’t asked this, the Israelis (if this event happened) used God as an excuse to take revenge. Since Jesus Christ is the Son of God (aka He represents God on earth), His teachings are the objective moral guide to judge which of the Old Testament stories follow God and which are not, obviously this story DOES NOT FOLLOW THE TRUTH OF GOD and therefor it is man made.

    sean sammis you said

    Deities cannot be a source of an “objective morality” except for those few to whom the deity may have spoken FACE-TO-FACE. Everyone else receives second-hand information (at best) and they have no way to validate what their prophet tells them. They should not regard such prophecy as “objective” or “infallible”.

    We can apply reason and say that since eternity is aimless the Nature of God can only be driven by unconditional love since unconditional love is aimless and compatible with eternity. Evil is incompatible with the Nature of God, evil needs a point and eternity is completely pointless.

    As Popperian says: Human reason must always trump supposedly “infallible sources”.

    Atheists put reason over faith while for atheism the Universe exists without a reason of existence. Atheists don’t believe in reason to apply reason for something…also if you believe that you are a random cosmic accident that nothingness spewed without free will your life is completely purposeless and good and evil carry purpose.

  33. 33
    sean samis says:

    JimFit @32:

    Some infertile couples…

    Irrelevant. Some same-sex couples do choose have children (by surrogacy or adoption).

    Homosexuality is unnatural, there is no scientific evidence that the anus is made for sex, the physiology of homosexuals no matter what they choose was created for reproduction with a woman. Homosexuals also have a lot of problems that straight couples don’t have, that must be enough to ban not only same sex marriages but same sex relationships as well.

    There’s plenty of evidence that homosexuality is natural, both to other species and in humans.

    But that doesn’t really matter; if sex and marriage were only about reproduction, your comments would potentially be relevant. But neither is, so they are irrelevant.

    “Domestic violence…

    Again, irrelevant.

    Some straight couples also don’t have children consciously but that doesn’t change the fact that marriage exists to maintain a family. (it is an objective truth that children with divorced parents do face problems)

    Marriage exists for many reasons, child raising is only one of them. Divorce is a red-herring; same-sex marriage does not cause divorce.

    People get married to …

    People get married for many reasons, even heterosexual people. In different times and different cultures, society had or has different expectations about what marriage means; it’s not universally the same.

    We can apply reason and say that since eternity is aimless the Nature of God can only be driven by unconditional love since unconditional love is aimless and compatible with eternity. Evil is incompatible with the Nature of God, evil needs a point and eternity is completely pointless.

    Whatever your theistic beliefs are, they cannot be derived by reason. I doubt you can even get a consensus among Christians to agree with your claims. Different religions have wildly different conceptions of their god(s); and just as reasonable as yours; sometimes they are even more reasonable than Christianity’s. There’s a reason physicists are particularly drawn to Buddhism.

    A godless, purposeless universe is about as “aimless” as you can get, so it is more compatible with your definition of eternity. Not that I’m endorsing your definition, but even so, it works for me.

    Atheists put reason over faith while for atheism the Universe exists without a reason of existence. Atheists don’t believe in reason to apply reason for something…also if you believe that you are a random cosmic accident that nothingness spewed without free will your life is completely purposeless and good and evil carry purpose.

    I’m not an atheist (I’m a doubter); but either way I know I don’t need some deity or the Universe-itself to supply a purpose to my life; I get to find that for myself.

    You may need someone to tell you “what you are for”; I do not.

    sean s.

  34. 34
    JimFit says:

    Irrelevant. Some same-sex couples do choose have children (by surrogacy or adoption).

    Irrelevant. Same-sex couples cannot have a child with each other naturally, they need a donator, straight couples need a donator only if they have health issues.

    There’s plenty of evidence that homosexuality is natural, both to other species and in humans.

    The only thing that has been observed on animals is BISEXUALITY NOT HOMOSEXUALITY and that in rare cases…on animals it has also been observed cannibalism, incest, fetishism, necrophilia and much much more that we consider immoral. Even if animals practise anal sex, it still doesn’t follow that the anus was created for sex.

    But that doesn’t really matter; if sex and marriage were only about reproduction, your comments would potentially be relevant. But neither is, so they are irrelevant.

    Marriage was created to raise a kid, because some people can create a new meaning for marriage it doesn’t follow that marriage wasn’t created to raise children. I can use scissors as a pliers but it won’t change the original use of scissors. Marriage is based on the objective truth of reproduction, gay marriage isn’t based on any objective truth.

    Again, irrelevant.

    No its not, Domestic violence is higher on gay couples and that proves that even if 2 same sex people can be together there are problems.

