Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Fragony]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-signals-inter-religion-alliance-against-gay-marriage-134816225.html

Gay marriage shouldn't have to be recognised by the church imho, but to campaign against it is wrong. Yes I know I used to be against it as well and I admit that that was pretty idiotic of me, mea culpa, but at least I fully recognise it when I have been wrong. I know better now and made a u-turn. That the catholic church somehow still manages to claim the role of moral authority after all the sex-scandals and leeching on EU handouts is kinda starting to seriously anger me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If people can campaign for it, why can't people campaign against?

[rajpoot]

Do the Pope and his office even have any serious influence any more?
As a famous public figure he should've probably tried to maintain a more tolerant stance about such an issue, but even if he does not, how much real harm can come of it? I doubt there're many people who are still so devout as to get influenced. A minority maybe, but luckily minorities can be outvoted when their demands are silly.

[Fragony]

If people can campaign for it, why can't people campaign against?

Because they aren't looking for the acknowedgment of the church mostly, those that do tresspass but that's another matter. Gay couples still can'tbenifit from taxcuts that are normal for everybody else

[Ronin]

being wrong is what the church does.
it's kind of a tradition thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If people can campaign for it, why can't people campaign against?

Kill people who disagree with your morals. Great idea frag. I support the Catholic church and agree with them on gay marriage. Again, end the civil institution and keep religion and spirituality out of our government and the compromise is made. We don't have to recognize one type of monogamous sexual relationship as deserving of tax benefits. Keep the dependent breaks in there, allow transfer of benefits to one person of your choosing irrespective of gender or relationship and let that be the end of it. My catholic marriage will not be affected and I won't be forced to recognize n amoral sexual relationship as special, above other types of relationships

[Fragony]

Kill people who disagree with your morals. Great idea frag. I support the Catholic church and agree with them on gay marriage. Again, end the civil institution and keep religion and spirituality out of our government and the compromise is made. We don't have to recognize one type of monogamous sexual relationship as deserving of tax benefits. Keep the dependent breaks in there, allow transfer of benefits to one person of your choosing irrespective of gender or relationship and let that be the end of it. My catholic marriage will not be affected and I won't be forced to recognize n amoral sexual relationship as special, above other types of relationships

You can keep all that. Just don't actively be against it where it doesn't concern you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You can keep all that. Just don't actively be against it where it doesn't concern you.

Of course it concerns me. The core of the issue is tax and entitlement benefits. Am I concerned that Methodists and Anglicans are sanctioning these things? Sure, it is ammoral. Do I have a right to do anything about it? No. Do I lose sleep over it? No.

It is precisely because it does affect me and you that it is a national/western issue. Otherwise they wouldn't require my consent to make it happen. Civil Marriage represents a societal value of a particular type of relationship. It made sense when we all valued it (which is a fantasy as people have always treated it with contempt, just now more than ever). Again, why the government has anything to do with giving me a medal for repeatedly diddling my wife makes no sense to me. Dependant tax breaks? Makes sense. The current existence of marriage in civil code is anachronistic. Single men and women raising children don't get support from the current tax structure. Married couples are now comprised almost universally of 2 income households. It is a tax break that ushers in our complicity in issues that do not concern us from a legal point of view and are an affront to us personally. Spiritually? Yes these things do matter, but I'm, not in favor of enforcing spirituality through secular law, one way or the other.

[Fragony]

You have your opinion on it that's fine with me, I agree that hetero couples should get priority with adoption by the way.

[Beskar]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think we do need to reassess the civil legislation surrounding marriage, since the social structure has changed so drastically in the last few decades. And has been said a big part of this is the fact that nowadays often both partners make large contributions to their combined incomes.

I'm not sure that denying privileges like tax breaks to homosexual couples is discrimination as such, but to be fair, it is pretty unfair towards them. It's not so much that the current system discriminates against them, as that it just doesn't take them into consideration. They are a part of society to.

Although being left out like this isn't so much exclusive to homosexual couples as it is inclusive of everybody who isn't in a heterosexual partnership. Single folk don't get an easy time of it and that's not really fair to them. I swear, under this Tory government if you are under 25, single, and have no kids, they will let you shrivel up and die before they help you out.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Do the Pope and his office even have any serious influence any more?
As a famous public figure he should've probably tried to maintain a more tolerant stance about such an issue, but even if he does not, how much real harm can come of it? I doubt there're many people who are still so devout as to get influenced. A minority maybe, but luckily minorities can be outvoted when their demands are silly.

In Italy? Yes, they do. In fact, the very existence of the Vatican is the concession of that fact by Mussolini -- and the Vatican continues to have an active hand in Italian politics to this day.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think we do need to reassess the civil legislation surrounding marriage, since the social structure has changed so drastically in the last few decades. And has been said a big part of this is the fact that nowadays often both partners make large contributions to their combined incomes.

I'm not sure that denying privileges like tax breaks to homosexual couples is discrimination as such, but to be fair, it is pretty unfair towards them. It's not so much that the current system discriminates against them, as that it just doesn't take them into consideration. They are a part of society to.

Although being left out like this isn't so much exclusive to homosexual couples as it is inclusive of everybody who isn't in a heterosexual partnership. Single folk don't get an easy time of it and that's not really fair to them. I swear, under this Tory government if you are under 25, single, and have no kids, they will let you shrivel up and die before they help you out.

Agreed. They've completely lept over the crux of the modern institution of marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I don't recognize governmental authority over it. I am married in the eyes of government because you are unable to get married in the Catholic Church in the U.S. if you do not have a marriage license with the State. This is a State restriction rather than a Religious restriction. Do I want my wife to maintain our property after my death? collect social security benefits? Absolutely. But if I wasn't married I would want those things to go to my closest relation anyway. Current structure pre-supposes that marriage is the most important social partnership. I agree, but my views that marriage is a spiritual, honor based, between 1 man/1 womna and God, no dissolution possible outside of death and annulment (seperation is not disolution, the church does not prevent couples from living seperately, spouses just cannot commit adultury during the absence) - this has nothing to do with government.

Individuals tell the state which relationships are the most important to them, the state doesn't tell individuals. I do agree that marriage is the most important institution, but when I say "marriage" it has very little to do with your (not yourse per se, nearly everyone elses) definition.

Tiaexz has a much shorter version of my underlying point

[Greyblades]

I think that we should nuke the vatican, just out of principle.

[PanzerJaeger]

Evil incarnate. We've seen this alliance at work in many states across the US. It will fail and these churches will be even more marginalized than they already are for their efforts.


The 85-year-old pope, speaking in the frescoed Clementine Hall of the Vatican's Apostolic Palace, said the family was being threatened by "a false understanding of freedom" and a repudiation of life-long commitment in heterosexual marriage.

"When such commitment is repudiated, the key figures of human existence likewise vanish: father, mother, child - essential elements of the experience of being human are lost," the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholic said.

Significantly, the pope specifically praised as "profoundly moving" a study by France's chief rabbi, Gilles Bernheim, which has become the subject of heated debate in that country.

Bernheim, also a philosopher, argues that homosexual rights groups "will use gay marriage as a Trojan Horse" in a wider campaign to "deny sexual identity and erase sexual differences" and "undermine the heterosexual fundamentals of our society".

Wow. Not only is he reaffirming that gay marriage is wrong according to Catholic beliefs, but he is endorsing the idea that gay people are actively trying to undermine society through some kind of plot. This is a new and dangerous level of crazy for the institution. There are still a few nuts out there that take him seriously and may see this as some sort of papal Fatwah to save civilization.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Evil incarnate. We've seen this alliance at work in many states across the US. It will fail and these churches will be even more marginalized than they already are for their efforts.



Wow. Not only is he reaffirming that gay marriage is wrong according to Catholic beliefs, but he is endorsing the idea that gay people are actively trying to undermine society through some kind of plot. This is a new and dangerous level of crazy for the institution. There are still a few nuts out there that take him seriously and may see this as some sort of papal Fatwah to save civilization.


Nonsense. Evil must be stopped not with violence, but with greater goodness. Homosexuals are welcomed in church, as are tax cheats, adulterers, sex offenders, theives, mass murderers, violent video game players, bullies, illegal file sharers, torturers, gossips corporate embezzlers, abortionists, gamblers, users of pornography, alchoholics, terrorists. Those people are not defined by their sins unless they allow themselves to be. Their vices are what make them need a better relationship with God and are not celebrated - but those labels are not who they are just because they are driven to do those things. We don't kill these people (myself included, thankfully), we invite them into a more peaceful and understanding relationship with God and the world around them. There are a number of Gay people at Mass with us on Sundays. When my wife and I were living together before we got married we felt equally ashamed. Feeling shame isn't a bad thing, even when it is a result of something that you are driven to do.

My view of government is, of course, different from my spiritual views. I believe that someone can damn themselves for their sins spiritually. It doesn't make them innefective employees or bad neighbors.

