The Christian Right Fires A Warning Shot At Senate Republicans

  
Via:  Devangelical  •  6 days ago  •  107 comments

By:   Cristina Cabrera (TPM)

The Christian Right Fires A Warning Shot At Senate Republicans
After passing the House with the support of 47 Republicans, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would protect marriage rights for same-sex couples if the…

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads

thumpers are now cracking the whip on their legislative slaves in congress to fast track a xtian theocracy...


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



After passing the House with the support of 47 Republicans, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would protect marriage rights for same-sex couples if the Supreme Court were to overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, faces much dimmer prospects in the Senate. There is one reason why: the Christian right still controls the Republican Party. Movement leaders know it took 50 years to reverse Roe, and are committed to a similar strategy to undermine and eventually overturn Obergefell. With abundant clues in the Supreme Court's June decision overturning Roe that LGBTQ rights could be next on the chopping block, it is unimaginable that movement leaders would sink that goal by allowing this bill to become law.

Republican senators are keenly aware of this. That is why South Dakota's John Thune and Louisiana's Bill Cassidy accused Democrats of introducing the bill to distract from inflation. It is why Florida's Marco Rubio called it "a stupid waste of time," and claimed gay Floridians are "pissed off" about something else — high gas prices. And it is why Maine's Susan Collins, who was one of the bill's four original Republican supporters, came up with the laughing-crying emoji argument that, because Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had struck a surprise deal on Democratic legislative priorities late last month, she would struggle to win fellow Republicans' support for the marriage bill. "[I]t was a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," she told HuffPost.

These were opportune but risible excuses. The reality is these Republicans were already seeing an avalanche of opposition from Christian right political advocacy organizations. Family Research Council Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council church, began calling the bill the "(Dis)Respect for Marriage Act" before it reached the House floor. The group reminded Republican lawmakers that their party platform states, "[t]raditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values." In an email blast, FRC Action sowed fear among its supporters that the bill would be used to persecute them and take away their religious freedom. It reminded them that in the 1970s, the IRS revoked the tax exemption of the segregationist, fundamentalist Christian Bob Jones University over its racist policies, suggesting, despite the fact that it hasn't happened in the seven years since Obergefell, that universities and nonprofits that oppose marriage equality could face a similar fate. The American Family Association called the bill "an Orwellian attempt to pretend that the Court's very recent discovery of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is not controversial and offensive to many people around the country." The Heritage Foundation called it a "publicity stunt" aimed at "tak[ing] the spotlight off progressives' radical policies and paint conservatives as bigots — and all this conveniently before the midterm elections."

Despite the Christian right's protestations that same-sex marriage is unpopular, it is actually extremely popular, with Gallup earlier this year finding 71 percent of Americans — a record high — supporting it. What's more, most religious people do not think protections for same-sex marriage infringe on their religious freedom. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, "Majorities of most major religious groups support same-sex marriage," with one significant outlier: white evangelicals. Only 35 percent of white evangelicals support marriage equality — and their views drive the Republican Party. In the Senate, the filibuster rules reinforce this tyranny of the minority.

There are two reasons for the Christian right's dominance of the GOP. One is that while white evangelicals make up just 15 percent of the population, they are highly enthusiastic voters; they made up 28 percent of the 2020 electorate, and 76 percent of them voted for Donald Trump. They make up large swaths of the electorate in red states, and are likely to be motivated to engage in backlash against a Republican senator seen to betray the cause.

The second reason is that the Christian right — made up of white evangelical activists along with other conservative white Protestants and Catholics — has built a formidable political and legal machine designed to position themselves as defenders of the true faith and the real Christian America. A well-funded constellation of legal and political organizations has been inordinately successful in amassing power, both in Republican Washington, red state legislatures, and the federal judiciary. It is designed to flex its muscles at moments like these.


The opposition to the Respect for Marriage Act is an object lesson in how the Christian right's power works.

That network's strength has been on full display in recent weeks. The legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom took the lead on a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposing the bill, signed by more than 80 religious right leaders. The letter denounced the bill "in the strongest possible terms," characterizing it as "an attack on millions of Americans, particularly people of faith, who believe marriage is between one man and one woman and that legitimate distinctions exist between men and women concerning family formation that should be recognized in the law."

As I reported for TPM in 2019, ADF has not only led the way in transforming our jurisprudence against church-state separation and reproductive and LGBTQ rights, it has cultivated and cemented relationships that ensure its proximity to power. It counts among its compatriots Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Senator Josh Hawley, who have both been faculty speakers for its training program for aspiring Christian lawyers. In 2019, Hawley single-handedly killed the appointment of a federal judge, nominated by Trump, because he had once litigated a case against ADF. Hawley's wife, also a lawyer, now works for ADF, and played a key role in the strategy to overturn Roe.

After the House vote, FRC Action pledged to support primary challengers to any Republicans who voted for the bill. Some won't face this blowback since they are retiring or have already lost their primaries. FRC Action's first target was Michigan's Peter Meijer, who did lose his August 2 primary, but likely would have anyway because of his vote for Trump's impeachment. Nonetheless, the message certainly is not lost on Republicans in the Senate where, unlike the House, GOP votes are necessary to get the bill past a filibuster. No one wants to be the one who tips the scales in favor of the bill, and incurs the wrath of Christian right operatives and the get-out-the-vote machine at the disposal of a primary challenger.