    Marriage exists for many reasons, child raising is only one of them. Divorce is a red-herring; same-sex marriage does not cause divorce.

    Okay please tell me other reasons people get married. What reasons they have that only marriage fulfils them?

    Whatever your theistic beliefs are, they cannot be derived by reason. I doubt you can even get a consensus among Christians to agree with your claims. Different religions have wildly different conceptions of their god(s); and just as reasonable as yours; sometimes they are even more reasonable than Christianity’s. There’s a reason physicists are particularly drawn to Buddhism.

    There is one God and there is one truth for God, because we have many opinions about God it doesn’t follow that all opinions are the same, even atheists agree that God must be good that’s why they bring evidence for their beliefs by showing that God is evil. Most religions agree that the Creator created us out of unconditional love (Yes even Buddhism), i just told you why unconditional love is the only thing that can exist on eternity.

    A godless, purposeless universe is about as “aimless” as you can get, so it is more compatible with your definition of eternity. Not that I’m endorsing your definition, but even so, it works for me.

    Eternity has no purpose, no aim, that’s why the only thing that can exist is unconditional love.

    I’m not an atheist (I’m a doubter); but either way I know I don’t need some deity or the Universe-itself to supply a purpose to my life; I get to find that for myself.

    Purpose goes ahead of your life span, you can’t have purpose while you are alive, you can only have goals when you are alive and these goals determine the purpose of your whole life when its over. Since you will be dead you need a third observer to look at your life as a whole and decide that your life had a purpose.
    The third observer that i am talking about is God, God decides if your life served the purpose that He created you.

    You may need someone to tell you “what you are for”; I do not.

    What if my purpose is to trade small children’s organs in the black market? What you said opens the door for any purpose, even a purpose that harms other people’s lives.

  35. 35
    JimFit says:

    I also want to open a parenthesis for the adoption.

    When a straight couple adopts a baby it doesn’t go against nature since the child needs a father and a mother because reproduction happens only with sperm and ovum and this has as a natural consequence father and mother, the adopted child will not understand the difference.

    Gay couples cannot raise a child normally, you can’t replace father and mother with father and father or mother and mother, quantity doesn’t replace genre differences.

    There are children that were raised by gays and missed father or mother figure like this woman here who was raised by lesbians

    “A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad,” she wrote. “I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....-marriage/

    You won’t see a child raised by a straight couple to ask for his missing second gay dad or second lesbian mom.

    Also the fact that gay couples have higher rates of Domestic violence its not a safe environment for a kid to grow up.

    No matter what we choose to do in life Nature is objectively real, the anus isn’t made for sex and the anus carries bacterial diseases.

    And as Dawkins said in an episode of the meaning of life, it is normal to feel loathing in the view of same sex kissing because it goes against our survival, it is not something that we learn from our society but something that happens unconsciously. That means that the child will learn that its something normal and at the same time it will feel disgusted, that will lead to a confused kid with psychological issues.

    Lets also not forget Homosexual-Pedophile Connection

    The Canadian government website, “Victims of Violence” defines pedophilia as a long-term mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices that include sadomasochism, transvestism, bestiality, incest and exhibitionism.

    The site also makes the important distinction between the categories of pedophiles:

    1. Homosexual pedophiles.
    2. Bi-sexual pedophiles.
    3. Heterosexual pedophiles.

    The highest proportion of pedophiles come under the category of the “homosexual pedophile.” This classification is rarely noted in the media, largely due to the fact that homosexuality is being highly promoted in North America, and any implication of it being comprised of deviant child molesters would surely damage its image and proliferation.

    “Homosexual pedophiles are responsible for 33% of all child sex offenses. Homosexuals molest children at at least 10 times the rate of heterosexuals.” – Journal of Sex Research

    The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is an activist homosexual and pedophilia coalition group. Their primary aim is stated to be the overturn of statutory rape laws and reduction of “age of consent” laws that require a child be of a certain age (which varies by state) before they can agree to sexual intercourse.

    The International Gay & Lesbian Archives, the world’s largest research collection on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered activism, has recognized several NAMBLA members for their contributions to the gay rights movement. Some of the well known atheist advocates of the North American Man-Boy Love Association are:

    1. The atheist and homosexual David Thorstad was a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

    2. Harry Hay (1912 – 2002) was a liberal atheist advocate of statutory rape and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist homosexual agenda in the United States. Hay joined the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) in 1934. He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love. In 1986, Hay marched in a gay pride parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words “NAMBLA walks with me.”

    3. The writer Samuel R. Delaney is an atheist and a homosexual. Delaney said he was a supporter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

    4. Dr. Sam Harris is a founder of the New Atheism movement. Sam Harris is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists. In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, “It’s right next to child molester as a designation.”

