Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Sheldon]

A baby at 20 weeks is a baby.

At twenty weeks it is a foetus, do you think repeating this lie will fool us?

 

[Sheldon]

That doesn't even make sense. Everyone has the right not to be shot regardless of gun laws. You are equating rights with loss of rights. That's a safety question. Does my kid have the right not to fall down the stairs? Should we outlaw stairs?

That's a great equivalence stairs and guns, I mean we can all agree that stairs are an unecessary extravagance, but we all need guns.

No wait???

Ok the idiocy of your comparison aside, countries like the UK, and Australia that introduced strict gun laws after mass shootings, have hardly any gun crime. The US by comparison has some of the highest gun crime rates in the world.

 

[Sheldon]

Fine. Just call it a civil union. What's wrong with that,,?

What's wrong with calling it a marriage? You seem to want only the freedoms you value, and deny freedoms others value. You're not making a very sound argument here I must say.

Like abortion, if you don't want to marry someone you don't have to, and if you do crack on. Just stop telling others what they can do, then pretending it's because you want more freedom.

 

[Sheldon]

Even live humans are lumps of cells. The difference is that we have active brains and can think.

Of course, that's why I pointed out a foetus is insentient, and of course can't suffer physical and emotional pain.

Yet, fetuses have the potential to live. Is that potential to be ignored?

Who said we should ignore it? No one has to have an abortion if they don't want one.

If so, we could remove a fetus from a woman, cut its arms off, then put the fetus back.

I not following your rationale sorry? Why would we want to cause unnecessary suffering?

It would grow up to be a human without arms. Did we harm life? No, we harmed potential life. Would it be wrong to kill potential life?

Again you have lost me sorry.

Maybe plants are sentient?

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not, I do hope you are.

If a fetus is nothing more than a part of a woman.

Who said "nothing more than"? You seem to have created a straw man.

If a fetus is nothing more than a part of a woman. Isn't that true of a live child?

As I said "nothing more than" are your words, though there is compelling evidence and argument that it is part of a woman's body. This of course is not remotely true of a child.

The child has a brain, and can think, and maybe talk. Does the life of the child begin at birth, or are there rights before it is born?

We already do grant rights to a developing foetus, I just don't see the rationale or the morality in letting those rights trump those of fully sentient pregnant woman.

Some fetuses are aborted and still live.

This is extremely rare, and of course would involve very late term abortions, which themselves are rare. The solution would be to make sure women can access a termination as quickly as possible if that is what they want.

We should make every effort to make sure that abortions don't result in any fetus living.

Well yes, see above.

Abortion should be done no later than the first trimester. Yet, we see laws in some states allowing late term abortions.

There are sometimes sound medical reasons for this.

Is there any difference between a 9 month old fetus and a live baby?

Sentience?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine. Just call it a civil union. What's wrong with that,,?

Because it is immoral not to give the same rights to everyone.

You need to remember, Christianity did not invent marriage. That is a myth. In fact the Bible supports all kinds of "marriages". You can see a nice girl. Talk to her father. Agree to a price. And marry her. That is the good old fashioned marriage that the Bible has the most. But there is nothing wrong with the father selling a girl and then substituting another one, which somehow the groom screws before he realizes it is too late. He then has to earn enough money to buy a second wife from that father, the one that he thought that he bought the first time around. Or a man could buy as many wives as he could afford. All of that is biblical marriage. Another variation is that he could buy a girl for a sex slave. have sex with her, he would not necessarily be "married" to her but he would have to treat her as well as his wives.

Oh and almost forgot. Instead of going to the father in the first example that I gave, a man could simply rape a girl and then pay the marriage fee after the fact. A "You broke her, you bought her" situation.. The girl has no say, the father has no say.

Now considering all of these sorts of "biblical" marriages is marriage equality all that bad in comparison?

 

[Sheldon]

No one cares about who you love.

Ah your opinion is more important than anyone who disagrees with you again. Like abortions, if you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one, sadly it seems while people are happy for you to be free to choose, you want to deny those choices to others, whilst ironically claiming you are championing freedoms.

