Who’s funding the Catholic bishops’ religious freedom campaign?

>Whether unmarried people, men or women have sex or not or for what reasons or whether this makes God, happy, glad, mad or sad does not impact the fact that married people have sex for another reason than procreation.

So that would be you not answering the question?

>What Catholics have told you sex is only allowable for procreation? That was what you said now defend it.

A few here, whenever the issue of contraception comes up posters here and elsewhere have insisted that sex is for procreation and thus the pill is merely for recreation and that therefore it should not be covered. I often bring up married couples who don’t want to have any more children but like many of the salient points I bring up it was ignored.

I’ll ask again, is it okay for unmarried women to have recreational sex?

>Can you think of no negative consequences for sexual relations outside of committed relationships?

I can think of many negative consequences for that and eating a chicken sandwich and crossing the street. I can also think of many positive consequences. Life is funny that way.

But (and correct me if I’m wrong) having sex outside of a relationship is negative therefore no one should do it? Is that what you are saying?

>And the numbers came from surveys done during the time of Obama’s push for health care.
90% say they don’t want any change yet Obama went and did it anyway? Wow! That guy sucks at politics, how’d he ever get elected?

>Look it up

I did can’t find anything that says anything like that.

>and keep looking for the budget expenditures comparing department of defense

I don’t have to. America’s defense budget is the largest in the world and no, America does not spend more on anything.

Oh and universe health care is cheaper, if Obama does it properly the costs will drop, at least that’s how it works in every other Western democracy on the planet.

You know that right? America is the only nation that doesn’t give coverage to all citizens? Heck even crap holes like Iran and Russia do it.

>. By the way, healthcare of soldiers is in the department of defense budget.

I know, one theory about keeping health care private free market is that because the working poor can’t afford it they are more likely to join the military for the excellent health benefits. I know of at least one case personally where a guy joined the army to get his teeth fixed. He was happy enough with the results, both dental and career-wise. I thought it unsavory and a little depressing.

Also some of the greatest medical breakthroughs have come from wars, even the last Iraq adventure produced great strides in prosthetics. So I guess it wasn’t a complete wastes of millions of lives.

>The absurdity of your claim that the Knights of Columbus are supporting the Fortnight for Freedom out of financial motives doesn’t lie in the implausibility of Catholics acting out of financial motives.

We do know the the KoC are in the insurance biz, we do know that Obamacare is the first step in taking a way a slice of that pie. We know that making contraception part of health care does not affect anyone’s religious freedoms in the slightest.

So where is the absurdity?

>Dr. Barr is a physicist.

Sure and he wrote a book that is not about physics, he wrote a book that ignores the scientific method in favor of the theistic one.

If his book has extracts published in say Nature or Scientific American I would pay it some attention but from what I can tell the only reviews are from hives of moronancy like the National Review and Human Events.

I did find a review from a science point of view an it wasn’t kind:

====

Barr’s book comprises 26 chapters organized in five parts, plus three Appendices. The scope of material covered on about 300 pages is very wide. However, there is an obvious general theme going through all chapters with their various subjects and sub-subjects. This theme can be succinctly defined as a dismissal of what Barr refers to as “materialism.” This theme becomes clear immediately in the first part titled “The Conflict between Religion and Materialism.” The titles of the first two chapters portend the contents of the rest of Barr’s narrative: “The Materialist Creed” and “Materialism as Anti-Religious Mythology.”

—-

It’s just more “god of the gaps” nonsense which can be shortened up to “There are a bunch of things in the universe we don’t understand therefore Jesus!”

I don’t approach it with an open mind because it’s trying to marry the natural with the super and as I’ve already established there is no such things as magic.

The same reason why I don’t read “Dionetics” or “Atlas Shrugged” the central thesis is deeply flawed so it can’t make any good points.

Fruit of the silly tree if you will.

SUSY GUTS, nope never heard of that before (or if I had I didn’t remember but I like to think I wouldn’t forget such a charming acronym) but a quick Google suggests that it’s part of the grand unification theory.

Well actually the physics behind it are way more than the people who understand it can understand it. As it turns out the universe is a lot weirder than anyone thought.

This sums it up:

http://xkcd.com/171/