Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Elections' started by MiamiAce, Nov 3, 2004.
Glad I could help.
In Genesis 1:28 where it says "God blessed them (Adam and Eve) and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."
That's a command . Now obviously I don't think that married couples without kids are sinning, but it was a command to set in motion the natural order of things. In the Bible it's always pretty clear that procreation is the natural result of marriage of "being one flesh".
I don't think you'll find anywhere in the Bible where it says to love children more than each other. but by that, what do you mean? Isn't making a sacrifice of any type for your children an act of love? that same goes true for your spouse. The Bible does spend a great deal of time talking about the family unit (Ephesians 4). It does assign certain responsibilities to each member of the family (Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; conversely, children obey your parents.) It does not separate children from spouse.
I should have stopped reading right here, as it counters the day and a half I spent in an anthropology class my freshman year in college.
So many assumptions just right here alone.
Dude or dudette, there's 6 BILLION + ppl on the planet. I think we got the whole "go forth and procreate" thang down. There comes a time when mankind has to take a realistic look at the planet's capacity to sustain our way of life.
In fact, Jesus should come back to earth and re-create society by creating a new creation story: "in Y2K, God created Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve." And we'd be plenty fine population-wise.
Let's see, from those 82 minutes of lecture, why do ppl get married... I don't know... PROPERTY?
How about the right to carry out their partner's wishes? To carry out their estate?
Please go out and edumacate ya'self jus' a lil', o.k.?
Certainly. There would surely be a few deviants out there performing heterosexual sex to propagate the species.
Ever since I read "The Limits to Growth" about 30 years ago, I've thought that overpopulation is the most serious problem facing humankind. Bush and Kerry said nuclear proliferation in the debates, but we'd recover from a nuclear catastrophe over time. The real issue is running out of resources.
If some couples marry and are childless, that's okay, there are plenty of other people around. If they have one child, I hope they love him/her and raise them well. If they have two children, that's okay too, it's replacemnt level. Raise them well and we should have a good next generation. Beyond that, we shouldn't encourage large families with tax breaks and other government subsidies.
If the population in Italy drops a little bit because they're not reproducing at replacement level, it's okay; there are plenty of excess people in Asia and Africa. Of course at the same time, we should promote population control measures in those overburdened places.
It seems really odd to me that those who wish to stop abortion also tend to oppose family planning. If there were effective family planning, there would be no need for abortions.
In Europe, the population thing is not just a minor issue. It is a serious crisis, especially in Spain and Russia. The quote I gave, the "species" thing, was from an English newspaper several years ago. Unfortunately I have no way of finding the link because I heard it quoted at a lecture. Russia, despite rising immigration, is losing 1 million people a year. Their population right now is about 180 million. So theoretically, by 2200 Russians will be extinct unless something changes. The average family has less than one child. Another point about Russia, that some experts believe that several parts of Russia, by the year 2020, will have 1/4 of the population HIV positive. Homosexuality is not prevelant there but family values have degenerated and this is the result.
So people should get married for property? Like a business merger? I accept that people do that. It's obvious based on the high divorce rates. But why should the government give benefits for that?
As someone pointed out, the commandment to procreate was one of the very first commandments given to mankind. They were told not to eat the fruit, and to procreate. So it's not a big deal if one continent dies off, is that what you're all saying? I can see what you're saying. It's not a big deal to lose an arm or a leg either. You can just get an artificial one. It will make things more comfortable for all us if there's less people. Why not? Going back to Russia, their economy is struggling, not only because the workforce is dying off but that's one major factor. And when 1/4 of them have AIDS, how are they going pay for health care? What's the quality of life? Russia is a country with an outstanding education system and immense natural resources. But their values regarding the basic unit of society keep them as a third world country? They haven't always been a third world country. If family values continue to degenerate in America, the same thing will happen.
If two people get married but choose not to have children, I think it's unfortunate as they are missing out on one of the key reasons for their own existence, but they aren't "evil" or anything. But if they aren't going to have kids, should they be recieving the benefits designed to help those whose intent is to raise children. Especially in our economy, 2 people can live together and sustain themselves easily without the aid of marital benefits. Obviously millions of people do it. Raising a family is an economic, physical and psychological load that is very difficult to bear. Whatever help the government can give to those bearing that load should be extended.
Someone made the quote "this is 2004, not 1004." If people in 1004 had felt the way you do, you wouldn't be here. Why did the family all of the sudden lose its value? Have we become too good for families? Are they now unecessary because we have the internet or something? What exactly has changed that has made family values unimportant to a healthy society? We have existed for thousands of years on this planet. We have tried countless forms of government and different social regimes. The one thing that has been consistent is that the family has been the basic unit of society. Why all of a sudden has this changed, that we don't need to build families and we are perfectly well off without them?
Something I forgot. the question was asked "which is worse, gay's raising kids, couple with no kids, couple with kids who get divorced, or couple who beats their kids." I may not be remembering that exactly, but it doesn't really matter. Why should we settle for any handicaps regarding the raising of our kids, the future generation? Why shouldn't we do everything we can to ensure that every child grows up in a loving family with a mother and a father?
