Sex and the Religious-Left

[Wizard22]

Sure, they are different, but that doesn't mean that one is moral while the other isn't. What effect does some woman's sexual choices have on your life? None. Live and let live.

I disagree...

If I want to build a Family for myself, wife, children, long-term relationships, etc. then it starts with Sexual Choice. Should you or I choose a prostitute, a whore, a hooker, etc.? Is she 'equally' viable? Of course not. And that's the difference. It -is- moral. It -is- a moral choice. It's her choice to sleep around, or not. It's my choice to marry her, or not.

Some choices are superior/better than others. When it comes to sexual partnership, family, children, are these not the most important decisions and "choices" of a lifetime???

It should be common-sense that they are. Although, who knows, in clown-world Western Civilization 2024AD?

But wait, aren't they equal in the eyes of the "Lord" and aren't you suppose to forgive them being a "good Christian"? How can a God create the circumstances where we have the choice about who we sleep with and love but then condemn certain choices we make?

Maybe, I admit that I'm not the best Christian Theologian, but I would assume 'God' has the best decisions and choices in mind...so it goes back to the beginning of this response: Who's the better choice? Who's the BEST choice?

Marriage has been around long before the Bible was written. It was primarily used to show a man's ownership over a woman.

Marriage and cultural/religious/mythology coincide together though. Whatever was "before" Christianity, likewise was "before" institutions of Marriage. I don't know about that 'primary' reason and cause. Do you have further arguments, proof, or evidence? When I think of Monogamy, I look at Nature, like ducks and some Avian species that reproduce monogamously (life-long mating partners). Some animals do this naturally, and so, wouldn't need an artificial 'Ceremony' to make it so.

When applied to Humans, Marriage may have been "invented" after-the-fact. In other words, some Humans have a natural behavior to pair-bond for a lifetime...and most other Humans do not. Thus, morality may have been co-opted by this behavior, that the majority of people ought to follow the example of the rare minority that do pair-bond. In other words, Ethics, Morality, and Behavior is adjusted to an already-existing example of how the rest of Humanity 'ought to behave'. Religion and Mysticism are not needed...except as a vestige, an addendum, to mystically Legitimize the 'Best Example' of human behavior.

It's an easy jump to a Priest dictating to his mass: "This is how the rest of you ought to behave." Then add in God's Sanctity.

They were often used to strengthen family ties, or for the strategic, political purposes, of making peace with other families or houses, not about love.

Aren't you missing the bigger point...?

It's about sex. It's about making babies. It's about a woman's need for Stability in life, an Ordered, Safe environment to raise her (and his) children?

Doesn't Marriage offer more order, safety, and stability, than non-marriage??

It is only recently that marriage has been about love which opened the door for same-sex marriage. The answer shouldn't involve whether we should allow same-sex marriage or not, it has to do with taking the government's power for defining marriage away. Why is the government involved with defining marriage in the first place? How I define marriage has no effect on how you define it. We are free to live our lives in this way without interference.

For millions of years sex has used for more than just procreation. It is used to strengthen social bonds and to relieve stress. I had a vasectomy and still have sex, not for procreation, but for pleasure with my wife without being concerned about making more offspring.

Well that's the crux of our arguments and discussions, isn't it?

It's about the Authority to dictate Laws surrounding marriage, or in the case of Religion and Mysticism, divine Authority by which traditions, culture, and ethnic-identities are upheld and defended...or are destroyed.

Can Ireland remain "Irish" if millions of foreigner males invade and marry all the Irish women, leaving none for the original, resident Irishmen? No, the Ethnicity would be destroyed. The "Irish" people and identity, would be destroyed. Therefore, "Marriage" is supposed to guard against such ethnic/racial/cultural replacement. It's about having a social identity, a Society, a Family, a Tribe, a specific group of People.

I agree wholeheartedly here. Both parties are the problem. If the extremists on the left had their way, America would be a communist country. If the extremists on the right had their way America would be a theocracy. The best answers lie somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. When I argue against the left, they accuse me of being a right-winger. When I argue against the right, the call me a left-winger. It must suck to see the world in only red or blue, or black and white.

And BTW, the left is not liberal. They are authoritarian socialists in liberal skin. Libertarians are the true liberals. The left is not progressive either, as humans have been there and done that with authoritarian socialism. Progressivism is trying something new, like abolishing political parties.

We need to abolish political parties. No more Ds and Rs next to people's names on the ballot. Make people actually educate themselves on the candidates and think for themselves rather than let the Party think for them.

I wish it were that easy and simple... even if the Far-Left and Far-Right could, hypothetically, meet in the middle, where exactly would the middle be found?

I think that's what's being debated, lately, around the forum. There needs to be some central point, some basis for contention. Without a 'Centre', there is only endless bickering, fighting, and chaos.

[Trajk Logik]

Sure, they are different, but that doesn't mean that one is moral while the other isn't. What effect does some woman's sexual choices have on your life? None. Live and let live.

I disagree...

If I want to build a Family for myself, wife, children, long-term relationships, etc. then it starts with Sexual Choice. Should you or I choose a prostitute, a whore, a hooker, etc.? Is she 'equally' viable? Of course not. And that's the difference. It -is- moral. It -is- a moral choice. It's her choice to sleep around, or not. It's my choice to marry her, or not.

Some choices are superior/better than others. When it comes to sexual partnership, family, children, are these not the most important decisions and "choices" of a lifetime???