Lately the media has taken a greater interest in exploring and reporting on Christian nationalism. It is, however, crucial not only to understand what Christian nationalism is as an ideology, but to understand how right-wing operatives have attained the power to subvert democratic structures and democratic values in order to make it the core of anti-majoritarian rule. The opposition to the Respect for Marriage Act is an object lesson in how that power works. Christian right operatives and lawyers argue that America is a Christian nation, that Christians' right to practice their religion must be protected from secular, progressive incursions like constitutional rights for LGBTQ people, and that it is the duty of judges and government officials to ensure that these "biblical" values are secured. With a sympathetic majority on the Supreme Court and a razor-thin Democratic majority in the Senate with filibuster rules favorable to conservatives, the Christian right has every incentive to deploy this power. And because Republicans no longer have an alternative base upon which to build a coalition, they will continue to relent.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1  seeder  devangelical    6 days ago

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1    5 days ago

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     6 days ago

What is our new National Anthem going to be, ''Battle Cry of the Republic''. Onward Christian Soldiers.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2    6 days ago

thump thump thump on their bible,

hump hump hump on their kids.

geezus says they aren't liable,

'cuz on sunday they get forgives.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    6 days ago
The legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom took the lead on a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposing the bill, signed by more than 80 religious right leaders. The letter denounced the bill "in the strongest possible terms," characterizing it as "an attack on millions of Americans, particularly people of faith, who believe marriage is between one man and one woman and that legitimate distinctions exist between men and women concerning family formation that should be recognized in the law."

In what way does same-sex marriage attack Christian Americans? Don't marry someone of the same sex if you don't want to. Nobody is forcing same sex marriage down anyone's throats.

Whatever happened to the Republican Party of yesteryear who were content to let people live their lives as they saw fit?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    6 days ago

they died off and left the christo-fascist domestic terrorist cult in charge of the party.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @3.1    6 days ago

Well, shit

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    6 days ago
shit

... same thing.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.2  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    6 days ago
Whatever happened to the Republican Party of yesteryear who were content to let people live their lives as they saw fit?

They never existed.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @3.2    6 days ago

What about Goldwater? Eisenhower?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.1    6 days ago

They too stuck their noses in people's lives, Trout.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.1    6 days ago
What about Goldwater? Eisenhower?

I’m no expert on them, but I know when Ike was president, he signed an order banning guys from the military and other federal employment. 

Goldwater, on the other hand was advocate for gay rights and said such a ban was dumb. He also worked to prevent private business from discriminating against homosexual people in their hiring practices. What follows is from 1993.

The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"

When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that's just stupid.

Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

(Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987)
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.4  CB   replied to  Tacos! @3.2.3    4 days ago
When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Well now do tell: Look at old Goldwater being right down the middle on this one! ;)  Thank you, Tacos! This is a good history lesson!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @3    6 days ago

T'G, here is what is so ridiculous about the hatred. . . generally, 'everybody' who are not celibate is quietly doing the same sexual things more or less behind closed doors.

Get this: While in the PRIVACY of their own homes.

MAGA conservatives are targeting specific individuals and not the act itself!

There is a whole lot of 'stickin,' and 'lickin' going on pervasively—even in a "godly" household. Why? Because the bible says, "The marriage bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4)." And I know for a fact that Christians interpret that as meaning various sex acts are allowed between married couple.

We can not allow MAGA conservatives to pretend they do not target girls, women, and very soon and directly: homosexuals.

MAGA conservatives are meddlesome. And they consider the whole country should live under their belief in a "Whiteness" evangelical Christian standard.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4  Kavika     6 days ago

Seems like the religious right has a comrade in arms with Viktor Orban.

Orbán urges Christian nationalists in Europe and US to ‘unite forces’ at CPAC

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @4    6 days ago

gee, fascists are always so spiritual ...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  devangelical @4.1    5 days ago
fascists are always so spiritual

Believing they have God on their side helps alleviate any guilt from the horrible things they have to do to bring about their fantasy white nationalist dictatorship. Just like the Nazi's often had "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us) emblazoned on their hats and belts. They considered themselves conservative Christians too.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.1    5 days ago

too bad that their misguided faith wasn't bulletproof, huh?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5  Ender    6 days ago

How dare people have the same rights as me...

What the fuck is wrong with these people.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1  Kavika   replied to  Ender @5    6 days ago
What the fuck is wrong with these people.

It's a number of things that a list of them could fill up a page. Simply answer they are fucking morons that can't think for themselves.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @5    5 days ago
How dare people have the same rights as me...

What's the point of being a proud member of Christian White Club if you don't get any special privileges?

Just being equal and having the same rights as everyone else is beneath them. They refuse to allow their white fascist ancestors sacrifices of so much (or rather so many) to be in vain so they will never accept equality with people that don't look like them or pray like they do. That is anathema for members of Christian White Club who imagine themselves as the white Christian conqueror's of the past trampling the native hordes beneath their feet and converting them to Christianity at the point of a sword.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.2    5 days ago

believe in our god of peace and love or else we'll enslave or kill you, somehow seems to be a contradictory message.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6  Drakkonis    6 days ago

To all of you who posted prior to this. Can you really be this dense? Are you really this unable to see? Right now there are people on the other side of the fence saying the same judgmental things about you in exactly the same way. So, what makes you better than them, in your mind? What gives you the moral high ground? What objective truth, which most of you don't believe exists but can't not live your lives as if it does, can you point to in order to prove your case? 

So, here's the truth, for those of you who can hear it. Right now, your side is busy shaping the world to suit your own desires, just like they are. You are doing so not because you can prove your way is right or moral. You're doing it because that's what you want the world to be. As if only you have the right to determine what that world should be. Just like them. So get off the horse named Hypocrisy and wake the hell up. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1  Kavika   replied to  Drakkonis @6    6 days ago
So, what makes you better than them, in your mind? What gives you the moral high ground? 

What makes them better than us? What gives them the moral high ground? 

What objective truth, which most of you don't believe exists but can't not live your lives as if it does, can you point to in order to prove your case?

What objective truth gives them the right to tell anyone how to live their lives? How we or I live our lives is none of your business. 

Believe what you want but don't try to push your so-called beliefs on anyone else and when they or you get called out quit your whining.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @6.1    6 days ago

Very well said!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Kavika @6.1    6 days ago
What makes them better than us? What gives them the moral high ground?

(Sigh) You're asking the questions but not seeing the point. What makes you better than them? What gives you the moral high ground? How do you justify the things you say about the other side? Just because you're you and you're so awesome? 

