So, I saw this news item, US Navy lesbian couple share first gay dockside kiss.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16297406

Apparently, on US ships, meeting loved ones at the end of a voyage, on the keyside, is something of a ritual and they have some sort of lottery to decide who goes first. I confess, I thought this very American. Not in a negative way. Americans are quirky, weird, strange, exuberant, over confident, but I wouldn't change any of them. (Well, perhaps one).

Anyway, a certain individual who makes a bit of a thing about religion, just had to bring the moment down to earth.

It went something like this: This will be the end of the world, Jesus told us Men will destroy themselves, not war or disasters. It's homosexuality, it will lead to fewer and fewer children, until there's none left. The Bible says it's wrong and it knew what it was saying.

Now I naturally resisted the temptation to point out that Jesus never said any such thing.

I also resisted the temptation to point out that that would only happen if everyone became gay and none had any babies. Bit unlikely, but does indicate that those who talk in those terms might be hiding something about themselves.

I decided, instead, to point out that the world population in the 60s was said to be 3.5 billion. Now it's said to be 7 billion. http://galen.metapath.org/popclk.html

Sadly, I didn't feel any ebullience over my win. Just sad.

  Too many religious nutcases like to make up things that Jesus supposedly said, just so they can win an argument or prove a point.

I would have said something like "It's way more likely we'll kill everyone in a nuclear war. And much quicker, too."

Wow, it was only 3.5 billion in the 60's? Daaaaaaammmnnn. Somebody needs to tell everyone that we're done now, we don't need to "multiply and replenish the earth" any more.

And, on a side note, I had to take a moment to look up "ebullience," never heard that word before!  maybe I shouldn't have dropped out of college so soon

Quote from: spacial on December 22, 2011, 07:53:03 AM

It went something like this: This will be the end of the world, Jesus told us Men will destroy themselves, not war or disasters. It's homosexuality, it will lead to fewer and fewer children, until there's none left. The Bible says it's wrong and it knew what it was saying.

It's funny that the people who say this are also against gays having children.

I thought it was a great choice by the USA Navy. Though it was probably less controversial than two gay guys kissing. Maybe when the next ship comes in?

As for the anti-homosexual comments. Well I'm just tired of them and totally ignore them.

Cindy

Good on 'em.

It's obvious, but I still want to point out that I'm pretty gay and I had a baby.

Stuff happens. My child was in simple numeric terms totally superfluous. We're not running out of humans. We're not anywhere near even ready to start sort of kind of worrying about running out of humans.

Lol. I'm not the most foolish one here. That's nice.

Why send lesbians over seas to kill people when we have nuclear missiles which are far more efficient? Admittedly the missiles don't have the same terror capabilities the which lesbians possess....

Quote from: fionabell on December 24, 2011, 06:29:27 PM
Why send lesbians over seas to kill people when we have nuclear missiles which are far more efficient? Admittedly the missiles don't have the same terror capabilities the which lesbians possess....

Perhaps people cost less.

But I still can't figure out why American people seem so eager to sell their kids into mercenary service, fighting other people's wars, which have no significance on the US at all.

It seems all the US ever gets in return are yet more overseas commitments. It is clearly costing the US taxpayer a fortune, since, many pay about the same income taxes as we do in the UK, yet can't afford a decent health service.

But hey, why rock the boat. At least we don't have to pay it. 

Pretty short sighted history there.  The reason that everyone in England is not speaking German this Xmas is because of [MASSIVE] US intervention in foreign wars after all. 

Quote from: spacial on December 24, 2011, 07:01:17 PM
Perhaps people cost less.

But I still can't figure out why American people seem so eager to sell their kids into mercenary service, fighting other people's wars, which have no significance on the US at all.

It seems all the US ever gets in return are yet more overseas commitments. It is clearly costing the US taxpayer a fortune, since, many pay about the same income taxes as we do in the UK, yet can't afford a decent health service.

the 1% makes money, thought the country gets poorer. The US attacks countries who don't live in a debt based system and drags them in.

The US people don't benefit in any way but that 1% we hear about does.

Quote from: tekla on December 24, 2011, 09:29:46 PM
Pretty short sighted history there.  The reason that everyone in England is not speaking German this Xmas is because of [MASSIVE] US intervention in foreign wars after all.