It should be common-sense that they are. Although, who knows, in clown-world Western Civilization 2024AD?

Good or bad choices are dependent on the goal you have. "I want to build a family for myself" is a personal goal of yours. While I share that goal, others may have a different goal. Maybe they don't want a family but love sex and want to be with someone else of the same mind. How does that affect your and you goal to build a family?

It's not a moral issue because they are not limiting/promoting your goals in any way. Morality only involves how your actions affect others. If someone's actions have no impact on others and their goals, then they are not moral/immoral actions.

For instance, the immoral act of the transgender movement is not in some man declaring himself a woman, it is in forcing others to say the same and limiting other's freedom of speech. You are free to call yourself whatever you want, but then don't broaden that out to others and force them to say the same.

But wait, aren't they equal in the eyes of the "Lord" and aren't you suppose to forgive them being a "good Christian"? How can a God create the circumstances where we have the choice about who we sleep with and love but then condemn certain choices we make?

Maybe, I admit that I'm not the best Christian Theologian, but I would assume 'God' has the best decisions and choices in mind...so it goes back to the beginning of this response: Who's the better choice? Who's the BEST choice?

Marriage has been around long before the Bible was written. It was primarily used to show a man's ownership over a woman.

Marriage and cultural/religious/mythology coincide together though. Whatever was "before" Christianity, likewise was "before" institutions of Marriage. I don't know about that 'primary' reason and cause. Do you have further arguments, proof, or evidence? When I think of Monogamy, I look at Nature, like ducks and some Avian species that reproduce monogamously (life-long mating partners). Some animals do this naturally, and so, wouldn't need an artificial 'Ceremony' to make it so.

When applied to Humans, Marriage may have been "invented" after-the-fact. In other words, some Humans have a natural behavior to pair-bond for a lifetime...and most other Humans do not. Thus, morality may have been co-opted by this behavior, that the majority of people ought to follow the example of the rare minority that do pair-bond. In other words, Ethics, Morality, and Behavior is adjusted to an already-existing example of how the rest of Humanity 'ought to behave'. Religion and Mysticism are not needed...except as a vestige, an addendum, to mystically Legitimize the 'Best Example' of human behavior.

It's an easy jump to a Priest dictating to his mass: "This is how the rest of you ought to behave." Then add in God's Sanctity.

Most species are polygamous. Males primarily have a natural tendency to seek more than one sexual partner because it is in their best interests, evolutionarily speaking, to do so, while it is in the females' best interests to keep the male around to help with supporting the offspring.

Here's a couple of links:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... he-new-age
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17351133
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage

Marriage evolved as a way to legally own women, and not really to limit men's sexual promiscuity as the men continued to have sexual relations with other women. It was the women that received a harsher punishment for cheating than the man did. Men could even be permitted to create descendants with other women when their wives did not produce any. It is only recently that marriage has become a limit to men's promiscuity as women now have more rights.

They were often used to strengthen family ties, or for the strategic, political purposes, of making peace with other families or houses, not about love.

Aren't you missing the bigger point...?

It's about sex. It's about making babies. It's about a woman's need for Stability in life, an Ordered, Safe environment to raise her (and his) children?

Doesn't Marriage offer more order, safety, and stability, than non-marriage??

So men and women that cannot have children, or choose to not have children, cannot get married? I see marriage as a commitment to a specific person to be their life-partner that doesn't necessarily have to include having kids.

It is only recently that marriage has been about love which opened the door for same-sex marriage. The answer shouldn't involve whether we should allow same-sex marriage or not, it has to do with taking the government's power for defining marriage away. Why is the government involved with defining marriage in the first place? How I define marriage has no effect on how you define it. We are free to live our lives in this way without interference.

For millions of years sex has used for more than just procreation. It is used to strengthen social bonds and to relieve stress. I had a vasectomy and still have sex, not for procreation, but for pleasure with my wife without being concerned about making more offspring.

Well that's the crux of our arguments and discussions, isn't it?

It's about the Authority to dictate Laws surrounding marriage, or in the case of Religion and Mysticism, divine Authority by which traditions, culture, and ethnic-identities are upheld and defended...or are destroyed.

Can Ireland remain "Irish" if millions of foreigner males invade and marry all the Irish women, leaving none for the original, resident Irishmen? No, the Ethnicity would be destroyed. The "Irish" people and identity, would be destroyed. Therefore, "Marriage" is supposed to guard against such ethnic/racial/cultural replacement. It's about having a social identity, a Society, a Family, a Tribe, a specific group of People.

Sure, that's where we disagree. As an atheist I don't recognize the power of the church, and as a libertarian I do not recognize the power of the government, over who I choose to associate with and have children with.

We should stop seeing ourselves as Irish, Iranian, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Americans, etc. We are all humans - members of the same species.

I agree wholeheartedly here. Both parties are the problem. If the extremists on the left had their way, America would be a communist country. If the extremists on the right had their way America would be a theocracy. The best answers lie somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. When I argue against the left, they accuse me of being a right-winger. When I argue against the right, the call me a left-winger. It must suck to see the world in only red or blue, or black and white.

And BTW, the left is not liberal. They are authoritarian socialists in liberal skin. Libertarians are the true liberals. The left is not progressive either, as humans have been there and done that with authoritarian socialism. Progressivism is trying something new, like abolishing political parties.