    Lord Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, was a homosexual and a pedophile. Tom Jeal’s The Boy-Man, a 1990 biography, details Baden-Powell’s attraction to, and likely affairs with, teenage boys, as well as his fondness for nude boy photos and requirements that Scouts in his care should bathe outside naked. Today Baden-Powell would have made the top ten on a Sex Offenders Registry list.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Pedophilia Is The Next Perversion To Become Socially Acceptable

    Under the guise of “equality” and “sexual liberation”, the public was indoctrinated to accept Homophilia (commonly known as homosexuality) as normal behaviour. Guerrilla tactics by queer extremists at APA meetings were instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders. http://bit.ly/1ji2Fep

    Pedophilia is the next deviant practice society will have to tolerate or be smeared as a bigot and hater. Time to take a stand or we’ll all soon be living in Sodom & Gomorrah.

    Normalizing Pedophilia
    http://bit.ly/1jhWEOS

    Conference aims to normalize pedophilia
    http://bit.ly/1nDA4oY

    Yes, There Is a Movement to ‘Normalize Pedophilia’
    http://bit.ly/1jwKLcX

    The Devil’s Work
    http://bit.ly/1iF336J

    Pedophile Groups:
    For all of those that agree with the laws against pedophilia, there are also thousands who believe that the laws surrounding child and adult sexual relationships should be done away with. Groups advocating these relationships can be found across North America. The most prominent group is North-American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) who states that their goal is to “end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by: building understanding and support for such relationships, educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love, cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements, supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.”

    NAMBLA is just one of many groups who advocate that sex with children is healthy, educational, and normal. One group even went as far as to say that having sex with young children will prevent them from becoming prostitutes. Advocates from these pedophile groups do not believe that children come to any harm from these practices and compare these accusations to past beliefs that masturbation would make a man insane or that women without children would go crazy. Pedophile groups are known to distribute child pornography, “educational” pamphlets, and NAMBLA has even represented men accused of child sexual assault in court all in an effort to fight against age-based discrimination.

  36. 36
    Zachriel says:

    JimFit: The only thing that has been observed on animals is BISEXUALITY NOT HOMOSEXUALITY…

    About 8% of male sheep have a homosexual orientation, while 20% are bisexual. See Roselli & Stormshak, Prenatal Programming of Sexual Partner Preference: The Ram Model, Journal of Neuroendocrinology 2010.

    See also
    http://www.dw.com/en/cold-shou...../a-1484083

    JimFit: that in rare cases…

    Bisexuality is observed in many birds and mammals, from penguins to pigeons, from bonobos to bottlenose dolphins. Moreover, your entire view of biology is very restricted. For instance, some organisms have both male and female organs (including some humans).

    JimFit: Even if animals practise anal sex, it still doesn’t follow that the anus was created for sex.

    In most birds, the cloaca acts to excrete waste as well as for sex. You seem to have a very restricted view of biological variation.

    JimFit: Marriage was created to raise a kid, because some people can create a new meaning for marriage it doesn’t follow that marriage wasn’t created to raise children.

    There were kids before formalized marriage; though many — but certainly not all — humans formed monogamous attachments.

    JimFit: Gay couples cannot raise a child normally, you can’t replace father and mother with father and father or mother and mother, quantity doesn’t replace genre differences.

    In the real world, families are the people you can count on. In many cases, that might not be a mother and father, but a grandmother, or an uncle, or even a stranger who takes you into their family. Your view of the diversity of human families seems to be just as restricted as your view of biology.
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kolya/

  37. 37
    JimFit says:

    About 8% of male sheep have a homosexual orientation, while 20% are bisexual. See Roselli & Stormshak, Prenatal Programming of Sexual Partner Preference: The Ram Model, Journal of Neuroendocrinology 2010.

    Animals in captivity show higher numbers of bisexuality but there are no homosexual animals, only bisexual, your source is not a serious one, i want to see more studies. Even if we find a homosexual animal it won’t prove that anus is made for sex, animals do a lot of unnatural things that we consider immoral. Also some “homosexual” animals have a platonic relationship without sex in it. Maybe it serves a reason.

    see also how gay penguins became straight http://gawker.com/5867621/sepa.....m-straight

    Bisexuality is observed in many birds and mammals, from penguins to pigeons, from bonobos to bottlenose dolphins. Moreover, your entire view of biology is very restricted. For instance, some organisms have both male and female organs (including some humans).

    It is observed in some rare cases in a population, there may be bisexual animals in every specie.

    Some organisms are from their nature hermaphrodite, hermaphroditism on humans is considered a birth defect and of course it doesn’t affect sexual orientation, there are hermaphrodite humans that are straight. Also not both of their sexual organs are 100% functionable.