[Major Robert Dump]

This is the same idiotic reasoning and idealogy held by the "holdouts" in the military who oppose the repeal of dadt. They literally overstate the effects of one of "them gays" on the overall "morale", they talk like the gay people will bring the overall moral compass of the unit down, which hetero soldiers are perfectly capable of doing without outside help, they talk like its some kind of giant plot to lower standards to make the military more like a civilian club

[lars573]

A nuke would unnecessary for wiping out Il Vaticano. It's so small a pair of laser guided conventional bombs would do the job.

[Kival]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.

Indeed. Financial Aid and Support for Children, not for marriage, and all problems are solved. Okay, you also need to give everyone the possibility to name a person, who can decide things in hospital etc. But there should be no marriage needed for that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Nonsense. Evil must be stopped not with violence, but with greater goodness. Homosexuals are welcomed in church, as are tax cheats, adulterers, sex offenders, theives, mass murderers, violent video game players, bullies, illegal file sharers, torturers, gossips corporate embezzlers, abortionists, gamblers, users of pornography, alchoholics, terrorists. Those people are not defined by their sins unless they allow themselves to be. Their vices are what make them need a better relationship with God and are not celebrated - but those labels are not who they are just because they are driven to do those things. We don't kill these people (myself included, thankfully), we invite them into a more peaceful and understanding relationship with God and the world around them. There are a number of Gay people at Mass with us on Sundays. When my wife and I were living together before we got married we felt equally ashamed. Feeling shame isn't a bad thing, even when it is a result of something that you are driven to do.

Yes, that has been the standard line for a long time. However, by endorsing Bernheim's theory, the pope has moved firmly into Glenn Beck territory. What he is pushing now is very different than what you stated above. Gays are no longer simply stubborn sinners who refuse to accept god's teachings, but something much more sinister. In his eyes, the movement to normalize gay relationships, be it through marriage or adoption, is not an end in itself, but instead a "trojan horse" in a much larger grand scheme to undermine society as we know it and destroy humanity. That is some weird, wild stuff man, and until recently had been relegated to the more extreme religious elements within Christianity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, that has been the standard line for a long time. However, by endorsing Bernheim's theory, the pope has moved firmly into Glenn Beck territory. What he is pushing now is very different than what you stated above. Gays are no longer simply stubborn sinners who refuse to accept god's teachings, but something much more sinister. In his eyes, the movement to normalize gay relationships, be it through marriage or adoption, is not an end in itself, but instead a "trojan horse" in a much larger grand scheme to undermine society as we know it and destroy humanity. That is some weird, wild stuff man, and until recently had been relegated to the more extreme religious elements within Christianity.

Not it isn't wild. He feels the same way about violence in media, infidelity, abortion, callousness to poverty. Most Christians believe in evil and pervasive threat it presents. Ther is an evil plot to destroy your soul. The book of Revelation discusses how in the last days the Church itself will be corrupted. To a Church that believes in a literal/figurative book of Revelation, this isn't zany stuff. You've just been taken over by the beast. So have I, but by different vices and temptations. But it isn't too late for you to repent. You reject Christ. I've read posts of yours. You don't believe in the church, it's traditions or the truth it represents. Nobody is coming after you for it. The modern church realizes that the outcome is punishment enough.

If you had any understanding of what the teachings of the Church are, you wouldn't find these proclamations to be surprising.

"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. . . . For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect – if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time" - JC Matt 24

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping" 2 Peter

[Greyblades]

What is it with religious nuts thinking gays are evil? The heck they do to you?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is it with religious nuts thinking gays are evil? The heck they do to you?

What is it with religious nuts thinking that God became man and died for our sins?

Gays are not evil. Homosexual sexual activity is evil. Extra-marital heterosexual sexuality is evil. They are considered mortal sins.
There is a conspiracy to foster evil through sinful activity that is highly active in our society, as it has been since the beginning of time. Man doesn't direct it, but man is complicit in it's perpetration. There is also a conspiracy to stop this evil from consuming us.

You guys think traditional Christianity is nuts. I get it. But the Church isn't a vessel on earth to punish, it is here to guide and relay the truth of being and how to be saved. It took a long time for them to figure that out, but they seem to have gotten it. It is most potent when it holds no corporal power. God's Kingdom is not of this world - the punishments for breaking the law are not of this world, although some of the consequences can be felt here as a result of your own action.

Government exists to provide freedoms to individuals so that they may live their lives and make free-will decisions. Temporal laws must exist to free people to do what they will, so long as they don't inhibit the freedom of others with their will. The Church has no such obligation - as a spiritual authority on Earth, it's laws direct which actions are good and which are not good according to God's natural law. They make a mistake when they take away free will or destroy physically transgressors - but they are right to condemn actions and call people to a better way of life.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, that has been the standard line for a long time. However, by endorsing Bernheim's theory, the pope has moved firmly into Glenn Beck territory. What he is pushing now is very different than what you stated above. Gays are no longer simply stubborn sinners who refuse to accept god's teachings, but something much more sinister. In his eyes, the movement to normalize gay relationships, be it through marriage or adoption, is not an end in itself, but instead a "trojan horse" in a much larger grand scheme to undermine society as we know it and destroy humanity. That is some weird, wild stuff man, and until recently had been relegated to the more extreme religious elements within Christianity.

Bernheim's study (I'm basing this purely on the quote you gave) and the Pope's remarks appear to make a distinction between the homosexual rights movement and gay people more generally. To say that the movement has an agenda is not so much conspiratorial as it is simply pointing out the nature of the thing. I don't know how far they want to take the social change, I suppose they have different schools of thought. It's wrong and unhelpful to portray either side in this debate as being necessarily in opposite ideological camps, but the homosexual rights movement's opposition to more traditional views of marriage means that they are naturally more sympathetic to various liberal ideas when it comes to gender and the family.


Gays are not evil. Homosexual sexual activity is evil.

I disagree that it is purely the act that is sinful. If you feel that you have a homosexual orientation then you are on some level still actively rebelling against the way God made you and the life you were designed to lead. To have an attraction to men and refrain from pursuing it is still sinful.

[Greyblades]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

Because the only person you should be intimate with is your wife, if you are intimate with other people then it cheapens your relationship together. As for homosexual couples who want an exclusive relationship together, that distracts them from the heterosexual relationships they should be having. So they could be a happy family with kids that have a mummy and a daddy.

inb4 this is all coming from someone with no experience in any of this. But it is an ideal to me, so I see it the way I see it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And why are homosexual acts evil?

Why is sleeping with someone prior to marriage evil?

Why is prostitution evil? Drug abuse? Suicide? Wrath? Gluttony?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I disagree that it is purely the act that is sinful. If you feel that you have a homosexual orientation then you are on some level still actively rebelling against the way God made you and the life you were designed to lead. To have an attraction to men and refrain from pursuing it is still sinful.

Right, thoughts can be impure, but we are judged by faith and actions. Thoughts are sinful because they lead us to our undoing. All of us are driven by temptations that will destroy us if we let them and all sins have the ability to do it, from murder to degradation of ones spouse to petty theft

[lars573]

And why are homosexual acts evil?
Because the backward desert people who wrote the bible needed everyone breeding.

[Greyblades]

Because the only person you should be intimate with is your wife, if you are intimate with other people then it cheapens your relationship together. As for homosexual couples who want an exclusive relationship together, that distracts them from the heterosexual relationships they should be having. So they could be a happy family with kids that have a mummy and a daddy.

inb4 this is all coming from someone with no experience in any of this. But it is an ideal to me, so I see it the way I see it.
Uh huh.

...Ok I'm too bored for this, I'm going to keep saying "why" until you give up saying "shoulds" and say the bible, with all of it's parts written at latest 1500 years ago, or your priest/pope, a man following said bible who's been told interpriting it the churches way is the only moral and that screwing little boys isnt, told you to. Then I'll laugh at you for living your life both on someone else's standards of morality and on hideously out of date standards. Then I'll pity you for letting yourself act that being part of your religion requires you to detest homosexuality.


Why is sleeping with someone prior to marriage evil?

Why is prostitution evil? Drug abuse? Suicide? Wrath? Gluttony?

They aren't. People partaking in all but drug abuse and wrath usually hurt noone but themselves and when they do its because of the person's personal problems than the "evil". As for drugs that is a case by case thing with the majority being no more evil than a thunder strike, and Wrath is an emotion we're born with, something your god says he gave to you and by association isnt evil or he wouldnt have put it in the human blueprint.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Uh huh.

...Ok I'm too bored for this, I'm going to keep saying "why" until you give up saying "shoulds" and say the bible, with all of it's parts written at latest 1500 years ago, or your priest/pope, a man following said bible who's been told interpriting it the churches way is the only moral and that screwing little boys isnt, told you to. Then I'll laugh at you for living your life both on someone else's standards of morality and on hideously out of date standards. Then I'll pity you for letting yourself act that being part of your religion requires you to detest homosexuality.

Yes well your contributions don't put you in much of a position to be laughing at or pitying anybody.