We need to abolish political parties. No more Ds and Rs next to people's names on the ballot. Make people actually educate themselves on the candidates and think for themselves rather than let the Party think for them.

I wish it were that easy and simple... even if the Far-Left and Far-Right could, hypothetically, meet in the middle, where exactly would the middle be found?

I think that's what's being debated, lately, around the forum. There needs to be some central point, some basis for contention. Without a 'Centre', there is only endless bickering, fighting, and chaos.

There is only endless bickering, fighting, and chaos because the extremists are the ones that are the loudest and controlling the narrative. The center is right here where most Americans are - the silent majority that recognizes that we should just live and let live. That others' actions that do not hinder others' freedoms and rights are of no concern to anyone and should not be legislated. Only actions that do hinder others' freedoms should be legislated.

When it comes to abortion, abolishing it outright is just as extreme as allowing it up to the point of birth for no reason. The answer is somewhere in between where abortion should be allowed up to a point and banned after that point with the only exception being the life of the mother. I think most people would agree with that, and that if someone's actions have no impact or your life, then you shouldn't be in the business of controlling that action.

[Wizard22]

Good or bad choices are dependent on the goal you have. "I want to build a family for myself" is a personal goal of yours. While I share that goal, others may have a different goal. Maybe they don't want a family but love sex and want to be with someone else of the same mind. How does that affect your and you goal to build a family?

Because "Society" is a political allegiance of a large group of families, or non-families. And it seems to me, clearly the case, that a Society built upon families who are strongly ordered and loyal, Monogamous, are far more successful, on average, than those who are not. Morality is also very well concerned with a Strong or Weak society. This moral strength, is based on these types of choices, across thousands, and millions of people.

I don't want to live in a Weak society; I believe most people do not want to either. However, the masses are easily blinded and lured by short-term gains and pleasures, Hedonism, pornography, prostitution, "Sin".

It's not a moral issue because they are not limiting/promoting your goals in any way. Morality only involves how your actions affect others. If someone's actions have no impact on others and their goals, then they are not moral/immoral actions.

For instance, the immoral act of the transgender movement is not in some man declaring himself a woman, it is in forcing others to say the same and limiting other's freedom of speech. You are free to call yourself whatever you want, but then don't broaden that out to others and force them to say the same.

On a Micro scale, individually, yes it appears that a Transexual or Homosexual enjoying sex "in the privacy of their own bedroom" does not appear too damaging. Thus Liberalism/Leftism require this "Micro" scale argument. However, that argument fails when demonstrating or arguing on the behalf of...a community, a hundred people, a small town...or as above on the Macro scale, an entire Society. Numbers matters. Individual choices do matter. You might not see. But that's what the masses refer to as the "God's Eye" scale and view of things.

The shit starts stacking up, clogging up the sewers.

Maybe, I admit that I'm not the best Christian Theologian, but I would assume 'God' has the best decisions and choices in mind...so it goes back to the beginning of this response: Who's the better choice? Who's the BEST choice?

That's also part of the struggle. It's a strictly Moral challenge. Traditionally, the 'better' choices are those in the upper-classes, elitists, nobility, royal families, etc. which have been 'primed' for strict and rigid lives, across decades or hundreds of years. There is clearly a Class distinction between those with poor/weak morals, versus those with rich/strong morals. It's not even necessarily Economic. A financially poor family, or individuals, can make 'superior' moral choices. And they do.

Latin Americans, for example, many of them are extremely poor, but some are strictly, morally Catholic, and they live good lives with loving families and spouses. I can't think of anybody who has 'beef' or disputation with that.

When it comes to sexual choice, there's a lot of data floating around on what men and women generally want in a mate or 'ideal' partner... surprise surprise, it generally refers to Bourgeois images and concepts of how men and women ought to appear, be, act, etc. In other words, the white 'WASP' upper-class elitists are still the coveted image. The masses generally want to elevate their class status. As you've pointed out already, that usually involves "marrying up".

Most species are polygamous. Males primarily have a natural tendency to seek more than one sexual partner because it is in their best interests, evolutionarily speaking, to do so, while it is in the females' best interests to keep the male around to help with supporting the offspring.

Here's a couple of links:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... he-new-age
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17351133
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage

I already admitted that Monogamous behavior in humans is a minority. That doesn't mean that monogamy/polyamory are "only" the behavior for the entire Human/Hominid specie. Humans are more diverse than...a single tribe of monkeys or gorillas or orangutans.

Marriage evolved as a way to legally own women, and not really to limit men's sexual promiscuity as the men continued to have sexual relations with other women. It was the women that received a harsher punishment for cheating than the man did. Men could even be permitted to create descendants with other women when their wives did not produce any. It is only recently that marriage has become a limit to men's promiscuity as women now have more rights.

Your view of marriage is very small and limited. Marriage, in the Catholic Church, is intended to protect the Husband, the Wife, the Children, AND the Church (God). The Bishop who ordains the Marriage is its 'Keeper' and Guardian. Many sects of Christianity slacked-off these moral, ethical, and spiritual responsibilities. Because a successful marriage, again, strengthens society.

Hypothetically, it would strengthen a State/Government. It would strengthen a Church. Everybody has a vested interest in maintaining successful, monogamous, traditional marriages and relationships. Because it produces better relationships, better community...than what is "offered" by the Religious-Left, now. Leftism sells images of men pretending to be women, women pretending to be men, castrations, dissections, genital mutilations, excessive tattooing, all markers of Cultism, belonging to a group, a society, a Cult.