Marriage is by definition between people of different sexes,

No it isn't? However words change over time, so who cares what it used to mean? Why take away someone's freedom to marry, just because they happen to be gay? I though you wanted more freedoms, it seems you want only freedoms for yourself and not for those who don't share your views.

however so why would you want it?

The same reason straight people want to marry I imagine, because they love each other, and want to celebrate that.

 

[Suave]

At twenty weeks it is a foetus, do you think repeating this lie will fool us?

Please allow us to agree with the notion of a twenty week old fetus as lacking having experienced any level of consciousness and should therefore not be considered as being the same as a baby.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well Democrats have been less and less advocates for the death penalty. It's been the pro-life, religious right that has been desperate to find drugs to kill inmates, often to disastrous results. These right wing leaders get to make laws that say execution isn't murder, and they get away with that since they make the rules for themselves. But how many inmates have been executed that turned out to be innocent? How many judges have intervened in execution cases because the powers that be wouldn't admit to a flawed prosecution?

They seem to love punishing people in the worst ways. Disease, physical/emotional pain, poverty, storms, etc, all punishments for "bad choices." So Old Testament...

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think roe v wade being overturned would be the worst thing ever to happen to conservatives. They might be popping champagne the day it happens, but they are not going to enjoy the backlash that will ensue thereafter.

The religion is already dying. This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and be a death knell for it. I hope so, actually. I would like to see the religion die and resurrect to be what Jesus wanted instead of what it became not long after he died. It should be the religion of Jesus, not the religion about Jesus.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You want freedom to get high, get aids, burn a flag, gamble away your money and hire a prostitute?

So? If you want a martini, should you be allowed to have one? Then why not get high another way? Would you allow your cat to enjoy a little catnip toy? Same thing, you know.

"Freedom to get AIDS?" That seems a tad silly. I get the flu vaccine because I don't want to get the flu. I've had 4 COVID shots now (I'm 74) because I don't want that, either. I am faithful to my lover because I don't want AIDS, but before him, I used condoms for precisely the same reason (the right doesn't like contraception all that much, either. Ask the Catholic Church).

If I decide to burn a flag as a legitimate protest against an injustice foist on me by the state, what's wrong with that? It's cloth, they can make lots more. Would you outlaw the burning of a flag? Is that not taking away my freedom to do so?

What if I want to gamble, and what if I lose money? I knew the odds going in. Is that also something you would like to see banned -- another freedom taken? Don't you gamble when you cross a busy street? Don't you gamble when you buy a lottery ticket?

And what if somebody wants to hire a prostitute? How is it different for a lonely person to use their own money, with someone else's consent, to satisfy a sexual and/or companionship need than it is to ask some restaurant chef to cook your lunch for you when you're hungry? Sex and food are both prime human urges.

How about freedom to own firearms, mow your yard only when you want to, eat steak, and not get jabbed?

The world is a tad more modern than it was when the Second Amendment was written. Sorry, but your pistol against a nuclear missile is like a child's cap gun facing a barrage of cannon. The reality is that much more harm is caused by citizen-owned weaponry that good has come from the use of "armed militias."

How is the freedom to eat steak, with a nice glass of wine, so very different from toking on a joint and gobbling a whole giant-sized bag of potato chips?

Now, on the subject of not getting jabbed, there is a truth in that that too many people ignore. You can infect (and potentially kill) other people. Typhoid Mary was forcibly quarantined for just that reason, for 30 years of her life. And we insist on children getting a whole range of vaccines, to protect them and other children. I don't know the program in the US, but in Canada, it is:

Routine Vaccinations
Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib) vaccine
DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccine – given at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months and 18 months
DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccine is a combined vaccine that protects children against five diseases ― diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and serious diseases like meningitis caused by haemophilus influenzae type b.

Immunization against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio is required by law for all children attending school in Ontario, unless exempted.

How about freedom to better yourself instead of freedom to destroy yourself?