You don't need to keep asking why, and no, "because the Bible said so" was never my answer. You may notice I have never mentioned or even implied it's significance here.

What I have done is suggest that homosexuality runs contrary to a more natural lifestyle. To avoid any obfuscation over what I mean by 'natural', I mean simply that it is something innate in all people, that it is essential to the human condition and indeed an individuals happiness. To me, this is natural revelation that is merely supported by more direct divine (Biblical) revelation. And indeed, I believe that the traditional nuclear family is all of these things.

If you are going to go "why why why" like a five year old, then here is the obvious answer. Heterosexual procreation is the only means of continuing the human race, and since procreation has never been restricted to pack or hive leaders within the human species, your average healthy human should want to have heterosexual sex and procreate because it is a necessary part of the human condition. If you lack basic desires like eating, drinking, or procreating, then there is something wrong with you, and you are in fact injuring your own happiness by not fulfilling these desires.

And as for why the desire for marriage or at least a long-term partner should be natural to humanity, that is because it has in the past been necessary to protect the product of their procreation, and so we have the desire to do that imbued in all of us, hence fulfilling those conditions is an essential part of being a healthy, happy person.

And of course the Pope meets none of those conditions, but I'm not Catholic.

[Fragony]

Maybe it is the natural order that not everybody should procreate as it would get a little too busy and it was meant that way. Anyhow, homosexuality just exists and they have the right on leading a happy life, nobody has the right to deny them that. There is nothing wrong with it as it isn't harming anyone if someone is attracted to the same sex. So just let them be, nobody is asking anything from you other than that.

[Greyblades]

Yes well your contributions don't put you in much of a position to be laughing at or pitying anybody.The acts of laughter and pity are rarely contingent to your location.

You don't need to keep asking why, and no, "because the Bible said so" was never my answer. You may notice I have never mentioned or even implied it's significance here.It comes with the territory of unabashed fundamental religion, particularly the elements that consider acts that cause no unwanted harm to others "evil", it always sources back to dogma, for how else does someone start regarding things innocuous as evil.

What I have done is suggest that homosexuality runs contrary to a more natural lifestyle. Whether you consider it natural is irrelevent, even if nature existed as anything but a word humanity use for things not of our cause, you called it evil and didn't protest when through my questioning I stated that you consider it evil, the inherent assumption that comes with the word evil of "I hate it". That it is directed to something harmless in all senses of the word is enough for me to laugh at and pity you.
And of course the Pope meets none of those conditions, but I'm not Catholic.
And I am, on paper at least, and few are more aware than I that religious based views of little logic or regard are not restricted to the "holy" church

[Papewaio]

Spoiler alert.

Heterosexual acts are not the only way to procreate. Test tube babies have been around for awhile.

Spoiler alert II

asexual assisted human reproduction ie cloning is a very real near reality. It is a matter of eningeerin solutions not scientific breakthroughs.

=][=

If it is to define a human the desire to procreate and have a long term partner then I do not think celibate priests should be adjudicating. I do not agree with that idea, but I do listen to subject matter experts as a matter of professional habit.

As such I'd rather listen to people in long term partnerships on the sanctity of marriage.

Also if any society offers social benefits to married couples it is immoral to tax those who are denied like representation. Gay adults denied marriage should at a minimum be tax exempt as they are being denied equal representation of their life bond. There is no sanctity in marriage when it is denied by bigots to all adults regardless of sex, race or creed. A bigoted rite is not a human right.

Screw society when they screw with which adult can screw whomever other adult of sound mind.

[Fragony]

That is where I draw the line, cloning humans so homosexual couples can have their abomination of life? Homosexuals shouldn't be harrased in any way but what the fuck are you on about here, that is sick pap's. It is not possible for homosexual couples to have kids that is something that is just to be accepted. Cloning are you really being serious? I am going to side with the relinuts if so.

[Papewaio]

So you have something against twins? Clones are twins with a time offset.

Hypotheticals
Child has a disease. It can be cured by a siblings cord cells 50% of the time, but a clones cord cells 100% of the time.

Einstein's Twin?

Cloned organs. Not the whole being just a kidney or a heart from the donors cell, infused into a matrix and grown to replace the original owners defective part.

=][=

FYI cloning is how the vast majority of life reproduces. Sexual reproduction is so rare to be practically unnatural.

[Fragony]

That's all fine with me, but using gen-tech to give homosexual couples the ability to have kids is a stretch too far for me. I am by now perfectly ok with gay marriage, and uncomfortably ok with gay couples adopting a kid, but using gen-tech for this is a big no. Sure it can be done, but there are just limits to what should be possible. It's perfectly fine if someone is gay, but gays can't reproduce and that should stay that way, here is where the equality ends.

Kinda curious what Panzer has to say on this

[Ironside]

If you are going to go "why why why" like a five year old, then here is the obvious answer. Heterosexual procreation is the only means of continuing the human race, and since procreation has never been restricted to pack or hive leaders within the human species, your average healthy human should want to have heterosexual sex and procreate because it is a necessary part of the human condition. If you lack basic desires like eating, drinking, or procreating, then there is something wrong with you, and you are in fact injuring your own happiness by not fulfilling these desires.


So, you're saying that you know more about what makes gay people happy than what themselves do?

Either you deal with ideals, or you accept reality and adapt.

[Conradus]

FYI cloning is how the vast majority of life reproduces. Sexual reproduction is so rare to be practically unnatural.

Except in advanced species?

[Papewaio]

My response was to the statement that heterosexual procreation is the only way to produce humans.

Untrue as proved with decades of test tube babies around.

=][=

Humans don't currently clone ourselves and I wasn't referring to the parents sexual preference just hat we have yet another method other then procreation.

=][=

Humans are very advanced. Yet we aren't exactly what we think we are. Over half our cells by number or about the human brain in weight are bacteria within the body. We are a symbiotic creature and that means most of our occupying cells procreate by asexual (autonomous cloning) reproduction in our body.

Stuff around with our bacteria reactor within our gut and we can die.

[Fragony]

Ok fair enough, but there is destined to be an activist who furiously demands the right to use said technoligy. There has to be a limit somewhere and that limit is same-sex couples being able to reproduce. It wouldn't be a human anymore just something that looks like it.

[Arjos]

In Italy? Yes, they do. In fact, the very existence of the Vatican is the concession of that fact by Mussolini -- and the Vatican continues to have an active hand in Italian politics to this day.

That isn't true, the Pope has the same impact he'd have on any catholic in the world...
The Lateran Pacts finally settled the Roman Question, defining the relation between Italy and the Pope, who 'til then didn't recognize Italy and pretty much waited and looked for any foreign help to re-establish the papal state.
Later our constitution affirmed how laïcité is the supreme principle of the state, abolishing catholicism as the state religion...
All in all, it was a tactful way to deal with it, the Vatican wasn't "created" out of the blue, but was a far more complex historical reality...

That imo, the church has way too many benefits it's another matter, but the only political influence it might have is with money or if a certain politician would be such a devout fanatic...
But as I said, the latter case is non-existant, as first and foremost, what matter to italian politicians is money and maintaining their position :P

[Papewaio]

Ok fair enough, but there is destined to be an activist who furiously demands the right to use said technoligy. There has to be a limit somewhere and that limit is same-sex couples being able to reproduce. It wouldn't be a human anymore just something that looks like it.

If the technology was a single donor clone there is no difference regardless of the sexuality of the parents.

If we are talking about designer babies, I find that repugnant. Particularly when we allow the choice of the child to be based on sex and we terminate even healthy fetuses based on no meeting a certain X or Y criteria.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you have something against twins? Clones are twins with a time offset.

No they aren't - Twins are formed when an embryo splits, clones are created from cells taken from a mature organism, which are then converted back into stem cells and implanted - totally different process, and it's been shown not to work too well thus far.

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

[lars573]

Actually most reproductive doctors will tell you identical twins are natural clones.


That's all fine with me, but using gen-tech to give homosexual couples the ability to have kids is a stretch too far for me. I am by now perfectly ok with gay marriage, and uncomfortably ok with gay couples adopting a kid, but using gen-tech for this is a big no. Sure it can be done, but there are just limits to what should be possible. It's perfectly fine if someone is gay, but gays can't reproduce and that should stay that way, here is where the equality ends.
They can already to that, and have been doing it. For lesbians anyway. Also homosexuals have been having kids since time immemorial.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

This is my response to Papewaio.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually most reproductive doctors will tell you identical twins are natural clones.


They can already to that, and have been doing it. For lesbians anyway. Also homosexuals have been having kids since time immemorial.

Except that a clone implys an original, and there is no original with twins.

So maybe most doctors are wrong.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That isn't true, the Pope has the same impact he'd have on any catholic in the world...

Hmm, somehow I don't quite buy the idea that the word of the Pope confers quite the same authority to every Catholic, from Ireland, Spain Italy, to France, the USA and the Netherlands. Time and place matter. For example in the Netherlands and the USA Catholics have been going pretty much their own way sometimes directly contravening official Papal doctrine. (From positions on sex and marriage to the use of vulgar tongue during mass.)


The Lateran Pacts finally settled the Roman Question, defining the relation between Italy and the Pope, who 'til then didn't recognize Italy and pretty much waited and looked for any foreign help to re-establish the papal state.
Later our constitution affirmed how laïcité is the supreme principle of the state, abolishing catholicism as the state religion...
All in all, it was a tactful way to deal with it, the Vatican wasn't "created" out of the blue, but was a far more complex historical reality...

Well yes but Mussolini did not settle for the Vatican out of the kindness of his good heart. It was a cold political reality: he needed legitimacy and the power that could give it to him was the Church. So did Franco by the way, hence his alliance with the Church. In Ireland, again the clergy conferred significant authority politicians did not dare to doubt.

France, now that would be the exception. I hardly need point out how France differs from nearly every other country in its staunch ideal of laïcité, and it took them quite a bit of effort to get there.

[Papewaio]

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

My argument was that there are other means of human reproduction other then procreation. One of which is a near future possibility the other a day to day reality.

=][=
Using 'not man's natural condition' or 'unnatural' is a weak an argument as a Godwin or 'Save teh Childrenz'

You are literally arguing against modern history. Well against the literature of it. Until the written word existed our histories, stories, knowledge, spirituality, laws and understanding of the world around us was limited to ourselves and oral history.

Books are unnatural and until the printing press limited to a select few. I find a heavy dose of irony that we told these few bright sparks hidden away in monasteries and teaching at universities that since they were enlightened to not procreate. Imagine how much brighter our population would have been if we hadn't culled out the brightest for generations.

Back on topic. Books are not a natural part of the human condition. History as interpreted from these musty volumes would not even exist as a discipline without them. So should we discard all of history as some diabolical byproduct of an unnatural process?

I don't think so. Then again I'm traveling to work, dressed in clothes and shoes, on a train, around bends, under overpasses, across bridges, across a harbour and debating this on the Internet via a mobile phone. So I'm clearly biased towards utilizing technology outside of man's natural condition.

[Arjos]

Well yes but Mussolini did not settle for the Vatican out of the kindness of his good heart. It was a cold political reality: he needed legitimacy and the power that could give it to him was the Church.

I had in mind the whole process, with the later incorporation with the constitution, but your point serves perfectly: unless there's political gain in siding with the church, politicians just don't do it...
The current catholic party gets at most 6-11% of the electorate, so it's really about forming a coalition if you happen to be desperate for those votes...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My argument was that there are other means of human reproduction other then procreation. One of which is a near future possibility the other a day to day reality.

=][=
Using 'not man's natural condition' or 'unnatural' is a weak an argument as a Godwin or 'Save teh Childrenz'

You are literally arguing against modern history. Well against the literature of it. Until the written word existed our histories, stories, knowledge, spirituality, laws and understanding of the world around us was limited to ourselves and oral history.

Books are unnatural and until the printing press limited to a select few. I find a heavy dose of irony that we told these few bright sparks hidden away in monasteries and teaching at universities that since they were enlightened to not procreate. Imagine how much brighter our population would have been if we hadn't culled out the brightest for generations.

Back on topic. Books are not a natural part of the human condition. History as interpreted from these musty volumes would not even exist as a discipline without them. So should we discard all of history as some diabolical byproduct of an unnatural process?

I don't think so. Then again I'm traveling to work, dressed in clothes and shoes, on a train, around bends, under overpasses, across bridges, across a harbour and debating this on the Internet via a mobile phone. So I'm clearly biased towards utilizing technology outside of man's natural condition.

Books are an extension of the signs all cultures use - we just sat down and systematised them. Trains are just complicated sleds rolling on complicated logs. These are incremental improvements to technologies even apes use. In vitro fertalisation is a completely different matter and the bald fact is it takes two to tango and they can't both be dudes.

The current proposal to change eggs into sperm just proves this - because of the extreme lengths you have to go to. For two people of the same gender to procreate you are actually have to, in effect, have one change gender.

[Papewaio]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

So neither of these should be used as reasons to ignore them. It is much better to figure out what the end consequences are if they do flourish and they map out the consequences of this happening. Then one can decide if a thing is moral or immoral based on what it's journey and destination require and the change to our society by using or denying it.

Also when I talk about clones as twins I'm taking particular aim at the sci fi meme that clones have a shared concious or telepathic ability. They do not, they are just the same DNA book read at different time periods to form a human who is an individual not a gestalt entity.

[Montmorency]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

Every tool is natural.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

So neither of these should be used as reasons to ignore them. It is much better to figure out what the end consequences are if they do flourish and they map out the consequences of this happening. Then one can decide if a thing is moral or immoral based on what it's journey and destination require and the change to our society by using or denying it.

Also when I talk about clones as twins I'm taking particular aim at the sci fi meme that clones have a shared concious or telepathic ability. They do not, they are just the same DNA book read at different time periods to form a human who is an individual not a gestalt entity.

There is a profound and I use the word deliberately, difference between what we do to our environment and what we do to ourselves.

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have, probably because they spend the first nine months of life together and afterward they grow up in parallel even though they diverge there have been studies showing that twins can have a disturbing level of convergence of things as mundane as what to have for dinner.

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

[Montmorency]

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have

Simple enough: causality.

A1 ~= A
A2 ~= A

A, then B

A1, then B
A2, then B


It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else.

Perfectly natural.


Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

One man's abuse is another man's empowerment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One man's abuse is another man's empowerment.

Weapons of Mass Destruction - who is empowered?

[Montmorency]

Would it be mean to respond, "Everyone"? But I'm mostly just yanking you with that.

But WMDs are a good thing to bring up here. They contribute to my larger point, which is that the technology will be propagated regardless of petty intellectual outrage.

Technologies like WMDs (and genetic engineering) are too powerful to be casually abandoned. Even should they not be taken up for private use, states will surely acquire them.

[Kralizec]

There is a profound and I use the word deliberately, difference between what we do to our environment and what we do to ourselves.

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have, probably because they spend the first nine months of life together and afterward they grow up in parallel even though they diverge there have been studies showing that twins can have a disturbing level of convergence of things as mundane as what to have for dinner.

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

I actually agree broadly about genetic technology, but I adimit it's just a gut feeling mostly. I associate it with scenarios like the Spacers from Asimov's SF novels, if you've read those (and even if you didn't read them, I still do)

I'm pretty shocked that you buy those stories about about twins somehow being mentally connected or whatever. I'm a pretty cynical person in general, but I also happen to know multiple (pairs of) identical twins, and to me it's all bull.

[rory_20_uk]

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

Genetic engineering has been done for millennia as we have bred animals and plants to be more suitable for specific roles.
Given genetic engineering is altering natural DNA using natural processes I fail to see how it is "patently obvious"

~:smoking:

[Myth]

Gay marriage - OK, whatever floats their boat.
Gays being allowed a state marriage is OK. If the church denies them a church marriage, OK. They can go and get hitched in the Synagogue of Satan for all I care, if the Catholics are against it.
Gays being allowed to adopt children - not OK. And please don't bring the "There are heterosexual couples that abuse children or make bad parents/adoptees" strawman argument.

[Sir Moody]

but why?

why shouldn't they?

do you really have a good reason? or is it more "its immoral" waffle which doesn't really say anything

[rory_20_uk]

I was with you until the adoption bit.

I am sure that they are just as able to bring up children as hetro couples. The strawmen you mention appears to imply that gay couples are going to be by default worse than hetro couples. Any reason why?

If there was a scarcity of children to adopt I might put hetro couples first. Since there is a glut of children who are otherwise passed around foster homes or state run dumps I'm more than happy to utilise a resource that is present.

~:smoking:

[caravel]

Remove marriage from the state and the problem solves itself.
+1

The thread was solved at this point...

Yes marriage (and indeed the church) can be "removed from the state" or civil marriage can be clearly separated from religious marriage as it is in some countries and then gays and lesbians allowed to marry with the same rights as heteros. The religious establishment can then do as they please and (almost) everyone's happy.

The only ones who will find fault are those who would go to a Chinese restaurant and order Pizza - such people will always exist irrespective of what team they're batting for...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I actually agree broadly about genetic technology, but I adimit it's just a gut feeling mostly. I associate it with scenarios like the Spacers from Asimov's SF novels, if you've read those (and even if you didn't read them, I still do)

Space Marines, Master Chief, Old Man's War... Gatica...

There aren't any good outcomes envisaged with genetic engineering.


I'm pretty shocked that you buy those stories about about twins somehow being mentally connected or whatever. I'm a pretty cynical person in general, but I also happen to know multiple (pairs of) identical twins, and to me it's all bull.

Well, believe in God, so what not.

But... what I'm really saying is I've seen enough weird stuff that I'm willing to believe something might be going on, although the "something" in question might well be genetic determinism.