Over time, it is very clear which 'Cults' (Cultures) win out.

Cultures that build stronger families, win. This is across Centuries, mind you, not merely days and weeks.

So men and women that cannot have children, or choose to not have children, cannot get married? I see marriage as a commitment to a specific person to be their life-partner that doesn't necessarily have to include having kids.

Is it up to me? If we take the older, most Conservative forms of Catholicism, then no, you would not be allowed to Marry. You could still join the Church. You could still participate. But you could not Marry, correct. Because the Holy Sacraments are very specific. Marriage is intended to reproduce, to Procreate.

I've never really understood the Leftist obsession to marry when you can't have kids in the first place...let's take Homosexuals, two men marrying, why? What's the point? Is it supposed to be in a Church? Is it supposed to earn or garner God's favor and acceptance?

I believe that Leftists want the State/Government to act as a Church, as a moral suppository/supposition. Leftists want the Government to act, or be like, the Catholic Church, centralized, powerful, spiritually ordaining, sanctifying, etc.

Problem is, it's a mockery of the actual Church and actual Spirituality.

That's why most people see it as 'Satanism', a type of cruel joke. Two men, pretending the role of Husband and Wife, Father and Mother, publicly.

I interpret it as social and spiritual Demoralization. It's about destroying your enemies. And the West is certainly being destroyed, in many aspects, robbed of our future at the very least.

Sure, that's where we disagree. As an atheist I don't recognize the power of the church, and as a libertarian I do not recognize the power of the government, over who I choose to associate with and have children with.

We should stop seeing ourselves as Irish, Iranian, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Americans, etc. We are all humans - members of the same species.

That's fine, we can disagree.

But I would argue on how your definition of 'humanity' changes, or where it originates. I believe the Religious-Right and 'Christianity' and general, have more to do with "being human" than the religious-Left, or Secularists, or Liberals, or the Enlightenment period...

There is only endless bickering, fighting, and chaos because the extremists are the ones that are the loudest and controlling the narrative. The center is right here where most Americans are - the silent majority that recognizes that we should just live and let live.

I think that used to be the case...in the 2010s, in the 2000s, in the 1990s, etc.

It is not the case anymore. Technology, smart phones, media, the world has become a very small place, and it's become cramped in a hurry. The Microcosm that your Liberal arguments used to rely on...that being gay or trans in a small community isn't bothering anybody...no longer applies. Everybody is shoved together now, face-to-face, everyday, every moment, across the world.

And all the small choices are adding up quickly, bad choices stack up, and good choices stack up. Sometimes bad wins.

That others' actions that do not hinder others' freedoms and rights are of no concern to anyone and should not be legislated. Only actions that do hinder others' freedoms should be legislated.

When it comes to abortion, abolishing it outright is just as extreme as allowing it up to the point of birth for no reason. The answer is somewhere in between where abortion should be allowed up to a point and banned after that point with the only exception being the life of the mother. I think most people would agree with that, and that if someone's actions have no impact or your life, then you shouldn't be in the business of controlling that action.

And so the debate rolls on, that's Politics.

[Trajk Logik]

Good or bad choices are dependent on the goal you have. "I want to build a family for myself" is a personal goal of yours. While I share that goal, others may have a different goal. Maybe they don't want a family but love sex and want to be with someone else of the same mind. How does that affect your and you goal to build a family?

Because "Society" is a political allegiance of a large group of families, or non-families. And it seems to me, clearly the case, that a Society built upon families who are strongly ordered and loyal, Monogamous, are far more successful, on average, than those who are not. Morality is also very well concerned with a Strong or Weak society. This moral strength, is based on these types of choices, across thousands, and millions of people.

I don't want to live in a Weak society; I believe most people do not want to either. However, the masses are easily blinded and lured by short-term gains and pleasures, Hedonism, pornography, prostitution, "Sin".

I don't want to live in a Authoritarian society built upon some mass delusion of an extra-dimensional alien telling us how to live our personal lives and who we should have sex with. We obviously have different goals, it's just that mine does not include wasting my time spying on and judging other's personal choices and lives. Hedonism, prostitution and pornography has been part of human cultures for thousands of years and we are getting along just fine. Science is the one human endeavor that has increased our life spans and made life more comfortable where progress was stifled by beliefs in super-humans that control the weather and diseases.

I can point to moral people that are not Christians and immoral people that are. You religion has nothing to do with your morality. It is strictly how you were raised in how your family treated other people.

I think history has shown that open and free societies are better than authoritarian ones.

It's not a moral issue because they are not limiting/promoting your goals in any way. Morality only involves how your actions affect others. If someone's actions have no impact on others and their goals, then they are not moral/immoral actions.

For instance, the immoral act of the transgender movement is not in some man declaring himself a woman, it is in forcing others to say the same and limiting other's freedom of speech. You are free to call yourself whatever you want, but then don't broaden that out to others and force them to say the same.

On a Micro scale, individually, yes it appears that a Transexual or Homosexual enjoying sex "in the privacy of their own bedroom" does not appear too damaging. Thus Liberalism/Leftism require this "Micro" scale argument. However, that argument fails when demonstrating or arguing on the behalf of...a community, a hundred people, a small town...or as above on the Macro scale, an entire Society. Numbers matters. Individual choices do matter. You might not see. But that's what the masses refer to as the "God's Eye" scale and view of things.

