United States Christianity, History, and US Politics

[Abhorsen]

Any way, amusingly enough the historiocity of the Nazareen carpenter and luminous figure is only in doubt by frauds that even the modern soy infused scraggly bearded self hating professors decry.

This is very true. There's a great post on stack exchange on this in Skeptics, for example:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1650/55536

Really, I've never been able to believe, but I wish I could, if that makes sense. Overall, if they stay away from gay marriage a legal thing, not as something they must endorse, I support a fair amount of what evangelicals want politically, until the point where it becomes government regulating what non evangelicals do. Currently, they are in no position to do the later (except for drugs), so they have my full support, but in the past, I'd have to do an ugly balancing test in my head to figure out who to vote for.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Christ himself wasn't exactly big on the state legislating morality. He encouraged Christians to respect and obey the law of man and he made a few speeches where he encouraged his people to follow God and change a society from within. But seemed to hold the view that the soul was beyond the laws of man and matters of morality belonged solely to The Lord.

I'm not sure if he would be okay with a state legislating morality. He was killed for objecting to the corruption of his fathers house by the state after all.

That being said my issue with gay marriage has always been redefining a term that has gelf.al.ksy universally the same meaning throughout all of human history and is the sole purview of religion.

Scalia was correct to call it an attack on all religion and an attack on 7.8 of all 8 billion humans on earth via that.

 

[King Arts]

Honestly even ignoring religion there is no need for a government to acknowledge gay marriage. It's not my bussiness to know someone's personal life, gay sex is something gays do for fun that they decided to do it with only one person which then becomes gay marriage why does the government need to make a bureaucracy to give people a certificate saying they really like this one person? Many of our problems would be solved if the government restructured it's laws so that it got rid of all benefits of marriage, as well as social security. As who cares what specific person you like, instead the government should offer tax incentives that used to help married people to couples that have biological children together and stay together to raise the child. The interest in this for the government is to make sure that future citizens are being raised who can contribute to the tax pool and the economy and everything else the government needs people for.

 

[Bacle]

Honestly even ignoring religion there is no need for a government to acknowledge gay marriage. It's not my bussiness to know someone's personal life, gay sex is something gays do for fun that they decided to do it with only one person which then becomes gay marriage why does the government need to make a bureaucracy to give people a certificate saying they really like this one person? Many of our problems would be solved if the government restructured it's laws so that it got rid of all benefits of marriage, as well as social security. As who cares what specific person you like, instead the government should offer tax incentives that used to help married people to couples that have biological children together and stay together to raise the child. The interest in this for the government is to make sure that future citizens are being raised who can contribute to the tax pool and the economy and everything else the government needs people for.

Doesn't matter, because the reality is in the US marriage is a state institution, has laws and legal codes attached, as well as benefits and tax cuts for kids, biological or adopted.

As well, homosexuals can have kids now thanks to our power over the human genome, and artifical wombs are on the horizon.

So people who want to fight against same sex marriage, and pretend medical science isn't opening doors to a world where the old limits on biology no longer necessarily apply, can sit and spin.

If they want to protect things like the 2nd Amendment, want to fight abortion, and want to remain politically relevant at all going forward, the best thing they can do it take the L on the issue of same-sex marriage, shut up about trying to repeal it, and focus on other fights where the can find common cause with LGBTs and non-religious (or simply non-evangelist Christian) folks.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Or, they can scream "FUCK IT" and go to war over the right to abolish same sex marriage and restore American culture and lay it all on the line in one last desperate gamble.

And you know what?

Given how immigrants view the alphabet Soup? It might just pay off.

Personally I think its a stupid idea, but to claim the Right will lose everything if it chooses this hill to die on is silly. The Demographics of America are changing and even the most socially progressive immigrant from the Americas will still harbor beliefs like Trans people need to be put in prisons...

If the GOP wasn't a neutered servant of the Democratic Party, if they had the fire they had in the 80's and 90's, they would see that doubling down hard and then leveraging it all would be the only sound strategy to gain victory.

The American right has survived long enough..its time to start thriving again.

 

[King Arts]

Doesn't matter, because the reality is in the US marriage is a state institution, has laws and legal codes attached, as well as benefits and tax cuts for kids, biological or adopted.

As well, homosexuals can have kids now thanks to our power over the human genome, and artifical wombs are on the horizon.

So people who want to fight against same sex marriage, and pretend medical science isn't opening doors to a world where the old limits on biology no longer necessarily apply, can sit and spin.

If they want to protect things like the 2nd Amendment, want to fight abortion, and want to remain politically relevant at all going forward, the best thing they can do it take the L on the issue of same-sex marriage, shut up about trying to repeal it, and focus on other fights where the can find common cause with LGBTs and non-religious (or simply non-evangrlist Christian) folks.

Did you ignore what I typped? I said that the government should abolish all legal bennefits of marriage, or maybe even marriage altogether. Just axe the whole law code. This is more than distate towards degenerates putting their reproductive organs into a hole that shit comes out of. It's because people have been worried that social security will run out since there will be more old people than young people. I said the way to fix that would be to only give social security payments based on how many children a couple had raised together to adulthood. I never said to count adopted children only biological children of that couple. Of course this means infertile couples will suffer but so be it, also those who divorce before the children reach the age of maturity also won't get the payments. Single parents will only get social security payments if they divorce after the children are 18 or if one parent died before the children are 18. Two men, or two women can't mix their genes to create a child that is both of theirs. One sperm and one egg is required to make a child, when two sperms can make a child or two eggs then maybe there could be a change. Artificial wombs do not exist.

 

[Bacle]

Did you ignore what I typped? I said that the government should abolish all legal bennefits of marriage, or maybe even marriage altogether. Just axe the whole law code. This is more than distate towards degenerates putting their reproductive organs into a hole that shit comes out of. It's because people have been worried that social security will run out since there will be more old people than young people. I said the way to fix that would be to only give social security payments based on how many children a couple had raised together to adulthood. I never said to count adopted children only biological children of that couple. Of course this means infertile couples will suffer but so be it, also those who divorce before the children reach the age of maturity also won't get the payments. Single parents will only get social security payments if they divorce after the children are 18 or if one parent died before the children are 18. Two men, or two women can't mix their genes to create a child that is both of theirs. One sperm and one egg is required to make a child, when two sperms can make a child or two eggs then maybe there could be a change. Artificial wombs do not exist.

In breakthrough, Israelis grow hundreds of mouse embryos in artificial wombs | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

Two-Father Babies Could Soon Be Possible, With No Egg Donor Required

Two-Father Babies Could Soon Be Possible, With No Egg Donor Required

www.iflscience.com

One Day, an Embryo with Two Biological Dads May Be Possible

Gay couples could fulfill their dreams of having children related to them both.

time.com

Lab-grown structures mimic human embryo's earliest stage yet

The experiments use human cells to imitate the blastocyst phase — offering a crucial window into human development.

www.nature.com

Scientific knowledge and advancements disagree. We aren't quite there yet, but the concepts have been proven, and there is plenty of money going into this stuff.

Science will march on, whether you like it or not.

 

[Captain X]

Even without medical advancements, there's adoption, and also surrogates have been a thing for a very long time with couples who can't reproduce normally. And for lesbians, all they need is a sperm donor and in vitro fertilization is totally already a thing.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Homeboy wants to create testtube grown monsters to own the Cons

The pettiness of the Fedora crowd knows no bounds, not even the boundaries of medical ethics and human decency. You people would have supported Shiro Iishi or Joseph Mengele if he promised to untether you lunatics from the Church.

 

[Cherico]

Doesn't matter, because the reality is in the US marriage is a state institution, has laws and legal codes attached, as well as benefits and tax cuts for kids, biological or adopted.

As well, homosexuals can have kids now thanks to our power over the human genome, and artifical wombs are on the horizon.

So people who want to fight against same sex marriage, and pretend medical science isn't opening doors to a world where the old limits on biology no longer necessarily apply, can sit and spin.

If they want to protect things like the 2nd Amendment, want to fight abortion, and want to remain politically relevant at all going forward, the best thing they can do it take the L on the issue of same-sex marriage, shut up about trying to repeal it, and focus on other fights where the can find common cause with LGBTs and non-religious (or simply non-evangelist Christian) folks.

I honestly think marrage shouldnt be a state insitution period.

I think that making it so was an over streach of power.

 

[Bacle]

I honestly think marrage shouldnt be a state insitution period.

I think that making it so was an over streach of power.

As far as I know, in the US, marriage has always had to go through the gov if people want to use it for anything related to gov services or taxes.

 

[Cherico]

As far as I know, in the US, marriage has always had to go through the gov if people want to use it for anything related to gov services or taxes.

yeah and I have a problem with that, I honestly do not think the government should have that kind of power period.

 

[Bacle]

yeah and I have a problem with that, I honestly do not think the government should have that kind of power period.

Whether it should or not is irrelevant, because there is no way to disentangle marriage from the gov in the US, or in most countries, really.

People need to learn to deal with reality as is, not as we wish it to be.

 

[Captain X]

What of having a legal right to information about the medical condition of a loved one, or the power to make decisions for them if they are unable to? That's very much tied in to marriage. Also, there's the whole issue of taxes, which is always going to be an issue with the state.

 

[ATP]

Then we won't shed a tear if religious fanatics end up being marginalized into political irrelevancy, or if churches lose thier tax free status, because they want to roll same-sex marriage back.

You made three mistakes - first,there is no such thing like religious fanatics.People either belive in their religion and follow it - which for protestants mean killing sodomites and witches - or not,but then you have no religion but cosplayers like modern lutherans with lesbian bishops.Luder would burn them alive.Becouse he belived.

Second - there is no such thing like same-sex marriage,becouse,by definition,to form marriage you need man and woman/or womans/.Becouse people of the same sex could not have children,and marriage is for creating next generations.

third - modern state would destroy any normal religion anyway,becouse it is totalitarian in nature.What we think about it is irrelevent,in the end we get sign of the beast without it people could not live.
And then God would come back.It is all in Apocalypte.