Genetic engineering has been done for millennia as we have bred animals and plants to be more suitable for specific roles.
Given genetic engineering is altering natural DNA using natural processes I fail to see how it is "patently obvious"

~:smoking:

Selection is different to modification though

[Montmorency]

There aren't any good outcomes envisaged with genetic engineering.

The only valid outcomes for assessment are those expressed in narrative format?


Space Marines, Master Chief,

:inquisitive:


although the "something" in question might well be genetic determinism.

Well, something is technically always going on, right?

[Papewaio]

Space Marines, Master Chief and Old Mans War... Aren't they all examples of why genetic engineering is a requirement.

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

In the Halo universe humanity would have been wiped out without the help of the Spartans.

So based on your examples I will do a Blackadder Xmas and thoroughly embrace genetic engineering as being a means to saving humans from extinction at the hands of aliens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Space Marines, Master Chief and Old Mans War... Aren't they all examples of why genetic engineering is a requirement.

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.

In the Halo universe humanity would have been wiped out without the help of the Spartans.

So based on your examples I will do a Blackadder Xmas and thoroughly embrace genetic engineering as being a means to saving humans from extinction at the hands of aliens.

Point - but it's still pretty horrific tech.

[drone]

I'm pretty sure in the 40k Universe humanity would have been wiped out without Adeptus Arbites and their mass produced spacemarine cousins.
Adeptus Custodes. Glorified federales won't stop the xenos hordes.

[Greyblades]

Adeptus custodes? The goons who havent seen combat since the emperor's entombment? Nah, it's the Imperial Guard and space fleets that hold humanity together.

Being serious though genetic engineering like all other technologies have the entire spectrum of possibilities good and bad and while human genetic engineering might be portrayed as dubious I dont see why that should stop us from making the process of getting the species of delicious mutant cows bigger at a quicker rate than ever before. Oh and the ability to make sure that every child is born free of horrific birth defects, that'd be nice too.

[Papewaio]

Adeptus Custodes. Glorified federales won't stop the xenos hordes.

:bow: Thank you.

They are a bit more then glorified federales...

[Papewaio]

Point - but it's still pretty horrific tech.

That is looking through a militant sci fi lense.

Genetic engineering could be used to minimize disease, cure paraplegic patients, remove deafness if desired, extend lifespan. It can be used to create a targeted genetic trait rather then a random one.

Increased yield, drought resistance, better nutrients are all outcomes we can do with crops.

[Sir Moody]

several scifi franchises have shown both the positives and negatives of Genetic engineering

Star Trek for example

The Doctors in all series after the original regularly cure problem with gene therapy or dna altering compounds

Equally there are a lot of episodes involving Engineered diseases or even "Super" soldiers (ie Khan)

now it is true you don't see many Scifi franchises treat GE as anything other than a Pandora's Box but that is primarily due to the consumers knowledge of the subject - most people know enough to see the obvious pit falls (super soldiers, super diseases etc) without seeing the immense benefits that can also come with it - and the authors play to their audience

[rory_20_uk]

Loads of techs can be used for good or bad. Gunpowder, writing, explosives, computers to choose a few of the lesser thought about ones. Nuclear is always top of the list.

Luddites at the time were against new things (albeit mainly for job protection) and many new discoveries are treated in the same way.

Sci-Fi is there to tell a good yarn, and men have a preponderance to want to hear about discord and violence, not a 300 page book on how wonderful and peaceful life is in the new Utopia thanks to [insert blank].

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

A thread on gay marriage derailed into a discussion of how the imperium can stop orks and tyranids....

Even for the Backroom, this is surprising.

[Papewaio]

Well the spacemarines are a 'celibate' order of monks... Who have overtones that are very manly like a bunch of singing lumberjacks ... But that's okay.

[drone]

A thread on gay marriage derailed into a discussion of how the imperium can stop orks and tyranids....

Even for the Backroom, this is surprising.
Rome and the Catholic Church is the source material for the Imperium (even though the Emperor is Turkish), so it's not that big of a stretch. Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean, yada yada yada.

[CrossLOPER]

...Ok I'm too bored for this, I'm going to keep saying "why" until you give up saying "shoulds" and say the bible, with all of it's parts written at latest 1500 years ago, or your priest/pope, a man following said bible who's been told interpriting it the churches way is the only moral and that screwing little boys isnt, told you to. Then I'll laugh at you for living your life both on someone else's standards of morality and on hideously out of date standards. Then I'll pity you for letting yourself act that being part of your religion requires you to detest homosexuality.
Don't undermine the purpose of the internet forum.

Space Marines
You just killed you own argument.

[Beskar]

+1

The thread was solved at this point...

Yes marriage (and indeed the church) can be "removed from the state" or civil marriage can be clearly separated from religious marriage as it is in some countries and then gays and lesbians allowed to marry with the same rights as heteros. The religious establishment can then do as they please and (almost) everyone's happy.

The only ones who will find fault are those who would go to a Chinese restaurant and order Pizza - such people will always exist irrespective of what team they're batting for...

The UK has Civil Unions, but there are some restrictions and differences, and they are mostly economically and legal. David Cameron's proposal was to simply make them equal in the eyes of the law and socially (Marriage Equality), and there is "Religious Opt-out" (meaning, religious figures can disallow homosexuals marrying in their churches and do not have to do it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20656207

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

[Greyblades]

Don't undermine the purpose of the internet forum.

I was just cutting the cud, I have yet to encounter an argument saying gay sex (or anything harmless really) is evil that doesnt boil down that way and this one appeared no different.

[Arjos]

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

I completely agree, but at least here in Italy, after civil unions passed, one side complained that it wasn't enough, while the other pointed out how it minimized the church and what marriage represents religiously...
In the end, someone will always take issue: so democratically legislate, letting time and education weed out bigots :P

[jirisys]

A small bomb is enough to be honest. Besides, Italy may blame their scientists for not warning them about it.

~Jirisys ()

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You just killed you own argument.

Because I DARE to reference popular Sci-fi?

The people making the decisions about how to use genetic technology will not be Scientists or Philosophers - they will be politicians. It is inevitable that genetic modification will be used to create an obedient warrior-caste because we have already imagined it several times, and therefore the idea will be put into practice, and because such a caste would be useful to someone with political ambitions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The UK has Civil Unions, but there are some restrictions and differences, and they are mostly economically and legal. David Cameron's proposal was to simply make them equal in the eyes of the law and socially (Marriage Equality), and there is "Religious Opt-out" (meaning, religious figures can disallow homosexuals marrying in their churches and do not have to do it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20656207

This is simply the best 'compromise' solution and the one that makes the most sense. Religious bodies should be able to conduct gay marriages but should not be compelled to do so.

Or the other solution is pretty much my solution, which is to separate marriage from the state, which means when you get married in a church, nothing actually happened legally and you get no tax breaks or similar 'incentives'.

There's also the solution of forcing the religious minority into obedience, as has been done in Denmark and elsewhere.

That will happen eventually - so they might just as well do it and get this whole sorry joke over with.

I do think this is a joke - it will last just as long as we remain over-populated. Once governments need to encourage pro-creation we'll see "marriage" redefined again accordingly.

[Montmorency]

Once governments need to encourage pro-creation we'll see "marriage" redefined again accordingly.

How do you envision this coming about?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How do you envision this coming about?

They'll create an inducement to procreation - so heterosexual couples who stay together will get preferential treatment.

Oh,wait...

It'll happen when our society enters a period of regress.

[Montmorency]

It'll happen when our society enters a period of regress.

No, it could only come about after such a period. If economic, political, and ecological strife are reaching a critical point, no one in power would be encouraging procreation unless it happens to involve local warlords and slave-women.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it could only come about after such a period. If economic, political, and ecological strife are reaching a critical point, no one in power would be encouraging procreation unless it happens to involve local warlords and slave-women.

Population fall is a major, if not the major, cause of regress. Without workers the economy begins to decline, without fund technology becomes harder to maintain, the military becomes overstretched...

Regardless, our society will regress at some point and both during and after that point this petty argument about who loves who and whether society approves will seem absurd.

Edit: To clarify - regress continues until recovery. We may think that Rome ended in 476, but the people at the time were still trying to save it and they still thought of themselves as occupied Romans 150 years later.

[Montmorency]

Population fall is a major, if not the major, cause of regress. Without workers the economy begins to decline, without fund technology becomes harder to maintain, the military becomes overstretched...

Once major population decline is occuring, the political institutions are in shambles and governments are not subsidizing anything not related to the military or immediate-term investments in agriculture or high-technology - if national states are even functioning at all, at that point.

Once the situation stabilizes - that's when a new round of population growth becomes either desirable or manageable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now take a look at history - a good starting example would be the baby boom after WWII (when the British Empire was collapsing).