You probably don't see it, but in that statement you are strongly suggesting that you know how people should best live their lives, and how they should not. I see "freedom" as the freedom to live MY life as I see fit, not how YOU do.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So then be honest with yourself; you're not pro freedom, you're pro "nanny state", specifically a theocracy

Absolutely not.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Also, do you support the prohibition of alcohol or tobacco?

No. I support some regulations like not selling to minors.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Really? Do you have an Oxford Language Dictionary? This is their definition:

"The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)."

Or are you claiming the right to define the English language for everybody, all by yourself?

Thabks for proving my in point. You want something that historically doesn't exist, to change marriage into a same sex relationship.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, that is *your* definition. The *legal* definition allows for same-sex couples.

Why would someone want it? Survivor benefits, insurance, joint custody, visitation rights, and all sorts of other *benefits* given by the government to those who are married.

You can get the same from civil unions.

 

[F1fan]

You said, "But I don’t see them with the evil motives so often ascribed to them." I thought January 6 was a great example of that evil. They want to take away the freedom of others by force and at all costs, lying, cheating, deception, stealing, violence, death, etc., all in the name of God and freedom.

Yes, they are evil. The very biblical definition of wolves in sheep's clothing. "By their fruits you shall know them," not by their proclamations of righteousness. These are not Christians in any sense biblically speaking. They are Christian Nationalists.

Indeed, I consider these Christian extremists to be anti-Christs because most of their attitudes and behavior is contrary to what Jesus taught. It's an absurdity that they call themselves Christian at all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which was which?

Not mowing your yard and eating steaks doesn't hurt you or society. A casino and hookers in the neighborhood guarantees crime and corruption.

 

[F1fan]

Thabks for proving my in point. You want something that historically doesn't exist, to change marriage into a same sex relationship.

Don't worry about it, it's not as if Christians think marriage is so sacred that they don't get divorces. In fact, evangelicals are among the highest group to get divorced.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thabks for proving my in point. You want something that historically doesn't exist, to change marriage into a same sex relationship.

Lots of things historically didn't exist. Like the right of women to vote and hold public office, for example. Or anybody at all to vote, for that matter. Shall we take it away on that basis? Or have we learned something about the abilities of women? Well, I say we're learning something about the nature of human relationships, too.

Or at least some of us are.

 

[Yazata]

For that matter, if it carries the same benefits as marriage, then why have a different name?

Marriage is one of the oldest social institutions there is. It dates back to ancient and probably to prehistoric times. It's found all around the world. It means something.

That's what the "gay marriage" dispute is all about. A coterie of social activists wants to radically change what the word 'marriage' means. But they aren't satisfied with another phrase like 'civil unions' or whatever it might be, because they want to bathe in the age-old connotations and associations that the word 'marriage' conjures up, even as they try to tear that meaning down.

Maybe the government should *only* have civil unions? So, you get a civil union license and not a marriage license? Then the marriages can be done in houses of worship only.

Yes, I've long advocated that. Why is the government in the marriage business anyway? What business is it of theirs who I share my bed with? I suppose that in earlier centuries it was about laws of inheritance. But today so many children are born out of marriage and the means of determining biological and legal parentage are so developed, that it's no longer necessary to base inheritance and judgments of parental responsibility on children being born within a marriage.

So perhaps it would be best to get the government out of the marriage business.

But as noted above, marriage still means something in our culture. (If less and less, as the institution is under relentless attack.) It still carries religious and psychological resonance. (In some brands of Christianity, marriage is one of the sacraments.) So let marriage and the rite of marrying people be the province of religious institutions.

Some of these will define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, just as marriage has been defined for thousands of years.

Others (the Metropolitan Community Church and many of the more "woke" mainline Protestant denominations these days) would be free to marry gay couples if they wish.

And members of the public would be free to define 'marriage' as they see fit and to recognize couples as married or not according to what they conceive marriage to be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thabks for proving my in point. You want something that historically doesn't exist, to change marriage into a same sex relationship.

Well, this is only western culture but you seem not to know your history:
https://theweek.com/articles/528746...orded evidence of,Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans.