Bob Lee said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Ultimately, we should get to a point where it doesn't matter. Seriously, why should you care who someone loves?

---

If everything happened in a vacuum then it wouldn't matter. I changed my mind when I had children. I want them to have a healthy conception of human sexuality, our bodies, the procreative act. What it's for and what it isn't, and what sex is, and what it isn't.

I can't be indifferent when children are being taught that homosexuality is equal in value, and exactly the same as heterosexual relationships in every way. There's no truth in it.

The adoption of children into second rate circumstances, the IVF, surrogacy, and abortion industries are all great evils at least tangentially related to societies' changing attitudes on gay "marriage", children as the product of marriage, and marriage being for the procreation and education of children. For THEIR benefit, and not for the enjoyment of adults.

I really believe that societies' health and happiness are at stake, and that's why I care.

---

Do you get to determine how other people raise their own children? I might not like the way you raise your children, but I'm sure the hell not going to say its my business.

Do you get to tell private companies what causes they support?

Schools and publicly funded things are different. I have promoted neutrality, but have been told that its impossible to teach math to kids without also promoting sexual values.

Macarthur said:

---

Ultimately, we should get to a point where it doesn't matter. Seriously, why should you care who someone loves*?

---

*Terms and conditions may apply. Subject to macarthur's personal moral beliefs about what is and isn't acceptable, presently inclusive of consent, excluding harm, children, animals, and other categories until such time as his own morality changes. This promotion is not binding on future generations and only good for a limited time. This promotion is subject to arbitration mediated by government consensus and subject to police power.

Bob Lee said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Ultimately, we should get to a point where it doesn't matter. Seriously, why should you care who someone loves?

---

If everything happened in a vacuum then it wouldn't matter. I changed my mind when I had children. I want them to have a healthy conception of human sexuality, our bodies, the procreative act. What it's for and what it isn't, and what sex is, and what it isn't.

I can't be indifferent when children are being taught that homosexuality is equal in value, and exactly the same as heterosexual relationships in every way. There's no truth in it.

The adoption of children into second rate circumstances, the IVF, surrogacy, and abortion industries are all great evils at least tangentially related to societies' changing attitudes on gay "marriage", children as the product of marriage, and marriage being for the procreation and education of children. For THEIR benefit, and not for the enjoyment of adults.

I really believe that societies' health and happiness are at stake, and that's why I care.

---

Yeah, no. You leaving people alone to live their life doesn't have the future of our society at stake. As was said, what if we think the way you raise your kids is abuse?

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Ultimately, we should get to a point where it doesn't matter. Seriously, why should you care who someone loves*?

---

*Terms and conditions may apply. Subject to macarthur's personal moral beliefs about what is and isn't acceptable, presently inclusive of consent, excluding harm, children, animals, and other categories until such time as his own morality changes. This promotion is not binding on future generations and only good for a limited time. This promotion is subject to arbitration mediated by government consensus and subject to police power.

---

The assumption is consenting adults and you know that. Quit bringing the drama.

Well, of course you think a gay couple are automatically of lower moral character than a straight couple? Is that an accurate assumption based on your comment above?

Well, when you say the people with the least amount of morals wins out, would lead me to think that based on the context of this thread.

So I'm clear, you do or do not believe someone is less moral if they are homosexual versus hetero.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Ultimately, we should get to a point where it doesn't matter. Seriously, why should you care who someone loves*?

---

*Terms and conditions may apply. Subject to macarthur's personal moral beliefs about what is and isn't acceptable, presently inclusive of consent, excluding harm, children, animals, and other categories until such time as his own morality changes. This promotion is not binding on future generations and only good for a limited time. This promotion is subject to arbitration mediated by government consensus and subject to police power.

---

The assumption is consenting adults and you know that. Quit bringing the drama.

---

I said that - inclusive of consent. But your morals have changed since you were a child yes? And may change further as you age? Hell, look at the dems that signed DOMA and where they are now. And the current generation is growing up without that framework and going further. And that's what happens with such things.

Consent isn't even a thing, really, it's an arbitrary convention of law. It can be coerced no matter how hard you try to prevent it. The law can be changed to flex the age one way or the other in regards to what an adult is. And really, are you opposed to 16 year olds having sex together? Or 15 year olds? Is adult in there because you want everyone to wait til they're 18 or because you want to avoid pushback?