[Montmorency]

The Baby Boom? You mean the one that occurred as a major world crisis came to an end? As millions of men-at-arms returned to their homes following years in combat?


when the British Empire was collapsing

Was this an existential threat to Great Britain itself? I think we're operating on different senses of "regression". From my perspective, GB was in a recovery phase.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Baby Boom? You mean the one that occurred as a major world crisis came to an end? As millions of men-at-arms returned to their homes following years in combat?

...and then went back to war across the world as the Commonwealth tore itself apart.


Was this an existential threat to Great Britain itself? I think we're operating on different senses of "regression". From my perspective, GB was in a recovery phase.

The wealth of Britain and its political influence have been in terminal decline since the start of WWII when the BEF was forced to abandon France.

This is my point, you think we're doing well here, but from a historical perspective we've fallen apart and essentially become a protectorate of the US - to the extent that our military has been entirely re-structured to support the US war machine and US political goals. The only upside is that being the US' bitch is much better than being China's bitch.

[Montmorency]

...and then went back to war across the world as the Commonwealth tore itself apart.

One war's as good as the next?


The wealth of Britain and its political influence have been in terminal decline since the start of WWII when the BEF was forced to abandon France.

This is my point, you think we're doing well here

!

You're incorrigible!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One war's as good as the next?

It wasn't just war, but economic collapse. The Commonwealth fell apart and British economy has never recovered - heavy industry, ship building... toast.


!

You're incorrigible!

You find my analysis unpalatable? Consider the relative economic output of the various areas of the UK now and 50 years ago - not just in terms of GDP but in terms of balance and overall levels of employment.

[Montmorency]

You find my analysis unpalatable?

Flawed in principle.

Without getting into the details of your economic theories yet again:


It'll happen when our society enters a period of regress.

What do you mean by "our society", then? Anyway, you believe that Britain will in the near future implement cash incentives to couples willing to produce offspring? Britain's population growth is still quite healthy...

Edit: And don't say that they already do through tax breaks, childcare allowments, and the like - everyone does that.

Could you imagine that there are many facets to growth and decline?

Russia and Japan's fertility rate issues, for instance, are in large part due to economic growth increasing the cost of living and education changing the attitudes of women towards marriage and child-rearing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Flawed in principle.

Without getting into the details of your economic theories yet again:

Because you don't accept that you get richer by making other people poorer?

OK - but how is ruling 1/4 of the globe down to virtually just these islands, having a virtual monopoly on certain minerals and cash crops down to being a net importer from other powers not an economic collapse?


What do you mean by "our society", then? Anyway, you believe that Britain will in the near future implement cash incentives to couples willing to produce offspring? Britain's population growth is still quite healthy...

This thing we have - "Western Civilisation" has a shelf life just like everything else, we just don't know what that shelf life is. I don't really think we'll enter an actual systemic collapse within my own lifetime, or not before I'm old an infirm certainly, but I can certainly imagine another global war in the next two to four decades.

Britain's population growth is negative without immigration - it is not healthy.


Edit: And don't say that they already do through tax breaks, childcare allowments, and the like - everyone does that.

Prior to this current government the tax system was, it has been argued, skewed against married couples and towards single parents.


Could you imagine that there are many facets to growth and decline?

In terms of education, military strength, health, and economics we're not making positive growth over the long-term.


Russia and Japan's fertility rate issues, for instance, are in large part due to economic growth increasing the cost of living and education changing the attitudes of women towards marriage and child-rearing.

They're also symptomatic of an acknowledged cultural malaise that makes people not want to procreate.

[Beskar]

Britain's population growth is negative without immigration - it is not healthy.


I disagree, Britain isles are supporting a population far beyond its means, like a Rome except with 21st century grain ships coming from EU and the USA. A population reduction and emigration would be a good thing. Canada and Australia are two nice alternatives I would consider.

[Montmorency]

OK - but how is ruling 1/4 of the globe down to virtually just these islands, having a virtual monopoly on certain minerals and cash crops down to being a net importer from other powers not an economic collapse?

Is it really an ongoing collapse in perpetuity?


Britain's population growth is negative without immigration - it is not healthy.

According to your ONS, the birth rate is rising - though admittedly that is partly a consequence of immigration, most of the risebeing attributable to immigrant mothers.


In terms of education, military strength, health, and economics we're not making positive growth over the long-term.

Economically, you're richer - period. Technologically, clearly stronger. Health? So good in some aspects that problems in others have been engendered. Militarily, you're still relatively powerful - isn't relative power what you're always on about?


They're also symptomatic of an acknowledged cultural malaise that makes people not want to procreate.

In Japan? I don't know...

[Greyblades]

Economically, you're richer - period. Technologically, clearly stronger. Health? So good in some aspects that problems in others have been engendered. Militarily, you're still relatively powerful - isn't relative power what you're always on about?

Technology and health: true, but diminished when even the utterly insignificant luxemburg can claim the same since the 1930's.
Economic and military: uh-uh, the days of being able to match the 2 other top navies combined and having europe worrying, about british goods being cheaper and more pleantiful than anything they can do, are long over. Relatively, we've gone from superpower to playing america's occasionally favoured pet and being continually undermined by the EU.

Being a British nationalist has double dose fluroxetine and access to a suicide hotline as a requirement.


In Japan? I don't know... Dude they're not even allowed uncensored porn over there, of course they're miserable.

[spankythehippo]

Currently in Japan, the government is pushing people to make babies, with incentive bonuses and the like. Considering the aging population and the sexlessness of the younger generation, this poses a very serious problem.

Well, that's what I heard from family a while ago. I haven't followed up on it. I revoked my citizenship, so I don't particularly care (although I probably should *sigh*).

[Ironside]

They'll create an inducement to procreation - so heterosexual couples who stay together will get preferential treatment.

Eh not really. The development would be to further the preferential treatment linked to the child itself. Married couples that get children are getting too few and restricting the benefits only to marriage would be counter productive.

[rory_20_uk]

The Empire may have helped the colonies to a degree, but the main purpose was to help the UK. We, as far as possible for as long as possible, kept all the good bits at home. Heavy industry and ship building fell apart when other countries started doing the higher value activities - and of course we were responding to the threat by increasing the labour costs which helped ensure a decline became a collapse.

The Commonwealth has declined, but not terminally. Would it be able to cause a new Pax Britannia? Of course not. Could it serve a function? Probably - a loose grouping of countries who would speak with one voice on some issues (of course not all). Probably 95% soft power, but that is just a reality.

The need for productive units is of course there, but increasingly manufacturing jobs are undertaken by robots. Where we might have had a few thousand employees in car plants we now have a handful.

The decline occurs when upkeep of what you've got overwhelms the system: focusing on benefits for all, extending the length (not quality) of life and placing worker safety over productivity.

When Brunel built his "groundbreaking" tunnel near Bristol a few hundred workers died. Worse odds than the trenches of WW1. Now one workerr chips a nail and everything stops. If others don't work to these rules you've got a problem. Overheads are going up just as doing productive things are going down.

We are not quite a protectorate of the USA merely as we can't rely on their helps unless it benefits them. Our forces are designed to fit in with theirs. It is also designed to fit in with all those of NATO and probably others. Just because it fits with America does not make it bad. I personally think we should redesign our Armed forces to be like their Marines in a relatively small force but unified and set up to be good on the sea and transiently hold coastal areas and give up on the pretensions of big land units.

Where the population growth comes from is not an issue. How those persons view themselves is. If they grow up viewing themselves as English / British all well and good. We have a problem if the majority hold increased fealty to ancestral homelands. From the persons I have interacted with, Eastern Europeans often become "English" in a generation with a few residual customs. This is far less often the case from elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh not really. The development would be to further the preferential treatment linked to the child itself. Married couples that get children are getting too few and restricting the benefits only to marriage would be counter productive.

Marriage is about creating stable family units - not just making babies. That's the purpose of the institution at a sociological level.

[Sir Moody]

yes but Ironsides post was referring to you saying


They'll create an inducement to procreation - so heterosexual couples who stay together will get preferential treatment.


He is right - if they want to promote "baby making" they aren't going to promote marriage - they will offer incentives to new parents via the children since it would cover Married, Unmarried, Single and Adoptive parents - if you need a population boom, restricting the incentive to one segment of society is counter productive

not a problem we are likely to see for a while - we are already overpopulated as is...

[Catiline]

I disagree, Britain isles are supporting a population far beyond its means, like a Rome except with 21st century grain ships coming from EU and the USA. A population reduction and emigration would be a good thing. Canada and Australia are two nice alternatives I would consider.

Britain probably could feed itself - currently we import about 40% of the food consumed and export about 10% of that total. So we're producing a net 70% of current consumption. But, of course, food consumed doesn't equate to food needed, as a quick look at the fatties on the high street demonstrates. In extremis it could be done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I disagree, Britain isles are supporting a population far beyond its means, like a Rome except with 21st century grain ships coming from EU and the USA. A population reduction and emigration would be a good thing. Canada and Australia are two nice alternatives I would consider.

Yes - but we used to import from what were either client states or Imperial territories - now we import from what are, at best, semi-friendly states.