The shit starts stacking up, clogging up the sewers.

You have it wrong. Individual choices that are not imposed upon the masses have no effect on the masses. Only those that are imposed on the masses limit the freedoms of all. If you aren't aware of what people do in the privacy of their bedroom or living room, then how exactly are you affected? How is a transgender person affected if I refer to them by their sex, rather than their gender, when they are not around?

I'm an atheist and I'm married for 25 years, have three kids, one of which recently graduated from college, one in college and one on the way. I live in the type of family you propose as being "moral" yet I'm an atheist. So I have shown that you don't need religion to have a stable family, so it seems to me that all this talk about spirituality, "sin", the Church, etc. are completely unnecessary to live in a "Strong Society".

Marriage evolved as a way to legally own women, and not really to limit men's sexual promiscuity as the men continued to have sexual relations with other women. It was the women that received a harsher punishment for cheating than the man did. Men could even be permitted to create descendants with other women when their wives did not produce any. It is only recently that marriage has become a limit to men's promiscuity as women now have more rights.

Your view of marriage is very small and limited. Marriage, in the Catholic Church, is intended to protect the Husband, the Wife, the Children, AND the Church (God). The Bishop who ordains the Marriage is its 'Keeper' and Guardian. Many sects of Christianity slacked-off these moral, ethical, and spiritual responsibilities. Because a successful marriage, again, strengthens society.

Hypothetically, it would strengthen a State/Government. It would strengthen a Church. Everybody has a vested interest in maintaining successful, monogamous, traditional marriages and relationships. Because it produces better relationships, better community...than what is "offered" by the Religious-Left, now. Leftism sells images of men pretending to be women, women pretending to be men, castrations, dissections, genital mutilations, excessive tattooing, all markers of Cultism, belonging to a group, a society, a Cult.

And I already pointed out that you don't need religion or the Church to have the type of society you are advocating. It is your view of marriage that is limited. I provided links. It's not my problem if you didn't read them. Talking about marriage "in the Catholic Church" just shows how limited your views are. The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on marriage. It has been around long before the Church has and human societies have gotten along fine without it. Marriage is an arbitrary human invention, like language, and we often re-purpose words in a language for other uses, and we can do the same thing with marriage.

So men and women that cannot have children, or choose to not have children, cannot get married? I see marriage as a commitment to a specific person to be their life-partner that doesn't necessarily have to include having kids.

Is it up to me? If we take the older, most Conservative forms of Catholicism, then no, you would not be allowed to Marry. You could still join the Church. You could still participate. But you could not Marry, correct. Because the Holy Sacraments are very specific. Marriage is intended to reproduce, to Procreate.

I've never really understood the Leftist obsession to marry when you can't have kids in the first place...let's take Homosexuals, two men marrying, why? What's the point? Is it supposed to be in a Church? Is it supposed to earn or garner God's favor and acceptance?

Two words: Tax break

I believe that Leftists want the State/Government to act as a Church, as a moral suppository/supposition. Leftists want the Government to act, or be like, the Catholic Church, centralized, powerful, spiritually ordaining, sanctifying, etc.

Problem is, it's a mockery of the actual Church and actual Spirituality.

It's not a mockery. It's a power grab, no different than what the Church does.

The left has simply swapped one Big Brother (god) for another (government). The extremes on the left and the right are Big Brother lovers.

Sure, that's where we disagree. As an atheist I don't recognize the power of the church, and as a libertarian I do not recognize the power of the government, over who I choose to associate with and have children with.

We should stop seeing ourselves as Irish, Iranian, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Americans, etc. We are all humans - members of the same species.

That's fine, we can disagree.

But I would argue on how your definition of 'humanity' changes, or where it originates. I believe the Religious-Right and 'Christianity' and general, have more to do with "being human" than the religious-Left, or Secularists, or Liberals, or the Enlightenment period...

I'm using the scientific concept of humanity that involves genetics and biology - you know those things that Christians like to use when it suits their arguments about what a women and man are, yet reject any theory that shows that the existence of a god isn't necessary to explain humanity's existence.

You might define "humanity" as all of God's children, in which case I would argue that if "the apple does not fall far from the tree" then God is just as depraved as you claim humanity is.

There is only endless bickering, fighting, and chaos because the extremists are the ones that are the loudest and controlling the narrative. The center is right here where most Americans are - the silent majority that recognizes that we should just live and let live.

I think that used to be the case...in the 2010s, in the 2000s, in the 1990s, etc.

It is not the case anymore. Technology, smart phones, media, the world has become a very small place, and it's become cramped in a hurry. The Microcosm that your Liberal arguments used to rely on...that being gay or trans in a small community isn't bothering anybody...no longer applies. Everybody is shoved together now, face-to-face, everyday, every moment, across the world.

And all the small choices are adding up quickly, bad choices stack up, and good choices stack up. Sometimes bad wins.

Social media has only given more platforms for the extremists in society. They have only become louder thanks to social media. Social media has exacerbated the need for attention-whores and attention-seekers to get their fix, as a means to feed their addiction for attention.

[Wizard22]

I don't want to live in a Authoritarian society built upon some mass delusion of an extra-dimensional alien telling us how to live our personal lives and who we should have sex with.

So, the Chinese culture is your choice? Aren't they Atheists?