    In most birds, the cloaca acts to excrete waste as well as for sex. You seem to have a very restricted view of biological variation.

    Its not the same structure with humans and other species that practise bisexuality.

    http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

    You compare completely different structures together, it doesn’t make sense.

    There were kids before formalized marriage; though many — but certainly not all — humans formed monogamous attachments.

    Marriage was an extension of this objective truth, that only males and females can reproduce together.

    In the real world, families are the people you can count on. In many cases, that might not be a mother and father, but a grandmother, or an uncle, or even a stranger who takes you into their family. Your view of the diversity of human families seems to be just as restricted as your view of biology.

    That doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t answer my question, it has been observed in children that are raised by gay parents to miss a father figure or a mother figure, are you saying that the children that are raised by one parent etc a grandmother or an uncle or a stranger do not miss their parents? That would be false to believe it. If they could choose they would choose to raise their parents to life to be with them.

  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    JimFit: your source is not a serious one

    Handwaving.

    JimFit: Some organisms are from their nature hermaphrodite, hermaphroditism on humans is considered a birth defect

    It’s only considered a birth defect by some because of the social stigma.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw

    JimFit: and of course it doesn’t affect sexual orientation, there are hermaphrodite humans that are straight.

    Heh. You’re funny.

    JimFit: That doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t answer my question, it has been observed in children that are raised by gay parents to miss a father figure or a mother figure, are you saying that the children that are raised by one parent etc a grandmother or an uncle or a stranger do not miss their parents?

    If they knew their parents, then sure. Maybe they died. Maybe they left. It doesn’t mean orphans can’t form new attachments. It turns out that families have always been diverse.

    JimFit: there may be bisexual animals in every specie.

    So homosexual behavior is rampant. Glad you agree.

  39. 39
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel is back and still misrepresenting its opponents. Life is good.

  40. 40
    Eugen says:

    Looks like commissar Zachriel is back promoting homosexual lifestyle (his favorite perhaps?) practiced by insignificant percentage of humans.

  41. 41
    sean samis says:

    JimFit @34:

    Same-sex couples cannot have a child with each other naturally…

    Which has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

    The only thing that has been observed on animals is BISEXUALITY NOT HOMOSEXUALITY and…

    Umm, excuse me, but we are animals; homosexuality has been observed in us, and it’s natural.

    Marriage was created to raise a kid, because some people can create a new meaning for marriage it doesn’t follow that marriage wasn’t created to raise children.

    Marriage originates in the distant and undocumented past. Theories for what marriage was “created for” in that unknowable past are mere self-serving speculation.

    Marriage in historic, documented times, and in the US has been “for” many things, and never exclusively about child raising.

    Domestic violence is higher on gay couples and…

    Which has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Okay please tell me other reasons people get married. What reasons they have that only marriage fulfils them?

    Companion ship, mutual support, love, the legal and economic benefits, etc.

    It does not matter whether marriage is required to fulfill these, these are reasons people choose to marry. No one needs your permission to get married.

    There is one God and there is…

    You’re entitled to your religious opinions; no one is required to agree or to submit to them.

    You don’t have the right to impose your religious ideas on others.

    Eternity has no purpose, no aim, that’s why the only thing that can exist is unconditional love.

    More religious blather. Neither purpose nor aim are required for existence; things only need to exist.

    Purpose goes ahead of your life span, you can’t have purpose while you are alive, you can only have goals when you are alive and these goals determine the purpose of your whole life when its over. Since you will be dead you need a third observer to look at your life as a whole and decide that your life had a purpose. … The third observer that i am talking about is God, God decides if your life served the purpose that He created you.

    Your religious opinion which I happily ignore. The purpose of my life does not need the judgement of any third person.

    What if my purpose is to trade small children’s organs in the black market? What you said opens the door for any purpose, even a purpose that harms other people’s lives.

    Then you purpose is evil. Nothing I said legitimizes evil.

    Regarding your “parentheses on adoption I’ll only say that it is a pile of unsubstantiated claims, irrelevancies and demagoguery. It is foolish and contemptible nonsense.

    Regarding #37;

    I don’t care whether homosexuality is found in other animals or not. Other animals don’t read, does that make reading evil?

    Marriage was an extension of this objective truth, that only males and females can reproduce together.

    No. In historic times, marriage has served many purposes, of which child-raising is only one. In prehistoric times, we just don’t know.

    …it has been observed in children that are raised by gay parents to miss a father figure or a mother figure…

    Children adopted and raised by different-sex parents miss their biological parents to. There is no evidence that same-sex couples have a greater problem with this.

    sean s.