Can you not see you're doing exactly what you accuse them of doing?  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.2    6 days ago

I don't see Kavika telling some people they can't get married...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.2    6 days ago

Personally, I see the problem that people just have stopped letting others live and let live. Everything has become a battle. We would all be better off not trying to be in each other's business.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.2    6 days ago

What point?  Better yet, what is your point?  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @6.1.3    6 days ago
I don't see Kavika telling some people they can't get married...

And who told you that telling some people they can't get married is wrong? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.2    6 days ago
Can you not see you're doing exactly what you accuse them of doing?  

I wasn't aware that I was threatening politicians that don't vote the way I want them to. It's that simple and if you can't see that it's your problem not mine. 

I'm not telling people who they can or can't marry. It's not my business and it sure as hell isn't some group of religious right wingers either. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.6    6 days ago
And who told you that telling some people they can't get married is wrong? 

Because it really isn't your business unless they are members of your family (see how that one goes) or members of your religious organization. 

That is what I meant by people live and let live.

If you want to tell your child they can't marry someone, that is between you and your child. You just can't tell my child who they can or can not marry.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.6    6 days ago

The Constitution. 

If the reason to that 'someone' can't get married is discriminatory, it's wrong. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1.10  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.4    6 days ago

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif amen to that.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.6    6 days ago

What? 

The only thing you are saying it is a right to tell people they can't get married yet when people oppose it, is doing the same thing they are.

I can only say...bullshit...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.1.12  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @6.1.11    6 days ago
The only thing you are saying it is a right to tell people they can't get married yet when people oppose it, is doing the same thing they are.

 That doesn't answer the simple question I asked you. Who told you that telling some people they can't get married is wrong? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.12    6 days ago

Who said telling people they can't get married is right?

All you are doing is saying you are right and get to impose your will.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.6    6 days ago
And who told you that telling some people they can't get married is wrong? 

Speaking for myself, nobody tells me what my position will be;  I decide that for myself based on facts and logic.

So, for example, if two consenting, single adults of sound minds (i.e. functioning) wish (willingly) to marry, I hold that the state should NOT be allowed to deny something that personal unless there was a persuasive reason (and I cannot think of an example).

In the absence of a persuasive reason, I think there should be no restriction on marriage as described above.   Marriage gives two people the ability to legally share their lives and offers rights (e.g. ability to make medical decisions) to care for each other.  

To wit, the answer to your question is:  nobody.   I have concluded it is wrong (as in no justifiably reason) to deny marriage as explained above.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.15  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @6.1.14    6 days ago
if two consenting, single adults of sound minds (i.e. functioning) wish (willingly) to marry, I hold that the state should NOT be allowed to deny something that personal unless there was a persuasive reason (and I cannot think of an example).

Father and daughter , mother and son , brother and sister , uncle and niece , aunt and nephew , just a few i can think the state might want to disallow , otherwise in a few generations we will have a bunch of hapsburgs running around ......

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.15    6 days ago

I considered that; there is a medical case to be made to disallow consanguineous marriages.   So if this case can be made, this would be an example of the state disallowing a practice that is genetically harmful for society.

Now, that is very different from disallowing same-gender marriage is it not?   What is the equivalent sound reasoning for the state to categorically disallow like-gender individuals from marrying?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.17  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @6.1.16    6 days ago

None that i can see or care about , i simply responded with cases that the state could step in and say nope, nada , not gonna do it . 

 and what i find funny is that there is a state that allows for first cousins to marry in the US.,they have to jump through some hoops but its allowed .

 ? 

 Ma. allows first cousins to marry.

 there could be others too. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.17    5 days ago
Ma. allows first cousins to marry.

As do about half of the states. 

Is it your posit that denying first cousin marriage is discriminatory? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @6.1.18    5 days ago
Is it your posit that denying first cousin marriage is discriminatory? 

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.1.20  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.16    5 days ago
I considered that; there is a medical case to be made to disallow consanguineous marriages.   So if this case can be made, this would be an example of the state disallowing a practice that is genetically harmful for society.

The same argument can be made for homosexuality. AIDS was the problem it became because homosexuals thought having sex was more important than preventing the disease from spreading. We are seeing the same thing with Monkeypox. If you do the research, STDs are most prevalent, by far, in the homosexual community. The threat posed by close relatives having sex doesn't even register. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.20    5 days ago

That is some serious ignorance right there regarding homosexuals and AIDS and STDs.  Not surprising.  We don't know why monkeypox is primarily in the homosexual community right now but that doesn't stop you from spouting that ignorance.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.22  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.20    5 days ago

stay on topic.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.21    5 days ago

The head of the World Health Organization has suggested that men who have sex with men temporarily limit their number of sexual partners while monkeypox cases increase within their community — a shift in messaging from the global health agency days after it raised its threat alert level for the monkeypox outbreak.

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus made the comments Wednesday during a news briefing in which he said 98 percent of monkeypox cases have been reported in men who have sex with men.

Tedros said “this is an outbreak that can be stopped,” as long as governments take the appropriate measures and individuals stay informed and protect themselves from the virus.

“For men who have sex with men, this includes, for the moment, reducing your number of sexual partners, reconsidering sex with new partners, and exchanging contact details with any new partners to enable follow-up if needed,” Tedros said.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.23    5 days ago
“For men who have sex with men, this includes, for the moment, reducing your number of sexual partners, reconsidering sex with new partners, and exchanging contact details with any new partners to enable follow-up if needed,” Tedros said.

Are Gay Men really such sluts...? I know you are married, but these are things i never gave thought to, but it makes one wonder, and that's where i get lost, but ive seen it in heterosexuals, so why wouldn't it carry on through, i guess.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.24    5 days ago

I hear that ignorance a lot - that gays are promiscuous - a person is promiscuous - not gays - not straights - not bisexuals - a person. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.26  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Dulay @6.1.18    5 days ago
Is it your posit that denying first cousin marriage is discriminatory? 

Nope , i just said i thought it funny that its allowed .

 I tend to follow TGs thinking about too close genetics (inbreeding)  not being good for society. I exampled the hapsburgs and what happened there .