[Ronin]

Catholic Hospital: ohhh you're gonna sue us? well fetuses aren´t people then. (http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people)

the moral steadfastness of this bunch is amazing.

[Goofball]

Nonsense. Evil must be stopped not with violence, but with greater goodness. Homosexuals are welcomed in church, as are tax cheats, adulterers, sex offenders, theives, mass murderers, violent video game players, bullies, illegal file sharers, torturers, gossips corporate embezzlers, abortionists, gamblers, users of pornography, alchoholics, terrorists. Those people are not defined by their sins unless they allow themselves to be. Their vices are what make them need a better relationship with God and are not celebrated - but those labels are not who they are just because they are driven to do those things. We don't kill these people (myself included, thankfully), we invite them into a more peaceful and understanding relationship with God and the world around them. There are a number of Gay people at Mass with us on Sundays. When my wife and I were living together before we got married we felt equally ashamed. Feeling shame isn't a bad thing, even when it is a result of something that you are driven to do.

My view of government is, of course, different from my spiritual views. I believe that someone can damn themselves for their sins spiritually. It doesn't make them innefective employees or bad neighbors.

Sorry hope I am misunderstnding you. For a minute there it seemed as if you were implying that homosexual was not only evil, but criminal, by likening homosexuals to mass murderers, sex offenders, and thieves.

Are you saying that being born with a certain sexual preference puts a person in that category?

[Ronin]

I guess the pope reads this forum.

Pope announces resignation. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9862194/Pope-Benedict-XVI-to-resign.html)

when asked what he plans to do next Ratzinger simply said:
'I´m going to Disneyland'

[Greyblades]

"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths due to an advanced age are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,"

Indeed, I hear that the guilt of the church is a heavy burden for an old man to bear.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sorry hope I am misunderstnding you. For a minute there it seemed as if you were implying that homosexual was not only evil, but criminal, by likening homosexuals to mass murderers, sex offenders, and thieves.

Are you saying that being born with a certain sexual preference puts a person in that category?

Homosexuality is very similar to alcoholism and other self destructive sins. It is your right to be an alcoholic and many people are predisposed to it. It is self destructive and a negative force in society. Not a crime, I don't believe in many crimes, but it is an affront to God as I understand it. I think that not having children is a sin. I don't particularly want them myself and it isn't a crime, but it is most certainly socially and morally wrong by my religious standards.

In a way, yes. I view anything pushes people further from God as a sin. I view sin on a static landscape. In a way, all sins are the same. We have different punishments for different crimes based on their severity, but thew wrongness of sins is on a flat line. You can be forgiven as easily for lying as you can for murder, but the temporal or criminal penance is markedly different.

I do not think that personal failures should result in criminal prosecution unless they cause serious harm to someone else.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess the pope reads this forum.

Pope announces resignation. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9862194/Pope-Benedict-XVI-to-resign.html)

when asked what he plans to do next Ratzinger simply said:
'I´m going to Disneyland'

Old age accompanied with poor health isn't fun, I hope he's alright.

[Montmorency]

I do not think that personal failures should result in criminal prosecution unless they cause serious harm to someone else.

Sin is sin. Some transgression begs not the cloth, but the knife. :brood:

[Greyblades]

...Homosexuality is not self-destructive, the only destruction comes from the intolerance from others and those convinced by religion that what they are is evil.

[Beskar]

Homosexuality is very similar to alcoholism and other self destructive sins. It is your right to be an alcoholic and many people are predisposed to it. It is self destructive and a negative force in society.

Wow... you clearly haven't got the foggiest clue what you are on about.

1) Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism.
2) Homosexuality is not self-destructive.
3) It isn't a negative force in society.

You want to know what a negative force in society? Bigotry. What bigoted people do is go around telling people they are scum. They victimize, punish and discriminate people for things which don't even affect them. They cannot stand the thought of people being happy for who they are, whether is it the colour of their skin, their sex, their sexual preference. They are people who snoop around in other peoples bedrooms, getting an authoritarian hard-on over imposing their ill-conceived beliefs on others to try to make themselves feel better, a self-congratulatory slap-on-the-back.

Homosexuality is not self-destructive in anyway, such as being Black/White/Inbetween is not self-destructive, or being a Woman is not self-destructive. People who think so should actually have a hard think and come up with a credible reason why homosexuality is bad outside of a book from the bronze age.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow... you clearly haven't got the foggiest clue what you are on about.

1) Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism.
2) Homosexuality is not self-destructive.
3) It isn't a negative force in society.

You want to know what a negative force in society? Bigotry. What bigoted people do is go around telling people they are scum. They victimize, punish and discriminate people for things which don't even affect them. They cannot stand the thought of people being happy for who they are, whether is it the colour of their skin, their sex, their sexual preference. They are people who snoop around in other peoples bedrooms, getting an authoritarian hard-on over imposing their ill-conceived beliefs on others to try to make themselves feel better, a self-congratulatory slap-on-the-back.

Homosexuality is not self-destructive in anyway, such as being Black/White/Inbetween is not self-destructive, or being a Woman is not self-destructive. People who think so should actually have a hard think and come up with a credible reason why homosexuality is bad outside of a book from the bronze age.

You are advocating for the Catholic church to give up the bible. I am not a bigot inparticular. Sure, I harbor some level of cultural bigotry but I've never met a human being who didn't. I don't like to make people feel like scum, but I do recognize self harmful social effects of things like alcoholism, use of pornography, prostitution, drug use, uncharitable thoughts, glorification of violence, etc. Sins of the heart and mind which do not directly hurt anyone but the abuser. Do I condemn people who engage in these activities, no but I condemn the actions. Am I above them? No - I myself have been known to do some of these things.

As I type this, my wife and I are in South Beach at a gay hotel called "Lords". I try not to dismiss anyone or make them feel alienated, but that doesn't mean I condone their actions.

[Beskar]

I am not a bigot inparticular.

That's a good thing! Bigotry is very bad and it is very overlooked when people do a list of things bad for society, when it is the number one thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a good thing! Bigotry is very bad and it is very overlooked when people do a list of things bad for society, when it is the number one thing.

Some amount of bigotry is as natural as breathing air. We need to not allow it to cloud our opinions of the individual. With that said, it is not wrong to fight unhealthy ideas with healthy ideas. Again, i believe in gutting our legal code and our government's hold over us and allowing people to exercise their free will to the maximum extent - let the natural consequences dissuade us from bad actions. This does not stop me from determining which actions and thoughts i view as unhealthy for the individual, it would just stop society from binding free will in law.

[Goofball]

Oh, this is just too perfect (sorry, couldn't figure out how to enlarge the pic. Click on it to view. It's worth it):

8601

[Fragony]

Some amount of bigotry is as natural as breathing air. We need to not allow it to cloud our opinions of the individual. With that said, it is not wrong to fight unhealthy ideas with healthy ideas.

Not for you to decide what a healthy idea is and what's not. Gay people are just gay. It's mostly about tax-benefits heterosexual couples get but gay couples don't. If they both work for a living where's the honosty in that, nobody (well almost nobody) is asking for any more recognision. Those that do are wrong imho, but such activism is rare

[Strike For The South]

We've made such a mockery out of what marriage was supposed to be about, it really doesn't matter who gets married at this point.

I say let the gays get married and make it a federal law so we can do it once and be done with. I am growing so tired of this "o woe is me" crap coming from a section of LGBT movement. On the scale of social justice gay marriage represents an absolute 0 and is nothing more than a product of the new notion of marrying for love. The family unit is the bedrock of any stable society and it's breaking under the strain of all the little Kings clamoring that their needs aren't being met.

Putting such a premium on being "happy" is harmful.

I'm not advocating forcing gays into heterosexual relationships, all I am saying is that I get turned off by the way the message is presented. I want gays to live together and grow old together but marriage as a whole is a broken institution and to act as if it would be some great hammer blow for justice is an insult to justice.

[Ironside]

We've made such a mockery out of what marriage was supposed to be about, it really doesn't matter who gets married at this point.

I say let the gays get married and make it a federal law so we can do it once and be done with. I am growing so tired of this "o woe is me" crap coming from a section of LGBT movement. On the scale of social justice gay marriage represents an absolute 0 and is nothing more than a product of the new notion of marrying for love. The family unit is the bedrock of any stable society and it's breaking under the strain of all the little Kings clamoring that their needs aren't being met.


Equality is not for everyone. :clown:

The notion of marrying for love has been a viable idea for about 400 years, even if it didn't start to become common until much later.

[HoreTore]

The family unit is the bedrock of a stable society?

What kind of conservative hillbilly nonsense is that?

You claim "the family" is breaking up. Thus, we should be experiencing an unstable society, or at least a less stable society. I agree. World wars, race riots, hippies, colonization and rampant racism are all sure signs of a stable society. Things were much better back in the days when people stayed married.



You can do better than parroting radio catchphrases, SFTS.