  42. 42
    Eugen says:

    sean is lecturing us:
    “You don’t have the right to impose your religious ideas on others.”

    And you don’t have the right to impose your secular ideas on others. Especially when they are harmful for the human race like promoting the killing of tiny humans or promoting homosexuality. Why are you so intolerant sean?

  43. 43
    Andre says:

    Sean is intolerant because we’ve been tolerant with him. You see tolerance breeds intolerance. Sean like every other atheist, liberal, relavist call them what you like have a say today because Christians have become pansies when it comes to truth, we’ve allowed irrational, unreasonable and illogical people to have a platform. That is why Sean is intolerant we made him so.

  44. 44
    sean samis says:

    Eugen @42:

    And you don’t have the right to impose your secular ideas on others. Especially when they are harmful for the human race… Why are you so intolerant sean?

    I’m not imposing anything on you. I’m defending others from your attempts to limit their religious liberty because you don’t approve of them.

    You do with your life what you want, and let others do with theirs as they want; in what way is that “intolerant”?

    If you can demonstrate actual harm to the human race caused by same-sex marriage, you’ll be the first.

    sean s.

  45. 45
    sean samis says:

    Andre @43:

    Since I’m not an atheist, liberal, nor moral relativist; I guess I can disregard most of your comment.

    Neither you Andre, nor Eugen, seem to know what the word “intolerant” means. Protecting other people from your impositions is exactly the opposite of “intolerance”.

    You do with your life what you want, and let others do with theirs as they want.

    sean s.

  46. 46
    Andre says:

    No matter how much you want to make it seem natural a cock and a cock just don’t work…..

    A cock and a hen that is a different story.

    But why is homosexuality not good for humans? I’ll give you the evolutionary answer. Survival of the fittest is how nature works right? Since there is no survival benefits in being homosexual, it would be natural to classify gays as defects. Defects are disposable and Eugenics is acceptable to remove these weaklings that have no benefit to the population from the population.

    Ever notice in nature animals that eat other animals go for the young, old and infirm…..

  47. 47
    JimFit says:

    Which has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

    I never said it did.

    Umm, excuse me, but we are animals; homosexuality has been observed in us, and it’s natural.

    No we are not animals because we have differences and no anus isn’t made for sex. Show me a study that proves the opposite.

    http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

    Marriage originates in the distant and undocumented past. Theories for what marriage was “created for” in that unknowable past are mere self-serving speculation.

    Its not a theory that marriage was created to raise a child , it is a proven fact, we don’t need documents, we are the same humans as our ancestors with the same needs, if you want to find the objective reason that we get married it is written in our DNA, it is called reproduction.

    Marriage in historic, documented times, and in the US has been “for” many things, and never exclusively about child raising.

    I am not talking about subjective reasons that we create to get married such as tax relief, i am talking about objective reasons, reasons that apply to the whole human race.

    Which has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

    Violence and AIDS are two objective reasons to ban not only same sex marriage but same sex acts as well. Science has proved that there are negative consequences when 2 same sex people get together while that rarely happens on straight couples. The most important problem straight couples face are financial problems and financial problems are subjective to each country while AIDS and domestic violence have no boundaries. It is dangerous to have anal sex in any part of the world and domestic violence probably exist because nature doesn’t “approve” same sex coupling.

    Companion ship, mutual support, love, the legal and economic benefits, etc.

    All of these reasons are subjective not objective. Different country different economic benefits or no benefits, love doesn’t need marriage to exist, companion ship doesn’t need marriage to exist, mutual support doesn’t need marriage to exist. The only objective reason to get married is when a child comes to life, marriage exist for the child NOT for the couple, it offers the child a closed enviroment that helps nurture.

    It does not matter whether marriage is required to fulfill these, these are reasons people choose to marry. No one needs your permission to get married.

    Gay marriage affects the rest of society, because we legalize sodomy it doesn’t follow that the bacteria in the anus suddenly will become less infectious.

    You don’t have the right to impose your religious ideas on others.

    Not ideas, proven facts that are connected with our existence. We are here because we were created by a transcendent God (since everything physical began to exist). God is one because He is Eternal (you can’t use plural on something infinite.). By knowing all these information we can make reasonable conclusions,etc we can say why evil doesn’t exist in God’s Nature…atheists do that, they usually ask why God created Adam and Eve if He already knew that they will sin. You seem to think that because God said that something is evil it is not possible to find out why, well, that’s wrong, we are the images of God and we can reach the reason behind it.

    More religious blather. Neither purpose nor aim are required for existence; things only need to exist.

