Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Many of them think flying airplanes into buildings is a perfectly allowable way to express grievances. That a-okay with you?

---

I'm only talking about what I'm calling rock bottom convictions. Establishing a set of immutable truths from which rights can be deduced. Try to keep up.

---

Oh, I'm keeping up alright. You are the one behind.

Who gets to declare particular convictions as officially "rock bottom"?

---

Ultimately the people will get what they want.

---

So obviously that is no way to establish a government.

If we tried, then you'd get what we have now where a huge portion of the population is pushing their BS on the rest of us.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Many of them think flying airplanes into buildings is a perfectly allowable way to express grievances. That a-okay with you?

---

I'm only talking about what I'm calling rock bottom convictions. Establishing a set of immutable truths from which rights can be deduced. Try to keep up.

---

Oh, I'm keeping up alright. You are the one behind.

Who gets to declare particular convictions as officially "rock bottom"?

---

Duh. HIS God.

Other Gods need not apply.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

---

It does not make sense to me, if you're a materialist, to talk in terms of our rights. That's correct.

---

So, you get to use your own definitions for words? Cool.

I'll stay here where we already have those defined.

And again, WHICH religion do we have to follow to get these rights you're saying are ONLY allowed because of God?

---

Can you define marriage?

---

Yes.

What does that have to do with rights? Put the goalposts back on the field.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

From a standpoint that completely predates religion, it's for procreation.

God is not needed for that.

Interestingly enough, it's the same for animals and they've never heard of God.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

---

And rape is moral? Ghengis Kahn raped his way to .5% of the world population.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

---

The purpose of a screwdriver is to screw in screws.

If I use it to open a paint can is that immoral? I've removed its purpose from its application...

And again. You're getting further and further away from what RIGHTS are...

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

---

And rape is moral? Ghengis Kahn raped his way to .5% of the world population.

---

Dude was the GOAT when it comes to baby making!

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

---

The purpose of a screwdriver is to screw in screws.

If I use it to open a paint can is that immoral? I've removed its purpose from its application...

And again. You're getting further and further away from what RIGHTS are...

---

And the purpose of a mistress is to bang. Seems adultery is moral after all.

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

---

You would care what atheists and agnostics do when they outnumber you and force **** like gender ideology on you and your kids/grandkids using the precedent you want to set.

---

They don't have kids so I'm not particularly concerned about them long term. They will breed themselves out soon enough.

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

This is a good way to ensure that people don't get married and just shack up instead...

---

It's a good way to ensure the only people who get married are those doing it for religious purposes. I don't care what atheists or agnostics do, they aren't really married anyway, they merely have a legal contract for tax purposes.

---

You'll get that.

Don't complain when very few people get married though. Since even religious people may be hesitant with jail on the line.

---

I'm never going to sleep with anyone else so I don't see why this would scare any devout couple. If your so worried that you have no willpower and will commit adultery if given the chance then you have issues and should not get married, on that part I agree.

---

Again. If your plan is to ensure that very few people get married, you're driving in the right direction.

But, don't start complaining about religion being marginalized because fewer and fewer people want to engage in religion due to the punitive nature of it.

---

All religions are punitive by their very nature. Christianity is not and never was universalist. If you don't believe you go to hell, you can't get more punitive than that.

God commands us to setup our governments according to his law, so the idea that we should base it around secular ideas is purely a modern viewpoint.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

---

The first amendment was written to keep people like you from having any sway over the rest of us.

Keep your religion to you and yours.

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

And until around the 70s, we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

Having a nation based on freedom is better overall, even though you have to occasionally deal with negatives like adultery.

---

Amazing how a nation built around biblical morality became the greatest nation on earth while one based upon secular ideology is falling fast. Truly remarkable how that works.

---

Just because many of the Founding Fathers were religious does not mean the nation was not built around biblical morality. The words "bible", "Jesus", "God", etc. to not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Freedom is what made our nation great. Not that many states banned sodomy. Iran bans sodomy too, and they are far from great.

---

The Founding Fathers supported castration and laws you would find abhorrent because they were based around religious mores. This country has never been a secular nation.

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

---

You would care what atheists and agnostics do when they outnumber you and force **** like gender ideology on you and your kids/grandkids using the precedent you want to set.

---

They don't have kids so I'm not particularly concerned about them long term. They will breed themselves out soon enough.