[Beskar]

"Gay marriage is breaking up the family unit!"
*cheats on wife with another woman, marriage breaks up*

[Rhyfelwyr]

The family unit is the bedrock of a stable society?

Without necessarily tying this to the gay marriage issue, the above statement is by and large true. It is the sole environment that has historically allowed children to be raised well with some degree of emotional and financial stability. And of course there are the economic and personal benefits of people living together as couples that IMO would be extremely difficult to replicate with any other sort of communal living arrangement.


"Gay marriage is breaking up the family unit!"
*cheats on wife with another woman, marriage breaks up*

Overcompensation of the part of the occasional Republican candidate aside, there is a serious class issue here, in that the regions most perceptive to the religious and socially conservative Right tend to be those experiencing the highest levels of social breakdown in terms of the family unit, and they also tend to be the poorest. In America, your "White Trash", or the UK, the benefit-dependent underclass.

[HoreTore]

Without necessarily tying this to the gay marriage issue, the above statement is by and large true. It is the sole environment that has historically allowed children to be raised well with some degree of emotional and financial stability. And of course there are the economic and personal benefits of people living together as couples that IMO would be extremely difficult to replicate with any other sort of communal living arrangement.

So....

You want to go back to the time when we had world wars, exterminations and laws based on race? Or should we perhaps scrap the notion of "the family unit" and get down to the things that actually matter in a society, which is employment and class?

We behaved like barbarians when "the family unit" was stable. We are not as barbaric now that "the family unit" has disintegrated. These are facts.

[Greyblades]

Funny how the future was predicted to remove the need for employment and class...

[Husar]

Funny how the future was predicted to remove the need for employment and class...

Yes, funny, the need for class will always be there. Men will want class because women will want men of a higher class and humans value themselves relative to others in many cases. It's an eternal struggle that will never end until our governments can control our thoughts. Once that happens there will still be class since the government will be above us in class but at least we won't think about it because the government can control that.

[Conradus]

We behaved like barbarians when "the family unit" was stable. We are not as barbaric now that "the family unit" has disintegrated. These are facts.

Yeah, but are those related?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So....

You want to go back to the time when we had world wars, exterminations and laws based on race? Or should we perhaps scrap the notion of "the family unit" and get down to the things that actually matter in a society, which is employment and class?

We behaved like barbarians when "the family unit" was stable. We are not as barbaric now that "the family unit" has disintegrated. These are facts.

Um... all those things happened because we were at a completely different point in human history.

Look... it is well known that there is a strong link between broken families, and kids that get into trouble with things ranging from drugs, poor academic performance, child abuse, gang violence, lack of social mobility etc. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that this relationship is one of causation and not just correlation, as the family situation itself actually explains why kids can become involved or trapped in these things in the first place.This is common knowledge and indeed common sense, although I will look up the links if you insist. Certainly, tacking these issues are a big part of modern-day social policies, this is not some ideological left-right dispute. Indeed, it is the left that naturally shows the most interest in tacking these problems in poorer communities.

Also, this is a class issue, since as I already said, these problems disproportionately affect working-class communities. The relationship between poverty and social problems is not all one way, one propagates the other. You have to address both.

[Kival]

Look... it is well known that there is a strong link between broken families, and kids that get into trouble with things ranging from drugs, poor academic performance, child abuse, gang violence, lack of social mobility etc.

A) What exactly is a broken family?

B) I'm not exactly sure which correlation you claim to be "common knowledge". Divorce causing child abuse? Divorce leading to gang violence? And in which context do you claim this to be true? Only for the lower classes? And what are you comparing? Children with divorced parents with children who never experienced divorce? Wouldn't it be more sensible to take only families who experienced a servere conflict between the parents and compare children of these families whose parents divorced (Group 1) or stayed together despite the problems (Group 2)?


This is common knowledge and indeed common sense, although I will look up the links if you insist.

I do indeed insist. Though maybe my disagreement may be solved when I understand better what you mean with "broken family".

BTW there were enough cultures where children were not raised by both parents but e.g. by the mother and her brothers and sisters. How can you be sure that the two biological parent model is superior?

[Rhyfelwyr]

A) What exactly is a broken family?

One where the relationship between the parents falls apart, or where they fail to fulfil their basic parental duties (whether it is due to alcoholism, drugs, being in prison, or whatever).


B) I'm not exactly sure which correlation you claim to be "common knowledge". Divorce causing child abuse? Divorce leading to gang violence? And in which context do you claim this to be true? Only for the lower classes? And what are you comparing? Children with divorced parents with children who never experienced divorce? Wouldn't it be more sensible to take only families who experienced a servere conflict between the parents and compare children of these families whose parents divorced (Group 1) or stayed together despite the problems (Group 2)?

The correlation is between negligent/poor parenting and/or an unhappy household on the one hand, and children becoming involved in bad things on the other. As to your last question there, I am not suggesting that hapless marriages should not end in divorce, or that staying together would be good for their children. I am simply saying that an unhealthy relationship between the parents will often have some sort of effect on the children.


I do indeed insist. Though maybe my disagreement may be solved when I understand better what you mean with "broken family".

Well hopefully I explained what I meant there above. tbh, I never had a specific study in mind. If you just google things like "relationship between parenting/divorce and delinquency/anti-social behaviour, there's and endless supply of studies that, at a glance, all seem to indicate at least some degree of correlation. They also tend to discuss the issue of causation.


BTW there were enough cultures where children were not raised by both parents but e.g. by the mother and her brothers and sisters. How can you be sure that the two biological parent model is superior?

Of course these ways can work, but I see them more as variations on the nuclear family take (in the sense that the bonds are still essentially biological), rather than something else entirely. Grandparents, aunts and uncles etc can of course have varying roles of involvement in bringing up children, and they can also provide a safety net should something happen to the parents. I've never heard someone seriously argue that foster care was the best way to raise a kid.

[Montmorency]

We behaved like barbarians when "the family unit" was stable. We are not as barbaric now that "the family unit" has disintegrated. These are facts.

1. We still behave like "barbarians".
2. The family unit was never stable.

But hypothetically, if the family unit were made stable in the contemporary period we would see social dividends. Then again, perhaps it would rather be a product of those dividends. Still worth a shot.

But the point here is that you're wrong, so suck it! :)


Once that happens there will still be class since the government will be above us in class but at least we won't think about it because the government can control that.

The principle of it is quite simple: Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer.

To elaborate: the People become the State, and the State become the People. The State become reducible to a single entity. The People become reducible to a single entity.

Basically, the species becomes a single Meta-Human, named the Autokrator. The Human Hive-Mind would be a stepping-stone to this goal.

[Strike For The South]

"Gay marriage is breaking up the family unit!"
*cheats on wife with another woman, marriage breaks up*

The latter is much more harmful than the former.

One only needs to look at the numbers.

[Sir Moody]

I have always been puzzled by the assertion that Gay Marriage breaks up the family unit... It isn't like many currently married couples are suddenly going to collapse so a partner can enter a gay union

DIVORCE broke up the family unit and more specifically the change in the social acceptance for Women to Divorce

Back in the day a Woman was expected to stick with the marriage through thick and thin and would be socially ostracized if she tired to get out - now that just isn't the case anymore in most the Western World and that is why we see an increased number of "Broken" families - because it isn't a social faux pa to cut and run if it isn't working out

As to why its effecting a certain class more than the others - the "Working" class in particular have always been vulnerable to Drink, Drugs, Violence and (probably most importantly since it generally leads to the others) Poverty - all of which are significant causes of divorces

[Idaho]

I have always been puzzled by the assertion that Gay Marriage breaks up the family unit... It isn't like many currently married couples are suddenly going to collapse so a partner can enter a gay union

DIVORCE broke up the family unit and more specifically the change in the social acceptance for Women to Divorce

Back in the day a Woman was expected to stick with the marriage through thick and thin and would be socially ostracized if she tired to get out - now that just isn't the case anymore in most the Western World and that is why we see an increased number of "Broken" families - because it isn't a social faux pa to cut and run if it isn't working out

As to why its effecting a certain class more than the others - the "Working" class in particular have always been vulnerable to Drink, Drugs, Violence and (probably most importantly since it generally leads to the others) Poverty - all of which are significant causes of divorces
Eh? It's all women's fault? How do you work that one out?

[Greyblades]

Ehhh, unfortunately that works the other way too, for each gay guy not competing there's a woman who is uninterested.

[Sir Moody]

Eh? It's all women's fault? How do you work that one out?

you read all of that and came out that I was suggesting it was the Woman's fault?

I was attempting to explain why we have seen an increase in "failed" marriages not attempting to attribute blame

Divorce used to be the province of Men - there was no social stigma for Men to divorce and so marriages would generally only end when the Man decided it would - since the stigma Women suffered under has now gone they have no compunction to stay in a bad marriage and so we have seen more divorces

Personally I think the whole "Family unit" idea is completely outdated and it cant have been good to be stuck in a family where both parents hated each other but stayed married to save face...