    If we were created there was already a purpose prior to our existence and its not a product of need since we didn’t exist to have needs. You seem to agree with me bellow… (keep reading…)

    You write this as a response

    Your religious opinion which I happily ignore. The purpose of my life does not need the judgement of any third person.

    and then you contradict yourself by saying this

    Then you purpose is evil. Nothing I said legitimizes evil.

    Who judges if something is objectively good or evil?
    Only God can judge if the purpose of your life was good or evil since humans does not carry objective truth, morality becomes an opinion if humans are the creators of morality, so…if someone had the purpose to earn money by trading small children’s organs in the black market he hasn’t have an evil purpose, he has only a purpose. When you judge someone’s purpose you need an authority.

    Regarding your “parentheses on adoption” I’ll only say that it is a pile of unsubstantiated claims, irrelevancies and demagoguery. It is foolish and contemptible nonsense.

    No they are not.

    I don’t care whether homosexuality is found in other animals or not. Other animals don’t read, does that make reading evil?

    You seem to think that because we have homosexuals that makes them natural, well…no…please find me a study that proves that anus was made for sex. Even if we find homosexual monogamous animals it doesn’t follow that anus is made for sex.

    Marriage was an extension of this objective truth, that only males and females can reproduce together.

    No. In historic times, marriage has served many purposes, of which child-raising is only one. In prehistoric times, we just don’t know.

    These purposes are not objective, they are subjective. Also it doesn’t follow that because these reasons exist it makes homosexuals equitable to them.

    Children adopted and raised by different-sex parents miss their biological parents to. There is no evidence that same-sex couples have a greater problem with this.

    That proves what i said, children always need to meet their biological parents. But lets say that a kid wasn’t able to learn that it has been adopted, this kid won’t get suspicious to go out and search for his biological parents while a kid that is being raised by gays will always know that it hasn’t been produced by their offspring since its impossible for 2 men and 2 men to produce any offspring!

    Again quantity doesn’t replace genre differences, its ridiculous to support that nurture will be the same with same sex parents, we even have proof that children search for mother and father figures even if they never met them.

  48. 48
    Andre says:

    You don’t have a clue what intolerance is…..

  49. 49
    Eugen says:

    Good point Andre.

    sean

    You atheists, liberals, communists, feminists, activists, commissars …..usurped political power, media and entertainment so now you have a massive pulpit to promote your intolerant secular religion. You are jailing us, shutting down our businesses, fining us, intimidating us, brainwashing us etc for not conforming to your ideas. All in the name of tolerance?

    saunessy, you are a bigot.

  50. 50
    Daniel King says:

    You atheists, liberals, communists, feminists, activists, commissars …..usurped political power, media and entertainment so now you have a massive pulpit to promote your intolerant secular religion. You are jailing us, shutting down our businesses, fining us, intimidating us, brainwashing us etc for not conforming to your ideas. All in the name of tolerance?

    You seem to have a lot of enemies, Eugen.

    How has that affected your life?

  51. 51
    Eugen says:

    Daniel, I’m allowed to have one atheist,Communist, liberal, etc friend. You can be the one.

  52. 52
    Andre says:

    Daniel King

    You are by no means an enemy, just a confused person that has been swallowed up by the nonsense the world is selling.

    How can I ever make something as exquisitely designed as you are an enemy? You are engineered like nothing else in the known universe. You are not my enemy.

  53. 53
    sean samis says:

    JimFit @47:

    No we are not animals because we have differences and no anus isn’t made for sex. Show me a study that proves the opposite.

    Chuckle. All animals “have differences”, including us. What the anus is made for has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. No other structure of the human body (that I can think of) has just one purpose, why should the anus? It is wired to provide orgasms…

    Its not a theory that marriage was created to raise a child , it is a proven fact, …

    OK; where is this proof of what was intended in the distant past before history was recorded?

    … we don’t need documents, …

    But we do need evidence. Cite the evidence that in the dim and distant past, marriage was created for child raising and nothing else.

    …we are the same humans as our ancestors with the same needs, if you want to find the objective reason that we get married it is written in our DNA, it is called reproduction.

    We are also OBJECTIVELY social creatures that bond for mutual support and happiness; and that has always been. Even without children.

    I am not talking about subjective reasons that we create to get married such as tax relief, i am talking about objective reasons, reasons that apply to the whole human race.

    Social bonding, mutual support, love; these apply to the whole human race. There are even objective economic benefits from two persons sharing the same household.

    All of these reasons are subjective not objective.

    Actually, the benefits of companionship, mutual support, love, legal and economic benefits, etc. are objective. They are quite real.

    Different country different economic benefits or no benefits,

    But in every country, there are benefits beyond just what the government provides.

    …love doesn’t need marriage to exist, companion ship doesn’t need marriage to exist, mutual support doesn’t need marriage to exist.