 

[Bacle]

You made three mistakes - first,there is no such thing like religious fanatics.People either belive in their religion and follow it - which for protestants mean killing sodomites and witches - or not,but then you have no religion but cosplayers like modern lutherans with lesbian bishops.Luder would burn them alive.Becouse he belived.

Second - there is no such thing like same-sex marriage,becouse,by definition,to form marriage you need man and woman/or womans/.Becouse people of the same sex could not have children,and marriage is for creating next generations.

third - modern state would destroy any normal religion anyway,becouse it is totalitarian in nature.What we think about it is irrelevent,in the end we get sign of the beast without it people could not live.
And then God would come back.It is all in Apocalypte.

No, you are the one who has made three mistakes.

First, there are religious zealots/fanatics as a separate thing from normal believers. Trying to make it where only fanatics are actually religious, and everyone else is LARPers is a purity spiral issue or 'No True Scotsman's fallacy.

Second, SCOTUS disagrees, and they are the ones with final say over laws in the US. Since marriage is a gov institution I'm the US, religious definitions hold no water for legal purposes.

Third, that you take the Apocalypse as a serious thing, and think modern states are trying to stick 'the mark of the beast's on people is rather...quaint, and kinda hilarious.

Also, your post shows why LGBTs have every reason to fight tooth and nail against any attempt to roll back our rights, because we know 'true believers' would make it legal to kill us, if they could.

 

[LordsFire]

Also, your post shows why LGBTs have every reason to fight tooth and nail against any attempt to roll back our rights, because we know 'true believers' would make it legal to kill us, if they could.

For Islam, not Christianity.

 

[Bacle]

For Islam, not Christianity.

Did you not see these parts in ATP's post?

People either belive in their religion and follow it - which for protestants mean killing sodomites and witches - or not,but then you have no religion but cosplayers like modern lutherans with lesbian bishops.Luder would burn them alive.Becouse he belived.

Bolded for emphasis.

 

[Abhorsen]

Did you not see these parts in ATP's post?

ATP is Catholic, and has zero knowledge about other religions. He thinks that Hasidic Jews want to eat people as well:

What else do you expected ? for orthodox jews all no-jews are goim,which literally mean cattle.It strange,that he do not eat any catholics there.

2.Orthodox jews belive that all others are goim,which mean cattle.If i belive so,i would eat goim.That is all.Cattle is for being eaten.If i belive that other people are cattle,i would eat them.
AND JEWS HAD RIGHT TO BELIVE WHATEVER THEY LIKE,AND EAT WHAT THEY WANT.aS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL.
I am sure,that they could legally eat people from time to time.
They had right to belive that i am cattle,and - if law abide so - to eat me.

So don't take him as any sorta authority about things other religions do. Or really his own, outside of what he'd do (he thinks the lavender mafia is a real organization that existed a 1000 years ago that the inquisition fought).

 

[King Arts]

In breakthrough, Israelis grow hundreds of mouse embryos in artificial wombs | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

Two-Father Babies Could Soon Be Possible, With No Egg Donor Required

Two-Father Babies Could Soon Be Possible, With No Egg Donor Required

www.iflscience.com

One Day, an Embryo with Two Biological Dads May Be Possible

Gay couples could fulfill their dreams of having children related to them both.

time.com

Lab-grown structures mimic human embryo's earliest stage yet

The experiments use human cells to imitate the blastocyst phase — offering a crucial window into human development.

www.nature.com

Scientific knowledge and advancements disagree. We aren't quite there yet, but the concepts have been proven, and there is plenty of money going into this stuff.

Science will march on, whether you like it or not.

Ok, show me the current person aka human being who was created by these technologies? These are all theoretical, as of this moment right now no human was created using the DNA of two men or two women. Also I find it funny that the pro gay cabal wants to undermine a law that doesen't even target them directly. The law I suggested is there to increase the natural birth rate, so immigration is no longer needed to keep up the economy. But gays and their pride have to stick it in everywhere and corrupt everything.

Even without medical advancements, there's adoption, and also surrogates have been a thing for a very long time with couples who can't reproduce normally. And for lesbians, all they need is a sperm donor and in vitro fertilization is totally already a thing.

The law I suggested would not apply for adoption. You only get social security if you and your partner raise biological kids together. If they divorce before the child is 18 they lose the bennefits, the only "loophole" is becoming a widow or widdower. Also surrogacy would not work, one of the married couples would not be the biological parent of the child. So unless the other parent decided to raise the child together with the person who provided the egg in which case they are basically married then it does not apply. The same with lesbians only one would be the mother, and she only gets social security bennefits based on how many kids she raised to age 18 with one person who is also the kids biological parent. Unless she decides to marry the guyy no bennefits for her.

As far as I know, in the US, marriage has always had to go through the gov if people want to use it for anything related to gov services or taxes.

You do realize tax codes can be reorganized. And my law could help stimulate the economy and increase the birthrate. The government should not care about your preferences it only cares about stability and bringing in the next generation perpetuates itself and makes society stable.