We obviously have different goals, it's just that mine does not include wasting my time spying on and judging other's personal choices and lives.

Hate to break you the news, but every government on this planet spies on their Citizens.

Hedonism, prostitution and pornography has been part of human cultures for thousands of years and we are getting along just fine.

A lit bit of Sin can be forgiven. A moderate amount, is harder to forgive. A lot of it, and it can destroy a society completely.

Science is the one human endeavor that has increased our life spans and made life more comfortable where progress was stifled by beliefs in super-humans that control the weather and diseases.

A moot point, what's "Science" got to do with anything?

I can point to moral people that are not Christians and immoral people that are. You religion has nothing to do with your morality. It is strictly how you were raised in how your family treated other people.

I used to think and rationalize as you do; I later learned that is not true. Catholicism (Christianity) molded the European peoples/peasantry/proles into what they are today. Ethics were forced upon them. They didn't willingly 'Choose' it. And yet, it made the European strong, across centuries. It eventually led to Christopher Columbus. It eventually led to military dominance and might. It eventually led to powerful countries, histories, inventions, and most other things we take for granted today.

Religion is what makes societies strong.

I think history has shown that open and free societies are better than authoritarian ones.

Weird...history showed me that "open and free" Roman Decadence led to collapse, Authoritarian Emperors, and the Dark Ages (consolidated religion).

I feel you're only looking at selective pieces of history, not the full picture...

You have it wrong. Individual choices that are not imposed upon the masses have no effect on the masses. Only those that are imposed on the masses limit the freedoms of all. If you aren't aware of what people do in the privacy of their bedroom or living room, then how exactly are you affected? How is a transgender person affected if I refer to them by their sex, rather than their gender, when they are not around?

Because they don't leave it in the bedroom.

Because they do not stay "in the closet".

And now they make it a "Pride" celebration, in the streets, openly, in public school libraries, in media, in commercial ads, in television, across the internet, where everybody sees it, everyday...

I'm an atheist and I'm married for 25 years, have three kids, one of which recently graduated from college, one in college and one on the way. I live in the type of family you propose as being "moral" yet I'm an atheist. So I have shown that you don't need religion to have a stable family, so it seems to me that all this talk about spirituality, "sin", the Church, etc. are completely unnecessary to live in a "Strong Society".

Most "Atheists" owe their current standing to their religious forefathers. Atheism is a luxurious delusion, that you have been 'freed' from all your ancestors who were devout, loyal, hard-working, God-fearing Christians.

And I already pointed out that you don't need religion or the Church to have the type of society you are advocating. It is your view of marriage that is limited. I provided links. It's not my problem if you didn't read them. Talking about marriage "in the Catholic Church" just shows how limited your views are. The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on marriage. It has been around long before the Church has and human societies have gotten along fine without it. Marriage is an arbitrary human invention, like language, and we often re-purpose words in a language for other uses, and we can do the same thing with marriage.

Our disagreements are adding up. You believe marriage is 'Arbitrary'. I do not.

Two words: Tax break

They shouldn't receive tax breaks either.

Why should people be given tax breaks for sleeping with others? Shouldn't Prostitutes pay no taxes at all then? As-if they paid taxes in the first place?

It's not a mockery. It's a power grab, no different than what the Church does.

The left has simply swapped one Big Brother (god) for another (government). The extremes on the left and the right are Big Brother lovers.

Power is different when it's aimed at people's families though, isn't it???

I'm using the scientific concept of humanity that involves genetics and biology - you know those things that Christians like to use when it suits their arguments about what a women and man are, yet reject any theory that shows that the existence of a god isn't necessary to explain humanity's existence.

You might define "humanity" as all of God's children, in which case I would argue that if "the apple does not fall far from the tree" then God is just as depraved as you claim humanity is.

What do you believe "The Science" says about genders, nowadays? Let me guess, you believe there are "more than two"?!

[Trajk Logik]

I don't want to live in a Authoritarian society built upon some mass delusion of an extra-dimensional alien telling us how to live our personal lives and who we should have sex with.

So, the Chinese culture is your choice? Aren't they Atheists?

I think I made it pretty clear that I don't want to live in an Authoritarian society - ANY authoritarian society

We obviously have different goals, it's just that mine does not include wasting my time spying on and judging other's personal choices and lives.

Hate to break you the news, but every government on this planet spies on their Citizens.

And that's a good thing - something that we shouldn't be constantly fighting against, especially in a society that claims to be free?

Hedonism, prostitution and pornography has been part of human cultures for thousands of years and we are getting along just fine.

A lit bit of Sin can be forgiven. A moderate amount, is harder to forgive. A lot of it, and it can destroy a society completely.

Yet your god is willing to forgive it all, including murderers and rapists.

Science is the one human endeavor that has increased our life spans and made life more comfortable where progress was stifled by beliefs in super-humans that control the weather and diseases.

A moot point, what's "Science" got to do with anything?

The point was that Science, rather than the Church, has done more to improve human lives. Religion has done nothing but divide us and stifle progress. One is moral while the other is not.

I can point to moral people that are not Christians and immoral people that are. You religion has nothing to do with your morality. It is strictly how you were raised in how your family treated other people.

I used to think and rationalize as you do; I later learned that is not true. Catholicism (Christianity) molded the European peoples/peasantry/proles into what they are today. Ethics were forced upon them. They didn't willingly 'Choose' it. And yet, it made the European strong, across centuries. It eventually led to Christopher Columbus. It eventually led to military dominance and might. It eventually led to powerful countries, histories, inventions, and most other things we take for granted today.