The point I'm making is that your ideas live in a vacuum but reality isn't a vacuum. You make the arguments within the present cultural context but 30 years from now there are generations without that cultural context or inhibition. They will push further and say, why just adults? And if 15 year olds can make these decisions with each other why is there some arbitrary legal age limit for consent? These aren't tough arguments to make.

Bob Lee said:

---

It can't be a race to the bottom where the people in society with the least amount of moral convictions win out in a conflict of wills, or we're toast.

---

Nor can it be a society guided by the will of the most fundamentalist and dogmatic convictions.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

So what you see is a lot of conservatives doubling down on the framework that's been weaponized against us.

---

What do you see as the framework that is being weaponized against conservatives?

---

It's this Lockean concept of freedom. What Isaiah Berlin calls negative freedom in his lecture "two concepts of freedom". Or classical liberalism if you want. This is why people say things like: "how does this personally affect YOU?" or "I don't personally think you should do that, but I will defend your right to do it." It's a perversion of our understanding of rights and their source. And it's a problem once evil starts to spill out of societies' periphery into our public schools.

Correction: Berlin's lecture is called Two Concepts of Liberty

I've read the original link, the linked interview, and this entire thread 2 times and it still blows my mind that we are taking a guy who has a habit of making political statements at face value with a bunch of hearsay. It's a claim of a crisis without any actual supporting evidence.

The way conservatism is headed reminds me of this. Liberalism had already gone this route.

Quote:

---

Whichever he adopts, your main task will
be the same. Let him begin by treating the
Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his
religion. Then let him, under the influence of
partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most
important part. Then quietly and gradually
nurse him on to the stage at which the religion
becomes merely part of the "cause", in which
Christianity is valued chiefly because of the
excellent arguments it can produce in favour
of the British war-effort or of Pacifism. The
attitude which you want to guard against is
that in which temporal affairs are treated
primarily as material for obedience. Once you
have made the World an end, and faith
a means, you have almost won your man, and
it makes very little difference what kind
of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided
that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements,
causes, and crusades, matter more to him than
prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours
and the more "religious" (on those terms) the
more securely ours. I could show you a pretty
cageful down here.

Your affectionate uncle

SCREWTAPE

---

Trump - 71%

Religious Leaders - 42%

From our latest @cbsnews polling ===> pic.twitter.com/C3UXTtVfEx

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 20, 2023

Lol

schmendeler said:

---

Trump - 71%

Religious Leaders - 42%

From our latest @cbsnews polling ===> pic.twitter.com/C3UXTtVfEx

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 20, 2023

Lol

---

They polled a bunch of people who have one thing in common, and it turned out they have that thing in common. Unless everyone polled is also religious, has strong family dynamics, etc. then I don't get it.

Bob Lee said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Trump - 71%

Religious Leaders - 42%

From our latest @cbsnews polling ===> pic.twitter.com/C3UXTtVfEx

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 20, 2023

Lol

---

I don't get it.

---

That's clear

Trump was ranked above friends and family, dude! C'mon!

schmendeler said:

---

Trump - 71%

Religious Leaders - 42%

From our latest @cbsnews polling ===> pic.twitter.com/C3UXTtVfEx

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 20, 2023

Lol

---

Among trump voters, not among Christians which was supposed to be the debate to be had on this thread. Giving more credence to my belief that this is just fabricated masturbatory material for obsessed people. And that you though this poll was in support of the original claim is moreso evidence that this thread is a troll or you lack any ability to understand basic statistics.

Fenrir said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Trump - 71%

Religious Leaders - 42%

From our latest @cbsnews polling ===> pic.twitter.com/C3UXTtVfEx

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) August 20, 2023

Lol

---

Among trump voters, not among Christians which was supposed to be the debate to be had on this thread. Giving more credence to my belief that this is just fabricated masturbatory material for obsessed people. And that you though this poll was in support of the original claim is moreso evidence that this thread is a troll or you lack any ability to understand basic statistics.

---

Do you think Trump voters and Christians are two Venn circles that dont touch? I think that you and others cannot grasp that Trump also impacted Christianity and not in a good way.

"Politician X is more truthful than my friends and family" is an absolutely bonkers position regardless of who it is. Even crazier that this person is Donald Trump of all people.

I understand that some people's family's are awful and that some people have no real friends, but people who put this much effort into becoming the world's most powerful person are by definition insane, amoral, nut jobs. We'd all be better off assuming that all politicians are lying literally all the time.