    It doesn’t matter if these things need marriage to exist, they are reasons people choose to marry, both same-sex and different-sex couples. They don’t need your permission.

    The only objective reason to get married is when a child comes to life, marriage exist for the child NOT for the couple, it offers the child a closed enviroment that helps nurture.

    Companionship, mutual support, love, and legal and economic benefits are objective reasons.

    Gay marriage affects the rest of society, because we legalize sodomy it doesn’t follow that the bacteria in the anus suddenly will become less infectious.

    OK. So if you are that worried, don’t engage in sodomy. Problem Solved.

    Not ideas, proven facts that are …

    More religious blather that the rest of us are free to ignore.

    Who judges if something is objectively good or evil?

    The same folks who’ve been doing it since the beginning of time: people. If some god wants to weigh in, I’d happily listen, but so far none have. Lots of folks CLAIM to speak for some god, but none can prove they actually do. So far, every judgment we have about what’s right or wrong has been made by a human being. Some claim to speak for some god, but it’s always a human being doing the talking.

    …humans does not carry objective truth, morality becomes an opinion if humans are the creators of morality, so…

    Human reasoning from facts is as objective as anything can be; and as objective as anything needs to be.

    If human reasoning is not good enough for you, then your claims about your God are all subjective claims, and just opinions.

    When you judge someone’s purpose you need an authority.

    That’s why we should avoid judging a person’s purpose. We can judge the effects or apparent intent of their actions, but we should avoid judging the actor.

    You seem to think that because we have homosexuals that makes them natural, well…no…please find me a study that proves that anus was made for sex. Even if we find homosexual monogamous animals it doesn’t follow that anus isn’t made for sex.

    Homosexuality occurs naturally in humans. No structure of the human body has only one purpose; the anus included. If the anus is not intended for sex, why is it wired to cause sexual gratification (A.K.A. orgasm)?

    Or did God screw-up?

    …children always need to meet their biological parents. But lets say that a kid wasn’t able to learn that it has been adopted, this kid won’t get suspicious to go out and search for his biological parents while a kid that is being raised by gays will always know that it hasn’t been produced by their offspring

    So…you’re saying we should lie to adoptive children? And not tell them they are adopted?

    A child adopted by a same-sex couple will always know their parents CHOSE THEM, loves them. That’s pretty nice.

    …we even have proof that children search for mother and father figures even if they never met them.

    I’m sure adoptive children miss their biological parents, but that happens whether they are adopted by a different-sex or same-sex couple. So it amounts to nothing in this controversy.

    It’s very clear from your comments that you strongly disapprove of homosexual conduct. That’s your right, but it’s the right of others to ignore your discomfort and live their lives as they see fit so long as they are not harming others.

    It’s clear that you think homosexual conduct is “objectively” harmful, but that is just your subjective opinion. If it were objectively harmful, you could provide evidence stronger than just theories. But the reason the courts and the American people have come to support recognizing same-sex marriage is that the evidence of harm simply is not there. We haven’t all suddenly gotten stupid, we just don’t share your disgust at the idea of homosexual conduct.

    sean s.

  54. 54
    sean samis says:

    Andre @48:

    You don’t have a clue what intolerance is…..

    Sure I do:

    in·tol·er·ance noun: intolerance; plural noun: intolerances

    unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own. Ex: “a struggle against religious intolerance”
    synonyms: bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, illiberality, parochialism, provincialism

    Oh Look! That’s YOU!

    I have no objection to anyone’s views, beliefs or behavior; I only object to efforts to impose views, beliefs, or behaviors on others.

    Believe what you want. Leave the rest of us alone.

    sean s.

  55. 55
    sean samis says:

    Eugen @49:

    You atheists, liberals, communists, feminists, activists, commissars …..usurped political power, …

    Well, I’m not an atheist, nor a liberal, nor a communist, nor a feminist, nor an activist or commissar, so I guess I don’t need to worry too much about this.

    If wanting you to leave others alone, or wanting you to mind your own business, or if I stand up for the outsider or the despised person; if any of that makes me a bigot, then I embrace the term. It’s a habit leftover from when I was a Christian.

    sean s.

  56. 56
    JimFit says:

    sean samis

    Chuckle. All animals “have differences”, including us.

    What differs an animal from a non animal?

    What the anus is made for has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. No other structure of the human body (that I can think of) has just one purpose, why should the anus? It is wired to provide orgasms…

    Same sex marriage goes against the Golden Rule because it harms people

    Dangers for having anal sex

    *Bacterial diseases that transmit to innocent victims such as syphilis
    *Cancer
    *Irreparable damage of the anus and bleeding
    *Lack of lubricant helps transmission of diseases like AIDS

    “HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it.” — Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center

    Also Domestic violence is a lot higher on gay couples and that affects them and the child they will adopt, it also affects the economy since police and judges will need more time for these incidents and that cost money.