Religion is what makes societies strong.

I showed that you don't need religion to be moral. The fact that religion was already implanted firmly in the European culture did not mean religion was the cause of ethical standards and progress. In fact you had wars and torture across the continent for centuries. Progress was made only when the church could not stifle it's progress any longer. They tried to silence Copernicus and Galileo, but it their discoveries - scientific ones - that became the foundation for the technological might of the West.

Religion is based on the assumption of anthropomorphism. Humans are inherently self-centered. They believe that the world, or literally the universe, revolves around them. It is no wonder that ideas about a superhuman created it all just for us came about naturally rather than the arduous process of making observations and then testing them over and over with experimentation to see what is fact vs. fiction.

Religion was the preliminary method of explaining reality and our place in it and is now obsolete.

I think history has shown that open and free societies are better than authoritarian ones.

Weird...history showed me that "open and free" Roman Decadence led to collapse, Authoritarian Emperors, and the Dark Ages (consolidated religion).

I feel you're only looking at selective pieces of history, not the full picture...

You can't even read the sentence your wrote and you're asking me about not seeing the full picture? If Roman had Authoritarian Emperors then how can you say that qualifies as an example of an open and free society?

You have it wrong. Individual choices that are not imposed upon the masses have no effect on the masses. Only those that are imposed on the masses limit the freedoms of all. If you aren't aware of what people do in the privacy of their bedroom or living room, then how exactly are you affected? How is a transgender person affected if I refer to them by their sex, rather than their gender, when they are not around?

Because they don't leave it in the bedroom.

Because they do not stay "in the closet".

And now they make it a "Pride" celebration, in the streets, openly, in public school libraries, in media, in commercial ads, in television, across the internet, where everybody sees it, everyday...

So what are you saying, that your heterosexuality is so fragile that seeing a gay parade will make you gay? Do you keep your heterosexuality "in the closet"? Do you think I want to hear about your sexual accomplishments? Should we have a heterosexual parade too?

I will agree with you in one way and that is it is sad that those types of people feel the need to make their sexual orientation a key part of their identity - of making it a point to tell others about that part of their life when I see such things as private and should be kept to yourself. Like I have said before, I believe most of them are just seeking attention.

Sure they have the right to speak and say whatever they want. For me, if you think that I'm interested in hearing about yours, or anyone's, sexual endeavors, when I didn't ask, then I have the freedom to ignore them and walk away. If your sexual orientation is that much of a defining characteristic of who you are, then you and I won't find much in common.

I'm an atheist and I'm married for 25 years, have three kids, one of which recently graduated from college, one in college and one on the way. I live in the type of family you propose as being "moral" yet I'm an atheist. So I have shown that you don't need religion to have a stable family, so it seems to me that all this talk about spirituality, "sin", the Church, etc. are completely unnecessary to live in a "Strong Society".

Most "Atheists" owe their current standing to their religious forefathers. Atheism is a luxurious delusion, that you have been 'freed' from all your ancestors who were devout, loyal, hard-working, God-fearing Christians.

Then Christianity owes it's existence to it's forefathers - polytheism and animism?

Believing in an extradimensional alien that is so interested in our private lives and demanding attention from its minions in return for it's love, is the delusion.

Two words: Tax break

They shouldn't receive tax breaks either.

I agree, but if I also believe that we are being taxed too much already, I'm going to take advantage of all the legal breaks I can.

It's not a mockery. It's a power grab, no different than what the Church does.

The left has simply swapped one Big Brother (god) for another (government). The extremes on the left and the right are Big Brother lovers.

Power is different when it's aimed at people's families though, isn't it???

No different than the church telling me my family needs to go to Church every Sunday and "donate" my money to receive penance in return and help to reinforce other's delusions about an extradimensional alien, when I have better things to do and and spend my money on.

I'm using the scientific concept of humanity that involves genetics and biology - you know those things that Christians like to use when it suits their arguments about what a women and man are, yet reject any theory that shows that the existence of a god isn't necessary to explain humanity's existence.

You might define "humanity" as all of God's children, in which case I would argue that if "the apple does not fall far from the tree" then God is just as depraved as you claim humanity is.

What do you believe "The Science" says about genders, nowadays? Let me guess, you believe there are "more than two"?!

Nope, science says there are only two. I have no idea what gender is, if not a synonym for sex. There have been attempts to define it as a social construction, but then why are transgenders changing their biology, and not society, when changing genders?

[Wizard22]

I think I made it pretty clear that I don't want to live in an Authoritarian society - ANY authoritarian society

Well you put a conditional on your statement. Every society has a final authority when it comes to violence/military might/executive decisions. Are you an Anarchist?

And that's a good thing - something that we shouldn't be constantly fighting against, especially in a society that claims to be free?

The State watches its Citizens because it fears them, and fears treason.

The Church (ideally) watches its Followers because it wants to empower them, lift them up, inspire superior life choices.

The two mindsets are not equal, not the same, not even close.

Yet your god is willing to forgive it all, including murderers and rapists.

I don't think you understand what forgiveness is, in Catholic tradition. It's not like Western Protestants who hand-out get-out-of-jail free cards to anybody and everybody, out of desperation of being liked. This is a straw-man argument coming from the Secular-Atheist movement.