I lived for a while when raising my kids in a predominantly mormon area  that had been settled by about 5 families all related , and even into the 90s and aughts , the kids of dating age carried lists of the area kids they were not allowed to date or get "intimate" with  because of too close familiar relation .

 just because poligamy had been outlawed , didnt stop the practice , they simply found ways around the issue . an example of a church vs state conflict.

there is a town in wyo , named freedom , the state line runs right through the center of mainstreet,  a guy could have one fanily in wyo , and another across the street in Idaho, and when the fed authorities showed up depending on which state they were assigned , the guy would simply walk 30 ft across the street to avoid apprehension and be out of that officers jurisdiction . least thats th story told to me by those that grew up and lived in the area from the communities founding , and with the same last names being predominant , i tend to believe that a few of those 5 founding familys menfolk were cavalier in spreading the seed .

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.27  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.25    5 days ago

 i always type with my stereo BLARING, but i do try to NOT Stereotype

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6.1.28  Thomas  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.12    5 days ago
The only thing you are saying it is a right to tell people they can't get married yet when people oppose it, is doing the same thing they are.
 That doesn't answer the simple question I asked you. Who told you that telling some people they can't get married is wrong? 

Who told you it was not?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.25    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.27    5 days ago

You know iggy don't you that I wasn't referring to you and gays and promiscuity and people, right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.20    5 days ago
The same argument can be made for homosexuality. AIDS was the problem it became because homosexuals thought having sex was more important than preventing the disease from spreading. We are seeing the same thing with Monkeypox. If you do the research, STDs are most prevalent, by far, in the homosexual community. The threat posed by close relatives having sex doesn't even register. 

AIDS and Monkeypox is spread by casual sex with various partners, not monogamous sex as would be encouraged by virtue of marriage.    So if the idea is to mitigate the spread, one would need to stop people from having sex with many partners.   This is quite different from endorsing genetic disorders by sanctioning consanguineous marriages.

The threat posed by close relatives having sex doesn't even register.

The rate of occurrence is not the point.   The point I made is that there would need to be a good reason to deny marriage between two people.   Seems to me there are not many good reasons for the state to deny marriage thus repeating the point I made:

TiG @6.1.14 ☞ If two consenting, single adults of sound minds (i.e. functioning) wish (willingly) to marry, I hold that the state should NOT be allowed to deny something that personal unless there was a persuasive reason (and I cannot think of an example). In the absence of a persuasive reason, I think there should be no restriction on marriage as described above.   Marriage gives two people the ability to legally share their lives and offers rights (e.g. ability to make medical decisions) to care for each other.  

So, bluntly, what is the persuasive reason to deny marriage to two homosexual men?   They will not reproduce with genetic defects.   They will not infect each other if they stay true to their marriage vows.   The common reasons given are not, IMO, valid: 'disgusting', 'strange' and 'against my beliefs'.

In contrast, a son marrying his mother and producing offspring is genetically unsound (biologically) so I can see this as a good reason for a society to not sanction this coupling via marriage.   The reason would not be: 'disgusting', 'strange' and 'against my beliefs' but rather a fundamental biological incompatibility.

Finally, per part of your point, I do not think marriage between close relatives is that much of a problem in society today.   If I am correct on this point, then there is no driving need for the state to step in and make laws or deny marriage.   That is why I hesitated to bring this up originally.   But Mark's point is valid.   If this were a problem then biology (genetics) would be what I consider to be a good reason for denying such marriages.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
6.1.33  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    5 days ago

Ray Stevens - I'm My Own Grandpaw

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.34  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @6.1.33    5 days ago

Thanks, haven't heard that for a while.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
6.1.35  charger 383  replied to  Thomas @6.1.33    5 days ago

That was funny

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.30    5 days ago
You know iggy

yes Deer, i'm fairly capable at deciphering far more confusing statements, as yours, to me, was not. My name can cause this on occasion. There are many here, far more educated than i, yet, i am capable of keeping up, every now and then.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.36    5 days ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.38  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Thomas @6.1.33    5 days ago

Ray Stevens . i kept trying to put Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder into Ray Stevens, and it was not working.

 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.39  CB   replied to  Tessylo @6.1.21    5 days ago

To be fair, we don't know that. But, it is a good chance it is occurring among homosexuals due to frequent casual sex. Call it what it appears to be.  Then, go and look at the MAGA fools who are causing stirrings of ending same sex marriage which has only been allowed a mere four years. Homosexuals have been debased for so long; it will take new generations to rise up from the old 'norms.'

Do observe that the usual suspects are keen to point fingers and blame homosexuals as a class for zero tolerance acceptance of the only proper lifestyle for them, by MAGA conservatives and conservatives in general.

MAGA fools can't help themselves. They set the stage for demonizing and stigmatizing girls and women who enjoy the single life as cheap and discounted and responsible for getting THEMSELVES pregnant because they want "the penis" and not the outcomes. Then, they turn to the homosexuals and point fingers and say 'See how nasty they are with the STDs, AIDS, and now 'Pox'?! All the while it is they with their stupid policy-making which largely caused and causes the issues leading to a culture of homosexual promiscuousness.

How does MAGA accomplish it?

Because MAGA conservatives write laws that subjugate and target select groups of the citizenry for failure, retribution, and abuse. And when the 'prescription' is successful for generations and the subculture forms: MAGA starts up with criticism that said groups can't cope with (their norms for) society.

MAGA conservatives cause a need for subcultures in the first place, by their stupid institutional judgements!

And I for one am tired of these fools getting away with leading the efforts to discount, minimize, and otherize their fellow Americans. Then, sit on their asses and complain about the results!

Finally, the Bible says. . . Don't judge. That is, if you must judge-do so righteously. Here is imagery for a 'righteous' judgement.

A court judge comprehensively and critically hears both sides of an issue and according to what is right renders a decision that is fair to all involved.

This is a picture of a righteous judgement.

MAGA is self-righteous. That is, MAGA is arbitrarily interfering in the lives of millions of liberals to subjugate them. And once the oppression occurs, subcultures form and are shaped, then MAGA conservatives judge the people caught in their perverted 'web' of ideas as misfits and harmful to their ideas of a good society.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.40  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.32    5 days ago
This is quite different from endorsing genetic disorders by sanctioning consanguineous marriages.