---

Yet the percent of Americans who identify as religious continues to decline. Don't hand your hat on that.

Ag with kids said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

Interracial marriage was illegal until the late 60s. Doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

---

So what the Founders believed is only applicable whenever it conforms to what you believe amirite?

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

---

It does not make sense to me, if you're a materialist, to talk in terms of our rights. That's correct.

---

So, you get to use your own definitions for words? Cool.

I'll stay here where we already have those defined.

And again, WHICH religion do we have to follow to get these rights you're saying are ONLY allowed because of God?

---

Can you define marriage?

---

Yes.

What does that have to do with rights? Put the goalposts back on the field.

---

It has to do with rights in the context of marriage. The thread is about adultery. Is adultery violative of the rights of the offender's spouse, or not?

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

---

You would care what atheists and agnostics do when they outnumber you and force **** like gender ideology on you and your kids/grandkids using the precedent you want to set.

---

They don't have kids so I'm not particularly concerned about them long term. They will breed themselves out soon enough.

---

Yet the percent of Americans who identify as religious continues to decline. Don't hand your hat on that.

---

This has become flat in recent years, especially on the evangelical side. I believe the only groups that remain above replacement are white evangelical Protestants who are also socially conservative, the Amish, Mormons, Islam, and Orthodox Jews. Every other group is now below replacement, with leftists way below replacement.

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

This is what we did for basically 200 years. Adultery was illegal until the 1970s.

---

And until around the 70s, we were the greatest nation the world had ever seen.

Having a nation based on freedom is better overall, even though you have to occasionally deal with negatives like adultery.

---

Amazing how a nation built around biblical morality became the greatest nation on earth while one based upon secular ideology is falling fast. Truly remarkable how that works.

---

Just because many of the Founding Fathers were religious does not mean the nation was not built around biblical morality. The words "bible", "Jesus", "God", etc. to not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Freedom is what made our nation great. Not that many states banned sodomy. Iran bans sodomy too, and they are far from great.

---

The Founding Fathers supported castration and laws you would find abhorrent because they were based around religious mores. This country has never been a secular nation.

---

Founding Fathers also wanted to crown Washington as king. That doesn't mean we are a monarchy.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about castration or laws I find abhorrent because they were based around religious mores.

While some states did have official religions, that was short lived and certainly had nothing to do with why we were a great nation. It wasn't until we embraced freedom that we became the greatest world power of all time.

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

---

You would care what atheists and agnostics do when they outnumber you and force **** like gender ideology on you and your kids/grandkids using the precedent you want to set.

---

They don't have kids so I'm not particularly concerned about them long term. They will breed themselves out soon enough.

---

Yet the percent of Americans who identify as religious continues to decline. Don't hand your hat on that.

---

This has become flat in recent years, especially on the evangelical side. I believe the only groups that remain above replacement are white evangelical Protestants who are also socially conservative, the Amish, Mormons, Islam, and Orthodox Jews. Every other group is now below replacement, with leftists way below replacement.

---

Believe it or not, but not all children of religious parents are religious. That is where you are losing out.

lethalninja said:

---

Should adultery (specifically, someone that is married having sex with someone they're not married to) be illegal? I don't think it should be, but I asked one of my friends and he said he wouldn't be opposed to it being illegal, although he didn't know what the punishment should be. What are your thoughts?

---

Oh goodie! Something else to charge Trump with!

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

From a standpoint that completely predates religion, it's for procreation.

God is not needed for that.

Interestingly enough, it's the same for animals and they've never heard of God.

---

It doesn't predate God's law.

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Yes it should be illegal and if proven then the other person should forfeit all assets in a divorce if the spouse pushes for it.

I also think it should be punishable with prison time.

No fault divorce should be 100% eliminated and divorces should be much harder to obtain. Adultery and physical abuse of the spouse or children should be the only reasons. Fault in the case of a divorce should have criminal trial level requirements for proof of guilt. Otherwise it would be far too easy to fake it, as is often the case for civil trials. Basically, fault would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and heresay or eyewitness testimony would not be valid.

---

So mental abuse and the terror that brings is completely cool with you?

---

"My feelings got hurt," can never be proven in a court of law. Emotional abuse has never been considered a criminal unless it was also accompanied by physical abuse.