The point was that Science, rather than the Church, has done more to improve human lives. Religion has done nothing but divide us and stifle progress. One is moral while the other is not.

...how is Science moral???

I showed that you don't need religion to be moral.

No, you didn't. It sounds like you're trying to convince yourself of the point...

The fact that religion was already implanted firmly in the European culture did not mean religion was the cause of ethical standards and progress. In fact you had wars and torture across the continent for centuries. Progress was made only when the church could not stifle it's progress any longer. They tried to silence Copernicus and Galileo, but it their discoveries - scientific ones - that became the foundation for the technological might of the West.

Religion is based on the assumption of anthropomorphism. Humans are inherently self-centered. They believe that the world, or literally the universe, revolves around them. It is no wonder that ideas about a superhuman created it all just for us came about naturally rather than the arduous process of making observations and then testing them over and over with experimentation to see what is fact vs. fiction.

Religion was the preliminary method of explaining reality and our place in it and is now obsolete.

You're wrong though; "Progress" was happening every year of the "Dark Ages". You just don't understand How. Hard Times create Strong Men.

When did Christendom spread from Rome, to Anglia, to the Teuton Forests, to the Steppes, and into the Middle East??? Strong Men carried the Cross.

How is it an assumption, too? Aren't humans self-centered? I can't think of any ideology more poisonous, self-serving, than Secularism, Leftism, Liberalism, and Marxism in the West. And yet, these are your defended, "Progressive" ideologies, are they not? How are they Selfless? Are you aware of the current state of the West? Do you see what's going on?? No no, religion is more necessary now, than perhaps ever before.

You can't even read the sentence your wrote and you're asking me about not seeing the full picture? If Roman had Authoritarian Emperors then how can you say that qualifies as an example of an open and free society?

Because, to Liberals such as yourself, being "open and free" explicitly means tolerance of homosexuality, transexuality, pedophilia, paraphilia, and sexual debauchery of all manners in the public realm.

So what are you saying, that your heterosexuality is so fragile that seeing a gay parade will make you gay? Do you keep your heterosexuality "in the closet"? Do you think I want to hear about your sexual accomplishments? Should we have a heterosexual parade too?

I will agree with you in one way and that is it is sad that those types of people feel the need to make their sexual orientation a key part of their identity - of making it a point to tell others about that part of their life when I see such things as private and should be kept to yourself. Like I have said before, I believe most of them are just seeking attention.

Sure they have the right to speak and say whatever they want. For me, if you think that I'm interested in hearing about yours, or anyone's, sexual endeavors, when I didn't ask, then I have the freedom to ignore them and walk away. If your sexual orientation is that much of a defining characteristic of who you are, then you and I won't find much in common.

To me, it's about the Dignity and public conduct of a society.

It's symbolic of a people who cannot rule themselves, and are ruled by some outside force or influence.

When the masses are led by debauchery, then there really isn't a moral authority at all. It leads to chaos and anarchy, as proved by the excessive rioting in the US, and calls for civil war. The masses cannot rule themselves. And they don't respect the State to rule over them, either.

Then Christianity owes it's existence to it's forefathers - polytheism and animism?

Believing in an extradimensional alien that is so interested in our private lives and demanding attention from its minions in return for it's love, is the delusion.

You think very lowly of 'God', is that your honest interpretation, an extradimensional alien? Or are you using a Red Herring to argue with?

I agree, but if I also believe that we are being taxed too much already, I'm going to take advantage of all the legal breaks I can.

You're kind of demeaning your own argument here...shouldn't you be defending your own society??

No different than the church telling me my family needs to go to Church every Sunday and "donate" my money to receive penance in return and help to reinforce other's delusions about an extradimensional alien, when I have better things to do and and spend my money on.

Again, your description of a "Church" sounds very Protestant and hokey...not the same as my conception. You and I obviously don't stem from the same Church. I agree, by the way, Tithing is something that should be very, very rare. Money pollutes and corrupts, and shouldn't be part of most Churches to begin with.

A shack in the wilderness may be Holier than Rome, in some cases.

Nope, science says there are only two. I have no idea what gender is, if not a synonym for sex. There have been attempts to define it as a social construction, but then why are transgenders changing their biology, and not society, when changing genders?

You dodge a pivotal question...so much for "Trust the Science!"

Regardless of what you or I may think about the nuances of 'gender', these sexual debaucheries and depravities occurred in Decadent Rome, so long ago, pretty much exactly as they do now. There's no reason to think of it as anything more than a fad, stemming from a brief moment of time, peace following a long and hard war. Peaceful times lead to decay, softness, liberalism. It doesn't last forever, or in the case of the West, seemingly for much longer...

[Ansiktsburk]

The solution to this gordic knot is supposedly to do wtf you want but with temperance and judge others by that same standard. Since I’m Scandinavian I don’t know what the religious left is but I guess that goes for them too.

[Gary Childress]

The solution to this gordic knot is supposedly to do wtf you want but with temperance and judge others by that same standard. Since I’m Scandinavian I don’t know what the religious left is but I guess that goes for them too.

Did Alexander the Great really "untie" the Gordian Knot? I suggest he did not. He became frustrated and did what an emperor thinks is OK to do. Was Alexander's empire a "great" one? I don't know. I'm waiting for the suggested rewrites of history from Alexander's victims. However, it would be good if there are no victims (if that's even a realistic expectation in "God's" world).