Similar to why the Crusades didn't begin earlier after the initial outrages perpetrated by Muslim invaders- Christian divisions, plague, outside invasion. Some of the Neapolitan states - even the Byzantines- wanted good trade relations with neighboring Muslim states.

The "securing most of its colonies" part...yeah. That's empire. When you control Egypt in the ancient world you basically have a surplus of food, when you control the Mediterranean, which is what happened after Carthage fell, you have a surplus of goods. If you benefit the most from the trade and multiply all that was great in isolation from Greek culture, then you get high-culture spread abroad all the more like never before. Why?empire. If you don't like the term "empire" then we can just use what you already agreed to use. Namely, conquering people and benefiting from the economic boom which follows. What do you think motivated Rome to keep expanding? Are you denying the impact economics has on culture? Or are you denying the impact conquering has on economics? Either way, it's up to you to do some serious muscling on the reworking of history.

I do not agree that Rome was prosperous because it was an Empire. Rome defeated Carthage, and secured most of its colonies and territory long before it became an Empire. Previous to that we have numerous pagan civilizations such as Egypt, Persia and so on.

It's simple really. Rome was prosperous because it was an empire. It took more than 700 years from the coming of Rome as a significant city state until you have the first real Roman Emperor. The unique ways in which Christendom rose to power is quite extraordinary actually. The grandeur of Rome pales in comparison. Especially when you read modern histories on how unromantic the Graeco-Roman times really were outside of a purely idealistic paradigm.

This article references gay couples in relationships, not necessarily marriages, and I don't know if it details whether or not the percentages vary between couples who do and do not have or want children.

Also, I'm not aware of any literature that suggests having parents who sleep with other people from time to time is detrimental to children. It's possible that a child would never know; it depends on when and where the extra-relationship encounters occur. But I agree that open relationships could be a problem for children if there ends up being a "rotating cast" of parental figures. This would be true for both straight and same-sex couples, and single parents as well.

Luke, I was going to pass this up but you have too many false claims here. For the sake of brevity, I'll just tackle the one you spent so much time on. Let me say first of all that I think its possible that discrimination has played some role in affecting gay families. I don't know. I haven't seen a study that proves that this played a significant role, however. I have seen studies that attribute the differences between gay/lesbian parented families and heterosexual parented families to behaviour that is chosen. For example, you can google the New York Times survey that found that over 50% of gay marriages were "open" marriages. The link below is to a Slate article that references other studies showing similar results.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

You see, the gay marriage movement has redefined marriage to suit their life style. We've gone from the traditional model of a man+woman, monogomous and permanent marriage to any combination of men and women you choose, "monogamish" (to use Dan Savage's terminology) and temporary arrangement. All of this is to the detriment of any children they have. Common sense should tell you that. But for those lacking in common sense, there are a ton of studies that prove children do best when raised in a family that practices the traditional model

I don't believe that what I'm doing here is pointless. Your personal judgment may differ.

Here in part is what I think would be the "orthodox" Catholic response. First, and obviously, Friday abstinence is binding only on Catholics.

I think it may be the orthodox response when they are arguing with skeptics, but not when they are educating believers.

Second, the Church can say that objectively it is a mortal sin to violate the Friday abstinence rule, but the Church does not say that any particular individual subjectively has committed a mortal sin. One could walk up to a priest on a Friday in Lent and say, "Watch me, Father. I am a Catholic and I'm eating a Big Mac," and the priest could not legitimately say, "You have committed a mortal sin." Because only God knows what is in the person's heart.

The priest could also not legitimately say that "you have not committed a mortal sin". I think if our person went to confession and told a priest that "I ate big mac last Friday, because I had a taste for one, is that a mortal sin?" the priest would probably say "that was probably a mortal sin, but don't worry about it because it is confessed now". Sure, we cannot say with certainty when person X commits a mortal sin, but the Church is quite clear on the likelihood of these things being mortal.

The Church does say that it is grave matter.

I think it could be argued that giving full consent to such an act, under the circumstances, might be very difficult.

This is not the impression one gains from reading the "Orthodox" view. We may argue that full consent is difficult, but I do not think "Orthodox" Catholics would.

Suppose my hypothetical Big Mac eater above goes into therapy, and it is discovered that underlying his actions in front of the priest are actually unresolved issues involving his tyrannical father. Unconsciously he was rebelling against the authority of the Church because of psychological issues from his childhood. Perhaps it takes years of therapy to get at that. Can we really say he gave full consent to his defiant act when he was motivated by forces he was unaware of? Do you suppose that God doesn't understand that acts seemingly aimed at himself may be explicable at least in part by other causes?

But we are talking about a Big Mac eater who eats a Big Mac because he wants to, without a bunch of circumstances. This Big Mac eater has knowledge and consent. He eats a Big Mac, because he would rather eat a burger than follow the fast. Is that a mortal sin?

I don't think an all-Good God would damn anyone, but Catholics think otherwise. Many "orthodox" Catholics think that most souls go to hell.

Fourth, how hard is it to abstain from eating meat on Fridays? If it is an actual hardship, the rules do not apply. My mother was always painfully thin, and priests told he not only not to fast during Lent, but to try to eat more. There is simply no reason to violate abstinence rules, and if there is a reason, the rules do not apply. So as a Catholic, knowing that the "precepts" of the Church are the minimum requirements of being a member in good standing of the Church, what could possibly motivate a knowledgeable, clear-thinking Catholic to violate an abstinence rule?

Sure, someone could gain a dispensation from the fast.

Maybe our clear-thinking Catholic just really wanted a Big Mac. It is like any other sin.

The point isn't the fact that it is relatively easy to do. The point is that the Catholic Church considers it to be grave matter. And if done with reflection and consent, worthy of hell. Actually, the Catholic Church thinks we are worthy of hell regardless, but that is another matter.

What would the intention be for a person who was a believing Catholic, who knew it was seriously wrong and yet committed the act giving full consent to it? Can you explain why anybody would do such a thing?

Because they wanted a Big Mac more than they wanted to obey God's law. It is not out of spite - it is out of preference.

Aside: Any act no matter how small, can be a mortal sin, if done out of pure rebellion against God.

A science of the gaps argument? :)