If people do what the Bible says, and I'm pretty sure the Koran says the same thing, and abstain from sexual relations before marriage, hold complete fidelity within marriage, love your children and your spouse and make your role as a spouse/parent a top priority in your life, than this is possible. Unfortunately not everyone believes this or acts this way, nor will they ever. If they did we wouldn't be having this discussion. But just because they don't doesn't mean the standard should be changed. The problem with the attitude which so many of you have that morals are relative is that all laws have to be based on some moral. If you think it's wrong for the majority of the population to force their morals on you by voting for these laws, then you should also think it's wrong for the government to enforce laws about drug abuse, all other abuse and violence, theft, speeding, jaywalking, or any other law out there. We've seen the way some cultures treat women. What if those people lived in America? Should we do anything about it? After all, it's our moral, not theirs that women should be treated equally and not abused. If you believe the government of the people shouldn't have the right to enforce morals, than you should think that the North was out of line by fighting the Civil War, instead of just letting the southern states live by their own standards. What did the North care who's picking what? What do you care who's smoking what? They're only hurting themselves right?
If that attitude was held by many people, our society would be a complete chaos. We would destroy ourselves. You all have the right to disagree with my values and believe in something else. But you can't complain about those morals being "forced upon you" because that is what democracy is. We, the majority in this issue, feel that traditional marriage is essential to a society's well-being and so we want that moral to be enforced by law for the good of society. Some day we may be in the minority, and we would have to accept that. It wouldn't change the destructive effects, as we see it, of that behavior. It would only tear down one of the few barriers we have to preventing the consequences of that behavior.
Putting aside the racial angle, we need a growing population to pay in to Social Security.
Is there any evidence that adopted children are worse off going to gay couples than straight couples?
What I found laughable was your 'people that have not been scientifically proven to be naturally categorized' sentence. Good God.
People should take this out of the 'is this morally right or wrong' context. The question should be: is there a legal form in which two people can establish a partnership without getting married. Whether those two people are gay or straight is pretty irrelevant to me. So when you think it is perfectly fine that a straight couple living together has the same rights as a married couple, I can't see how you can deny that same right to gay couples.
I think the question should be: are children better off in the home of a specific gay couple or in a children's home.
There's the "United States of Canada" and Jesusland. I want a third country, Idontgiveafukistan. I'm so sick of gay marraige and all of these cultural issues that the nutty liberals and right-wingers shove down our throats every day. I dunno, maybe it's me, but I think 1 in 5 kids growing up in poverty is just a little more important than if Adam and Steve can get a marriage license and eventually pay for two divorce attorneys' summer vacations.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the gay marriage thing is key for many US voters, in the sense that it stops them from voting for the democrats. So I guess it is important in that sense. But I do agree that fighting poverty is far more important.
interesting that this point is being brought up because i think that a main reason that Gay Marriage is a bigger issue than poverty is because of the notion that fighting the moral bancruptcy of the country is more important than actual financial bancruptcy..
I'm beginning to blame both sides equally. It's not like the right-wingers came up with this issue this time around. It was the liberals, who didn't even have the sense to wait until after the Presidential election.
Some of us think 1 in 5 children growing up in poverty IS moral bankruptcy. God knows we've got the resources to avoid this AND it costs more in the long run to have so many kids in poverty. Just like it costs a lot more in the long run to have our Darwinistic health care system.
Tactically it wasn't a very good move, I agree.
sokol, I don't think you understand how geometric progressions work, and how those relate to birth rate. And how birth rate varies over time.
You do realize, that since the dawn of time, there has never been this "utopia" society that you (as an anglo christian) want so badly and think is so "right"? Back in 1004, most people got married for property rights. If we had stayed in your lovely 1004, men would still be beating and raping women on a regular basis, we would still have slavery, and someone could ransack your whole country just because they felt like it!
You know, i really think your last paragraph says a lot. Someday you WILL (not might be, but will) be in the minority. And that scares white christian males (and their female counterparts to an extent) more than anything. The fact that not everyone in the world thinks the way you do, and you may not reap the benefits of a society that is already in your back pocket.
People have advanced for a reason. They have gotten more intellligent. They've realized that in order to survive we have to work together, regardless of our differences. That "my way" isn't necessarily the "right way". I'm sure all of the people that used to beat their women and their slaves thought they were doing it because their God said that was ok (gotta keep em in line!) -- but you know what? maybe they were wrong!
I firmly believe that if God had not wanted us to evolve, he wouldn't have given us the beautiful brains that he did.
Every time you masturbate, you're killing babies.
And people wonder why we're thinking of leaving the USA. It's because nutcases like Sokol are running the country right now, and will for many years to come. We have become a religious nation, and it's not pretty.
Again, more religious nutcases telling people how to live our lives.
I always wonder about people like Sokol paying tribute to the family as the cornerstone of society. What's the divorce rate in the US again? How many perfect (in the eyes of right wing religious extremists) families are there exactly? And to me, a family where dad works 80 hours a week and never pays any attention to his kids is on the same level as a single parent family. Fact is the entire concept of the conventional family is outdated. Live with it or move to some remote island off Antarctica, call it Eutopia and start your own community.
I guess after this election, polygmy is out of the question.
These projections that whites will be a "minority" in 2050 are misleading. First, you can't be a minority when you're by far the largest group. Even by 2050, the next largest group will only be half the size of the "white" population. Second, this assumes Hispanics will stay in their own category, which is unclear. Of course, high rates of intermarriage could make a lot of these distinctions meaningless.