This discussion does bring up an interesting twist. Since bans against consanguineous marriages are due to the highly likely birth defects and other genetic disorders in offspring, should there be any bans against two male cousins/siblings or female cousins/siblings getting gay married since they cannot conceive children together anyway?

Also, it does seem a bit like some of these conservatives arguing above are trying to make the case for lifting the bans on consanguineous marriages by using legalized gay marriage as a comparison.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.40    5 days ago

Yeah because life has so many variables we could spend plenty of time dissecting this.

I would like to just leave it at my point which is:  if two consenting, single adults of sound minds (i.e. functioning) wish (willingly) to marry, I hold that the state should NOT be allowed to deny something that personal unless there was a persuasive reason.   And personal offense, religious beliefs, etc. are not what I consider to be persuasive reasons.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.42  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1.6    5 days ago
who told you that telling some people they can't get married is wrong? 

The SCOTUS.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." - Justice Kennedy in closing majority opinion Obergefell v. Hodges June 26, 2015

And in this case it's not just "some people" but specifically lgtbq Americans. Of course we have laws that tell "some" people they can't get married, like those under a certain age or those who are too closely related by blood which we know would have high risk of birth defects and genetic disorders in any offspring. This ruling simply stripped religious conservatives of what they saw as their right to force their religious morality on everyone through secular law in violation of the establishment clause.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.43  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.42    5 days ago

funny how incest and pedophilia are still accepted as xtian family values by religious traditionalists.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Expert
6.1.44  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.8    5 days ago

Amen!  jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.45  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  devangelical @6.1.43    5 days ago
funny how incest and pedophilia are still accepted as xtian family values by religious traditionalists

They certainly do seem to want to protect fertilized eggs even if they were the product of incest or child rape. This of course only makes any sense if you believe an invisible immortal magical 'soul' is created at conception.

It's not unlike a group of faithful believers in imaginary friends making laws banning sitting in certain empty chairs because they claim their invisible friend is sitting there. They can't prove their invisible friend exists, yet they want to pass secular laws that prevent any possible damage or disrespect to their invisible friend. If that's not a violation of the establishment clause I don't know what is.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.46  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.45    5 days ago
This of course only makes any sense if you believe an invisible immortal magical 'soul' is created at conception.

No DP, it also makes sense if you believe that the fertilized egg is the beginning of  a new human being.  These first cells are biologically distinct with their own DNA, different from either biological parent and all other humans. If you believe that then regardless of the existence of a soul or not, ending this life is viewed as murder.  

You certainly don't believe that, but don't let your biases run away with you and blind you to the alternative argument.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.47  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.46    5 days ago
These first cells are biologically distinct with their own DNA, different from either biological parent and all other humans. If you believe that then regardless of the existence of a soul or not, ending this life is viewed as murder.  

No, it's not. It's the "beginning of a new human being" like a headlight is to the beginning of a new car. Without the additional fantasy weight of a 'soul' a fertilized egg is just a mass of cells. Are they "distinct with their own DNA"? Sure, but so is a new strain of virus or the fertilized egg of a cow or chicken. Assigning it worth because it's "magical and mystical" doesn't matter, there are millions of fertilized eggs that fail and die due to miscarriage all the time, none of them are special human beings until they're born.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.48  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.47    5 days ago
It's the "beginning of a new human being" like a headlight is to the beginning of a new car.

Lousy analogy DP, you can do better than that.  A headlight doesn't grow additional car parts over time, it doesn't react to stimulus, it doesn't feel pain.

none of them are special human beings until they're born.

What makes the mass of cells special then?  Some sort of magic?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.47    5 days ago
s the "beginning of a new human being" like a headlight is to the beginning of a new car

That might be the worst analogy I've ever come across. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.50  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.49    5 days ago

Well (sigh) the 'better' analogies did not get the point across, so. . . here we find ourselves required to go even deeper into the details. The point of the 'car parts' comparison is a single headlight does not a car make. Similarly, an underdeveloped egg does not a baby make.

I know that MAGA conservatives would like to shame liberals by skating above the details, but that misses the point that liberals are well informed about what an abortion is -and-what the process is.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.51  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.1.50    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.1.52  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.1.50    4 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @6    6 days ago
 So, what makes you better than them, in your mind?

The fact that I am not demanding that 'MY way' be codified against the will of the majority. 

What gives you the moral high ground? 

Whose 'morality'? 

What objective truth, which most of you don't believe exists but can't not live your lives as if it does, can you point to in order to prove your case? 

Name an 'objective truth' and I can just about guarantee that someone right here on NT will disagree with it. Which disqualifies it as an 'objective truth'. 

So, here's the truth, for those of you who can hear it.

That isn't 'the' truth, that's your truth. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.1  CB   replied to  Dulay @6.2    6 days ago

MAGA has no issue with sex activity, positions, or what hole gets 'plugged.' Call it out! What this is about is people not behavior. MAGA is bothered by who is doing whom!

And the fools, for that is what they are, have the audacity to tell me to our faces and through other means, that we can't participate in marriage because they claim it. Does life in this country get any sadder or more ridiculous?

Did anybody think MAGA was onboard with apologizing for the historic wrongs done throughout U.S. history? You can see that they are not sorry one iota. In fact, here is MAGA conservatives attacking specific and select people to take back everything they have earned and enjoy as dignity and respect.

Because of these MAGA fools, people will divide (again) and start looking at homosexuals as "other." Or worse, old hatreds will come up in a new generation. And MAGA will be satisfied to have caused the problem. As well as its leaders to fan the flames of hatred into bright hues.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Dulay @6.2    5 days ago
The fact that I am not demanding that 'MY way' be codified against the will of the majority. 

So, if you had been a German citizen in 1938 you would have fallen in line with the majority and persecuted the Jews? Morality is nothing more than convention decided by the majority? Why the majority? Why not the smartest? How about the strongest? The best looking? 