And I'm sure that we are all grateful for that. I think I even made the same point myself.

Please do, continue sending your money, your children and your resources to deal with the various messes we make.

After all, it sure beats having to do it for ourselves.

And just think, if we ever do have to face up to the realities of what we've done over the last few hundred years, that would mean we'd have to accept that we've actually been wrong.

Can you imagine the indignity?

So, please, do not go away with the idea that I would ever ask you to stop. As I also pointed out, you pay more or less the same taxes as we do, but by permitting you to spend your cash and sacrifice your chilldren on our behalf, we can afford to spend our taxes on such things as a rather nice NHS. And lets not forget our welfare state which pays generations of people to sit around doing nothing.

Only a fool would ask you not to pay for all that. (Mind you, only a fool would pay it, but I won't criticise America!!  )

Interesting that one of the main objections to national health care here is exactly the NHS system.  It's exactly the model of top-down management by government decree that people fear.  That model looms so large that the much better run systems in Germany, Switzerland and France, and even Canada can't seem to break out and counter that NHS model in national debates.  And while the tax rates may be similar, the way that they are actually structured (and all the exemptions/deductions) means that the average American pays far less in taxes than most of our Euro counterparts.  Which explains why so many of your rock stars live in LA and Marin, and almost none of our rock stars moved to England except as short-term tourists.

You should check out some of the histories of the American peace movement between the wars.  It's highly unlikely that had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor that we would have been involved beyond lend-lease - so strong was the feeling that we should not bail out Europe twice, particularly after the conditions that set the second war arose in no small part due to the vindictive nature of the treaty that ended the war in direct opposition to the wishes of Woodrow Wilson.

I mean it's hard for Europe to decry the rise of the US and USSR following the war as they had done their own dirty work destroying the industrial bases of each others countries.  It wasn't as much destiny as default.

What's all this got to do with blood thirsty lesbians?

Quote from: fionabell on December 25, 2011, 02:59:47 PM
What's all this got to do with blood thirsty lesbians?

Nothing at all.

My bad completely. Never a good plan to get tangled with Tekla's competitive conscience, even if it is in jest.

Happy New Year Tekla. 

You know there is professional help to keep people who were mean drunks from becoming perpetually mean in sobriety.

Paul Kennedy's 1987 book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" may give some insight on that matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers

Barbie~~

Brilliant work.

Quote from: barbie on December 25, 2011, 03:08:02 PM
Paul Kennedy's 1987 book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" may give some insight on that matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers

Barbie~~

If I thought it would be useful, I would be happy to start or participate in a separate thread to discuss this issue. It is, however, a diversion form topic. I don't personally have any objections, but I know that generally, this is not acceptable here.

The problem with referring an argument to a book is the entire discussion become a game of 3 card brag with book titles.

I have found, from experience, that when arguments are dismissed by reference to a book then the argument is probably not going anywhere. I haven't read this book. the breif précis isn't very inspiring. If anyone has any useful arguments, even taken from this or another book then it would seem a better presentation to make those here, rather than dismiss that which you can't agree, by referring to a book.

Again, I apologise for diverting the discussion from the original topic. I can't initiate another thread now, because I've made my point already. I will look forward to someone, presenting an argument, perhaps backed by reference to this or another book

Quote from: Cindy James on December 23, 2011, 01:35:07 AM
I thought it was a great choice by the USA Navy. Though it was probably less controversial than two gay guys kissing. Maybe when the next ship comes in?

As for the anti-homosexual comments. Well I'm just tired of them and totally ignore them.

Cindy

main thing is her girl came home in one piece. As for the guys, we all know who sang In The Navy...

referring an argument to a book is the entire discussion become a game of 3 card brag with book titles

No, it's called scholasticism, knowledge gained by study - which entails more than reading, it's reading with reflection, more reading and more reflection and then, in most cases, followed by writing - all of which raised it from mere argument into intellectual discussion.  That's what non-academic people never quite understand.  It's about dealing with ideas, and not feeling responsible for personally re-inventing the wheel.  (With personal detachment, opposed to personal attachment to ideas that in fact, were not really all that original with you to being with.)