Emotional abuse is rarely ever done by itself in a vacuum with zero physical abuse, not even by women.

---

People are awarded damages for pain and suffering regularly, and we criminalize all kinds of things we perceive to cause emotional damage. Stalking and public lewdness are crimes for example.

---

Fair enough, then I would be okay here if you could prove it with the same standards as a criminal trial.

I don't believe civil trial requirements are enough for anything to provide reasons for divorce. It must be "beyond all reasonable doubt."

My end goal is to make marriage a religious institution again.

---

My end goal is to keep your religion out of my marriage. Except my goal is already a reality and yours is DOA in every legislative body in this country.

Well not every legislative body. I could see you getting some buy in with like minded government officials in the local sharia influenced areas of Minnesota and Michigan.

---

Why did you get married? For tax benefits? Because that's the only legitimate secular reason for marriage. If they got rid of tax benefits, would you get married if you didn't have to?

If they got rid of common law marriage such that two people could live together without ever getting married forever, would you do this?

I really could not honestly care what atheists and agnostics do, I don't want any of them making a mockery of marriage. I'm perfectly okay with making it easier to live without marriage provided that's far harder to get divorced if you do.

---

You would care what atheists and agnostics do when they outnumber you and force **** like gender ideology on you and your kids/grandkids using the precedent you want to set.

---

They don't have kids so I'm not particularly concerned about them long term. They will breed themselves out soon enough.

---

Yet the percent of Americans who identify as religious continues to decline. Don't hand your hat on that.

---

This has become flat in recent years, especially on the evangelical side. I believe the only groups that remain above replacement are white evangelical Protestants who are also socially conservative, the Amish, Mormons, Islam, and Orthodox Jews. Every other group is now below replacement, with leftists way below replacement.

---

Believe it or not, but not all children of religious parents are religious. That is where you are losing out.

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

Sure they will.

No, but it'll certainly show you who not to be with.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

What in the world are you talking about? We are seeing the religious people LOSE time and time again. The left is declaring their position as "moral" and shoving it down all of our throats because long ago we abandoned the Constitution and the concepts of rights and embraced "virtue". You are losing, and blowing off the concept of rights is the reason why.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

What in the world are you talking about? We are seeing the religious people LOSE time and time again. The left is declaring their position as "moral" and shoving it down all of our throats because long ago we abandoned the Constitution and the concepts of rights and embraced "virtue". You are losing, and blowing off the concept of rights is the reason why.

---

Their position is your position. Their view of freedom is your view of freedom.

You're mistakenly attributing what I'm talking about to embracing moral absolutes when the issue is the stripping away and rejection of moral absolutes.

The left only ever appeals to tolerance and acceptance. Everything is subjected to those things.

aTmAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?

---

Having kids.

---

Exactly. So with that in mind I would say it's not good to remove its purpose from its application. Therefore. Contraceptives, masturbation, and gay sex are immoral.

---

The purpose of a screwdriver is to screw in screws.

If I use it to open a paint can is that immoral? I've removed its purpose from its application...

And again. You're getting further and further away from what RIGHTS are...

---

And the purpose of a mistress is to bang. Seems adultery is moral after all.

---

Don't forget the concubines.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

And you don't need to religion to have "absolutes" or baselines.

Did you know that it's possible to be moral and NOT religious?

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

What in the world are you talking about? We are seeing the religious people LOSE time and time again. The left is declaring their position as "moral" and shoving it down all of our throats because long ago we abandoned the Constitution and the concepts of rights and embraced "virtue". You are losing, and blowing off the concept of rights is the reason why.

---

Their position is your position. Their view of freedom is your view of freedom.

---

No it isn't.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

And you don't need to religion to have "absolutes" or baselines.

Did you know that it's possible to be moral and NOT religious?

---

I didn't say you need to be religious. I think you need to be a creationist in order to have a basis for having moral convictions. You can be moral, but it would have no basis in materialism.

Eta: I'm talking soecifically about objective morality.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

What in the world are you talking about? We are seeing the religious people LOSE time and time again. The left is declaring their position as "moral" and shoving it down all of our throats because long ago we abandoned the Constitution and the concepts of rights and embraced "virtue". You are losing, and blowing off the concept of rights is the reason why.

---

Their position is your position. Their view of freedom is your view of freedom.

---

No it isn't.

---

Yeah it is.