Whose 'morality'?

It's amazing that you can ask this and, at the same time, entirely miss the point of what I've been saying. And it just gets worse with your next statement.

Name an 'objective truth' and I can just about guarantee that someone right here on NT will disagree with it. Which disqualifies it as an 'objective truth'.

Aside from the obvious flaw in your statement, it's as if you are trying to help me make my case but are oblivious to the fact. I'll get to the flaw in a moment but the relevant thing is that, NT or not, people have different ideas on what is objectively true. That is the basis of what I have been saying but you apparently cannot see it. You're so eager to show how brilliant you are with your responses you don't bother to try to understand what I am actually saying. 

It is objectively true to anyone other than a moron that people have differing views of what constitutes morality. This forms the basis of my participation in this ridiculous conversation. Another key element is that because this is so, no one has any grounds to denigrate the individual themselves for having a different one than yours. Yet you do so. Just like you claim they do to you. You think their behavior is wrong but think nothing of you yourself doing the same thing. That's called hypocrisy. 

Now, for the flaw in your statement. It assumes that morality is defined by individuals or humanity as a whole. That isn't the only option, as people of faith take pains to point out. The only way you can prove your statement is to prove that morality doesn't come from a source outside humanity. Therefore, because someone might reject an objective truth as objective doesn't mean it isn't, since it is eminently possible the rejector simply doesn't see it for whatever reason. 

That isn't 'the' truth, that's your truth.

A statement without supporting evidence. Worthless. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @6.2.2    5 days ago

So, if you had been a German citizen in 1938 you would have fallen in line with the majority and persecuted the Jews?

That is an utterly ludicrous analogy. 

Morality is nothing more than convention decided by the majority?

Who said that? Not I. 

Why the majority? Why not the smartest? How about the strongest? The best looking? 

All strawman arguments. Just stop. 

It's amazing that you can ask this and, at the same time, entirely miss the point of what I've been saying. And it just gets worse with your next statement.

Actually, what's amazing is that you failed to answer such a simple question. 

I'll get to the flaw in a moment but the relevant thing is that, NT or not, people have different ideas on what is objectively true.

I'll ger to the flaw in your question NOW. The term 'objectively true' has a specific MEANING. By stating unequivocally that 'people have different ideas on what is objectively true', you illustrate that you have no clue what that meaning is. 

Now, for the flaw in your statement.

That isn't a statement, it is a question. 

It assumes that morality is defined by individuals or humanity as a whole.

Nope, I assumed nothing, hence the question. 

Oh and BTFW, your question, "What gives you the moral high ground?', assumes that an individual member can indeed define morality. If that weren't so, your question would be moot. 

A statement without supporting evidence. Worthless. 

Then I encourage you to provide supporting evidence to your statements Drakk. I'll wait. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Dulay @6.2.3    5 days ago
That is an utterly ludicrous analogy. 

Really? Let's review the statement you made that spawned the analogy, shall we? 

The fact that I am not demanding that 'MY way' be codified against the will of the majority.

This is what you responded with when I asked...

So, what makes you better than them, in your mind?

So, you literally said that siding with what you consider to be the majority was your justification for your position. Given that, how is my analogy ludicrous? If your position of what is moral is decided by the majority, it seems a perfectly apt analogy to me. Or is it the case that your "majority" argument is only for use when it's convenient for you? 

Who said that? Not I.

As I just pointed out, yes, you did. It's right there for anyone to read. 

All strawman arguments. Just stop.

Perhaps it would benefit you to first learn what a strawman argument is before accusing me of making one. You already said your basis for considering yourself better than the other side is that you don't go against the majority. That isn't a strawman. That is the literal argument you made. What you are calling a strawman is my asking you why the majority should be the basis for determining why you should consider yourself better than those you despise. Asking you such a question isn't creating a strawman. It is simply asking you why going with the majority is the basis of your feeling superior to others. 

Actually, what's amazing is that you failed to answer such a simple question.

Because what I have been talking about isn't whose morality is superior, something that still seems to escape you. Further, it's laughable that you accuse me of not answering your question when your question was an avoidance of the one I asked you. Consider. I asked...

What gives you the moral high ground?

Put another way, I am asking you what makes you think your morality is superior to anyone else's. In light of that, your response makes no sense. 

Whose 'morality'?

Unless you have a difficulty with reading comprehension, I'm obviously asking about yours. 

I'll ger to the flaw in your question NOW. The term 'objectively true' has a specific MEANING. By stating unequivocally that 'people have different ideas on what is objectively true', you illustrate that you have no clue what that meaning is.

Well, my understanding of "objectively true" is something that is true regardless of whether some disagree with it or not. For instance, the Earth is a globe. Is that a subjective fact because flat earthers disagree or is it true regardless of their disagreement? Is Elvis dead or was it just a hoax created by aliens who took him off earth to live with them? 

Of course, you may be a postmodernist, believing that nothing can be objectively known. Perhaps you're the sort of person who, after having her hand cut off in some accident, would respond to someone commenting on it by saying, "what are you talking about? My hand wasn't cut off."

That isn't a statement, it is a question.

There is no grammatical way to take what I quoted you as saying as a question. I guess you really are a postmodernist. 

Nope, I assumed nothing, hence the question.

I would suggest a book on grammar if you intended a question.

Oh and BTFW, your question, "What gives you the moral high ground?', assumes that an individual member can indeed define morality. If that weren't so, your question would be moot.

I love your penchant for simply making declarations without explanations for them. It makes it easy to show anyone with a brain your errors. As far as I can see, it simply asks the basis, or source, for your supposed moral superiority. To my mind, if I were making an assumption I would have informed you of my opinion of where your supposed superiority comes from. Since I wasn't making assumptions, I asked you what it was. 

More importantly, what makes this so ridiculous is that even you must know where I think morality comes from. 

Then I encourage you to provide supporting evidence to your statements Drakk. I'll wait.