    OK; where is this proof of what was intended in the distant past before history was recorded?

    The proof is that people always had children. Marriage is an extension of the truth that is called reproduction, marriage exist to bound parents and keep nurture as long as possible. Studies have shown that people that have children and are married think twice to break up and children of divorced parents have a lot of issues so children need their parents together until they are adults.

    Social bonding, mutual support, love; these apply to the whole human race. There are even objective economic benefits from two persons sharing the same household.

    Again all of these reasons are subjective not objective. Two people sharing the same house has advantages and disadvantages. All these are subjective and can happen without marriage.

    Actually, the benefits of companionship, mutual support, love, legal and economic benefits, etc. are objective. They are quite real.

    You can have these without marriage. I know a lot of couples that they have them.

    OK. So if you are that worried, don’t engage in sodomy. Problem Solved.

    The problem is that sodomy affects me. A bisexual guy has HIV that took it from a gay and transmits it to a woman that have sex with me. There are also a lot of other bacterial diseases product of anal sex that transmit with blood or saliva. Again, its not a personal thing.

    More religious blather that the rest of us are free to ignore.

    You seem to think that religion doesn’t affect you when God and you are related, you are part of His creation, its not religion, its existential truth. If you were created and i proved that you were created it is reasonable to ask “Why?”. Even if you don’t care the why is still there.

    The same folks who’ve been doing it since the beginning of time: people. If some god wants to weigh in, I’d happily listen, but so far none have. Lots of folks CLAIM to speak for some god, but none can prove they actually do. So far, every judgement we have about what’s right or wrong has been made by a human being. Some claim to speak for some god, but it’s always a human being doing the talking.

    Jesus was anointed by God to teach us the truth of Man, His teachings shaped our morality and since Jesus was anointed by God and He proved it with the miracles and the Resurrection his teachings become objective. Morality is discovered by humans as the objective truth of the world, it is not created from scratch. Morality precedes human beings, the Golden Rule is transcendent, it would be immoral to hurt you in any space and in any time, time doesn’t determine morality to say that morality first existed when humans appeared on earth 100.000 years ago, before 1.000.000 years it was still immoral to hurt you.

    Human reasoning from facts is as objective as anything can be; and as objective as anything needs to be.

    Something reasonable can be objectively evil.
    Reason doesn’t determine objective morality. Facts doesn’t show if something is objectively good or evil.

    If human reasoning is not good enough for you, then your claims about your God are all subjective claims, and just opinions.

    God is incapable to do evil and that makes Him objectively Good, humans are capable to do evil, evil can be reasonable. For God evil is unreasonable because evil is tied to sciolism and God is Omniscience.

    Homosexuality occurs naturally in humans.

    No its not. No genetic foundation has been found. There are also a lot of ex gays- ex lesbians, there are no ex blacks. Sexuality is plastic and is determined by external factors. Children that have been raped have higher possibility to become gays.

    No structure of the human body has only one purpose; the anus included.

    random words

    If the anus is not intended for sex, why is it wired to cause sexual gratification (A.K.A. orgasm)?

    Orgasm is the release of sperm to the ovum, sexual stimulation exist for reproduction. Even if nature created us to have orgasms, anal sex offers artificial orgasms, gay people must search for the prostate to achieve orgasm,you must know anatomy, it does not happen simply by penetration and as i already said it doesn’t make them natural because it doesn’t lead to offspring and because it is artificial. If anus was intended for sex why it has very little lubrication, why is wounded and bleeds from penetration, why penetration can cause cancer and why it carries so many diseases

    So…you’re saying we should lie to adoptive children? And not tell them they are adopted?

    No, i said that it won’t make any difference for the child to grow with surrogate parents, you cheat nature while a gay couple cannot cheat nature, children will always search for a father figure or a mother figure. Also Domestic violence and AIDS are higher on gay couples and that makes them unsuitable for raising children.

    It’s clear that you think homosexual conduct is “objectively” harmful, but that is just your subjective opinion. If it were objectively harmful, you could provide evidence stronger than just theories. But the reason the courts and the American people have come to support recognizing same-sex marriage is that the evidence of harm simply is not there. We haven’t all suddenly gotten stupid, we just don’t share your disgust at the idea of homosexual conduct.

    I already did.

    Anus isn’t made for sex.
    Domestic violence is much higher on gay couples.
    Children need a father and a mother figure.

    These reasons are OBJECTIVELY TRUE. No matter what law they will bring in. No matter if 100% of the American people vote yes.

Leave a Reply