Silver Persian
Banned
Iron in a nutshell.i must admit that that sounded cool, but made absolutely no sense
Iron in a nutshell.i must admit that that sounded cool, but made absolutely no sense
How dare you. I sound good because I make sense. You just havent put these two together yetIron in a nutshell.
no iron you dont make senseHow dare you. I sound good because I make sense. You just havent put these two together yet
But you will, in this world or the next!
amen brother, very very well said.You made no valid point. Can you understand this?
Frankly i'd prefer if society was honest and didnt respect my life. At least this would be consistent with its attitude to the unborn and elderly. The only thing keeping my life valued is my ability to earn a wage and consume material products.
That's not ironic, it's just consistant with his beliefs.If people are already homosexual then they wont reproduce, by the "conventional" means anyway (which is ironic, seeming you are against IVF).
Both courts have found that my son’s parents have no right to marry, but what of my son’s right to have married parents?
A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.”
Both courts have found that my son’s parents have no right to marry, but what of my son’s right to have married parents?
A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking “special rights.”
To the contrary, bearing a large number of children today is what represents selfishness and a lack of foresight. If everyone in the developed world followed your lead and far higher fertility rates were the norm, the consequent environmental catastrophe would leave the planet on the verge of complete collapse.See the problems i've alluded to earlier. The materialism you subscribe to is merely indicative of a selfishness that has been devastating to the family and has resulted in highly volatile personal relationships which bear few children, or emotionally crippled children. It demonstrates a total inability to look beyond yourself, to discipline your lusts and defer happiness - even suffer - for the good of others.
That's an arguement to be expected from an agent of Death who views life as a disease more than anything. You have merely exposed your total hatred of mankind and indeed a self-hatred stemming from sin. Choose life dbdTo the contrary, bearing a large number of children today is what represents selfishness and a lack of foresight. If everyone in the developed world followed your lead and far higher fertility rates were the norm, the consequent environmental catastrophe would leave the planet on the verge of complete collapse.
What evidence do you have for this claim?The reality is that children form the basis of compassion. More of them in our society would simply make us less selfish and wasteful in our demands on the market. The rich will better sympathise with the poor and the economy will simply stop producing the pointless garbage it does.
Okay, then I can do the same thing and claim that more children makes us less compassionate. After all, more children means scarce resources have to be shared amongst more people, so people may become more selfish. I've at least made some attempt to back up what I say.Unlike you I happen to have a brain capable of creative and original thought. Whenever I say something, I dont need to retreat to the comforting words of some homosexual pot-bellied communist scribbling away in his ivory lair
The bible does not command everyone have children. Nor does it suggest that people who don't wish to have children are inherently self-absorbed.I made a better attempt. If Life is not the basis of our development and action, a self-absorbed global population will only sharpen its appetite for more material products to be exploited in order to fill a void that only children and Jesus can rightly fill
i agree. everything has a threshold before the balance starts to become unbalanced and a higher fertility rate would in fact wipe us all out as we do not have the technology (i think) to sustain our race without completely destroying the environment for resources and we will eventually collapse due to our needs not being satisfied and as such we will in fact, destroy ourselves.To the contrary, bearing a large number of children today is what represents selfishness and a lack of foresight. If everyone in the developed world followed your lead and far higher fertility rates were the norm, the consequent environmental catastrophe would leave the planet on the verge of complete collapse.
Why?The shunning of religion in modern society is certainly a problem.
Go forth and multiply...The bible does not command everyone have children. Nor does it suggest that people who don't wish to have children are inherently self-absorbed.
The shunning of religion in modern society is certainly a problem, but having more children is hardly the solution.