What's so sad about this is that you don't need to wait. I've been giving you evidence and reasoning all along, but you simply can't see it. But it's worse than that. You yourself are supporting my argument but you are too blind to see it. You aren't listening to anything I say. Everything I say goes through some filter in your mind that changes everything into what you imagine I am saying. I can't fix that for you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @6.2.4    5 days ago
So, you literally said that siding with what you consider to be the majority was your justification for your position.

Utter BULLSHIT. I didn't 'literally' say ANYTHING about 'siding' with ANYONE. Just STOP. 

Given that, how is my analogy ludicrous?

I don't 'give' your misrepresentation of my comment any credibility. 

There is no grammatical way to take what I quoted you as saying as a question. I guess you really are a postmodernist. 

If you can't even agree that 'Whose 'morality'?' is a question, trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.2.6  Drakkonis  replied to  Dulay @6.2.5    5 days ago
Utter BULLSHIT. I didn't 'literally' say ANYTHING about 'siding' with ANYONE. Just STOP.

Well, it would be easy enough to get me to stop if you would simply explain your statement. After all, I'm willing to admit that it may be a misunderstanding on my part. So, when I ask "So, what makes you better than them, in your mind", what was the purpose of saying "The fact that I am not demanding that 'MY way' be codified against the will of the majority" didn't mean that what the majority thought about the morality of a subject wasn't a factor in your superiority over others? 

I don't 'give' your misrepresentation of my comment any credibility.

Translation: "I can't counter the obvious truth of what you said."

If you can't even agree that 'Whose 'morality'?' is a question, trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. 

Whose morality is indeed a question but, unfortunately for you, not the relevant quote. If you weren't so eager to bring down your righteous wrath on the heathen you would have noticed the relevant quote was...

Name an 'objective truth' and I can just about guarantee that someone right here on NT will disagree with it. Which disqualifies it as an 'objective truth'.

Now try to gaslight me into believing this is a question. 

trying to have a discussion with you is a waste of time. 

I feel the same about you, since I don't believe you are trying to have a discussion. I think you are simply doing what you always do. Simply attacking someone for the emotional satisfaction that it gives you. You should think about that. That is, what is more important to you? Truth, even if you don't like it, or emotional satisfaction? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @6.2.2    5 days ago
It assumes that morality is defined by individuals or humanity as a whole. That isn't the only option, as people of faith take pains to point out. The only way you can prove your statement is to prove that morality doesn't come from a source outside humanity. 

As you know, I think the question of morality is quite obvious.    There is no question that relative morality exists and that it manifests in many ways:

  • Planetwide:   e.g. murder is wrong
  • Societal:   e.g. genital mutilation is wrong
  • Historical:    e.g. slavery is wrong
  • Religious:  e.g. eating meat on Fridays is wrong
  • Community:  e.g. pre-marital sex is wrong
  • Individual:  e.g. eating red-meat is wrong

You would offer that objective morality exists, is singular and is that which is provided by God.

There is no assumption that morality is defined by human beings.   Every example of morality seems to have been (per the evidence) defined by human beings.   What has no clear evidence is objective morality.   The fact that most everyone believes infanticide is wrong is not an argument that this is part of objective morality.   Just because some mores are common does not mean that objective morality exists.

I hold that a supreme entity (God) who is the source of objective morality is possible.   But I have seen no evidence that objective morality exists or that there is even a supreme entity to author objective morality.

What we are left with then is the fact that the only mores we see are those created by human beings.    Stay tuned.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.2.8  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.7    5 days ago

Sorry, TiG. We've had this discussion several times. I see no value in having it again. Especially since it isn't relevant to my purpose in involving myself in this seed. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.7    5 days ago
What we are left with then is the fact that the only mores we see are those created by human beings.    Stay tuned.

I've found, those less off than others, prove that more Ons are those that which cannot reach aseity, due to the elusiveness of sanity, and the hollowness of satiety , and i say i ty, only, because i am full of it, right now, and foresee a mind numbing back and forth between you and Drak, and i didn't meant to cause such, things, Strange things, tend to occur around me....off 10   

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Drakkonis @6.2.6    5 days ago
So, when I ask "So, what makes you better than them, in your mind", what was the purpose of saying "The fact that I am not demanding that 'MY way' be codified against the will of the majority" didn't mean that what the majority thought about the morality of a subject wasn't a factor in your superiority over others? 

No.

Translation: "I can't counter the obvious truth of what you said."

There was no truth in what you said. 

Now try to gaslight me into believing this is a question. 

Nope, I'm busy reading your deflections. 

I feel the same about you

Oddly enough, I don't give a fuck. 

BTFW Drakk, save your supercilious clap trap for someone who you can impress with your inane bullshit. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.2.11  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drakkonis @6.2.8    5 days ago
Especially since it isn't relevant to my purpose in involving myself in this seed. 

Seems to me the only purpose you have involving yourself in this seed is to try and argue that taking away and or limiting the rights of people is morally the same as promoting equal rights for people. How you square that circle is beyond me. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.12  CB   replied to  Dulay @6.2.3    4 days ago
I'll ge[t] to the flaw in your question NOW. The term 'objectively true' has a specific MEANING. By stating unequivocally that 'people have different ideas on what is objectively true', you illustrate that you have no clue what that meaning is. 

Exactly. Different ideas of what objective truth is relativism. And Drakonis is wrong (and I am not piling on either) in this way: Churches have different accords of what is the One truth and One Spirit. Yet, we see them extending their influence into the world, while not being whole in achieving and ridding themselves of internal strife.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.2.13  Drakkonis  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.2.11    4 days ago
Seems to me the only purpose you have involving yourself in this seed is to try and argue that taking away and or limiting the rights of people is morally the same as promoting equal rights for people. How you square that circle is beyond me. 

Well, if everyone would just step out of Social Justice Warrior mode for a few moments, you might see something different. I am not talking about who's morality is right at all. I'm more trying to talk about what constitutes the basis of your moral systems. What authority does your morality rest on?  And, even so, I'm not doing it for the purpose of trying to argue whose basis is right. I'm doing it because I want to illustrate that the basis can't be shown to be objectively true. More, given the number of times TiG and I have argued about morality, I know most, if not all of you, believe that morality is relative, yet here you all are, castigating the other side, as if you're morality is objectively true and everyone should follow it, just like the other side. In short, it's hypocritical to act in the same manner you condemn the other side for. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.3  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Drakkonis @6    5 days ago

I won't be trading my Constitutional freedoms for any bible thumper revised version while I'm still breathing. This country was created in part by those that were escaping any nationalized religion. IMO, history is teetering on the brink of repeating itself. seems as though the final crusade has finally come to the US and xtian nationalists may be on a runaway train headed for a blood soaked oblivion. bummer for them.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
6.3.1  Drakkonis  replied to  devangelical @6.3    5 days ago
I won't be trading my Constitutional freedoms for any bible thumper revised version while I'm still breathing...

That would be great if it were relevant to what I am talking about. Since it isn't, I don't see the point. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.3.2  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Drakkonis @6.3.1    5 days ago

religious beliefs are irrelevant to me, and per the 1st amendment, equal to no religious beliefs.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
6.3.3  afrayedknot  replied to  devangelical @6.3.2    5 days ago

“…per the 1st amendment,”

Thanks be to our ‘Christian’ founders who saw the danger (while acknowledging their faith) in putting any religion before the definition of the religious free democracy they hoped to achieve.

Spinning in their graves, they are, hearing the vitriol today.

It is exactly the opposite of the dream they hoped to construct. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.3.4  seeder  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.3    5 days ago

thumper extremists misinterpret and revise their bible as much as they do the constitution. it's time to put the screws to some of these rwnj money laundering PACs masquerading as tax exempt religions.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.3.4    5 days ago

I'm sorry - I know this is off topic - delete if you will - but this is related to trumpturd

Trump PAC formed to push debunked voter fraud claims paid $60K to Melania Trump's fashion designer

Erin Mansfield, USA TODAY
Fri, August 5, 2022 at 10:26 AM

The fund affiliated with former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election paid $60,000 to a fashion designer known for   styling   Melania Trump’s wardrobe   when the couple was in the White House .

The  Save America  political action committee distributed the money to Hervé Pierre Braillard in   four payments   starting April 7 and going through June 24, according to records filed with the Federal Elections Commission. The committee reported that these payments were all for “strategy consulting.” It’s not clear what the money specifically paid for.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.3.6  CB   replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.3    5 days ago

It is evidentially clear that MAGA conservatives are not maturing with this nation. They remain social 'runts' intent on keeping the world's leading constitutional republic locked in some bygone period and beholden to their worldview and will, instead of accepting progress for the wholesome outcomes for all it brings.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.3.7  CB   replied to  devangelical @6.3.4    4 days ago

I agree. Time to give them something to 'talk about, besides screwing up other people's lives. Start talking about following their money! And removing their non-profit statuses see if that gets them to hunker down on religion over meddling. MAGA is running amok. Time to help them refocus and decide what they value most: INTERFERENCE or GAINS.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.3.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @6.3    4 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
6.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @6    5 days ago
What gives you the moral high ground?

The ability to keep our noses out of someone else's private life.

There's a reason Miss Gulch became the Wicked Witch when Dorothy landed in Oz.  Nobody likes a busybody.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Drakkonis @6    5 days ago

What I am saying is this, how is gay people being married anyone else's fucking business? You go and believe whatever in the fuck you want and live your life the same way, I don't give a shit. I start caring as soon as your beliefs and way of life start to infringe on other people's right to do the same. The Christian right seems determined that everyone needs to live by their rules, so now we have a problem. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5.1  CB   replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.5    4 days ago

Exactly. It is the MAGA conservatives telling liberals you will be forced to live conservative lives! The attitude and the presentation is clear! When MAGA conservatives say different they are lying, plain and simple.Bascially, we're being left to accept (rather we like it or not) that the only good Americans are conservative and "MAGA."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
7  Buzz of the Orient    6 days ago

Put it down to the fact that Christian extremists have to proselytize to try to convert individuals to emulate them, or to proselytize to try to convert the masses to be just like them.  If you're not just like them, you're doomed.  IMO, I wish they would just mind their own fucking business. 

LOL.  Now that I think of it, it IS their fucking business.  Do they earn points for successes?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    6 days ago

being the oldest grandson of not only an irish /french grandmother , but an italian / greek grandmother , my detiny was decided at birth that i was to join the clergy .

 that was until puberty landed right on my face .

 and puberty took the guise of a young lady named Linda .

 After that i contemplated george carlins 6 sins in one feel , and the fact that the clergy was always pushing for pain , while one was pulling for pleasure .....

 if fate had not interviened , you could be talking to father mark.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1    6 days ago
if fate had not interviened , you could be talking to father mark.

i tend to be more of a mother, but in the adverb sense.

I realize their 'faith' does not allow these joining's, but it is THEIR faith, not everyone's, and this is where Religion tends to meet politix me off too. Separation of Church and State is somehow overlooked or disregarded, in my limited exposure in the dark rooms where negatives are always gonna be overlooked, as long as it is pleasurable to some. Amazing how those who shriek the loudest about some sort of deviance, tend to be drawn to it out of guilt, as so many have proven. From their "wide": stances taken on how wrong it ids to Lie with another of the same xx or xy chromosomes, as many Holy Rollers have shown, they indeed tend to stray, not always in as way gay, as Happy is sometimes found on thy neighbors bed, as they preach, while still keeping their options open and within reach, that a simple confession can wipe away, cause personally, i don't think it should, does, or will ever work that way, but just inserting my too nonsense, as i'm often found guilty, of inn know sense....N i've been told i have Convictions

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8  seeder  devangelical    5 days ago

attention crusaders - next time it won't be swords and arrows.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
8.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @8    5 days ago

Assault rifles and extended magazines?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.2  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1    5 days ago

... trained on windows and doors once the xtian nationalist church roof catches fire sunday morning? /s

 
 

Who is online

GregTx
Ed-NavDoc
squiggy
jw
Tessylo
Freefaller
Jack_TX


45 visitors