If conservatives want to be draconian about abortion, then they should go full measure.

[Lursa]

It's always absurd men whining complaining that women have the upper hand in one thing, child birth. Men have dominated and gotten their way over women throughotu most of history, they get paid more, they have more power, etc etc etc.

And they don't have to go through 9 months of unpleasantness, sacrifice, and risk to health to develop the baby. So spare this unfair nonsense. Women are the ones who sacrifice to have children.

So stop with this "its not fair". it's completely absurd

And embarrassing IMO, to insist that men are such victims, unable to make good decisions in their own best interests.

I have never even implied such, I believe men can. What I dont understand is why they dont more often.

 

[Lursa]

If god thinks sex is a sin yet gave humans a huge, natural instinct to want to have sex, than he's a sadistic bastard.

It's very much a Catholic thing. God does want us to enjoy sex and procreate.

Catholics want more boots on the ground, more hands to push $$ into the collection plates...so they attempt to eliminate any means to prevent births and to enable the offspring's survival (in the old days, a male protector was better than little bastards with a single mother).

 

[Scrabaholic]

He's just mad because women have one option that men don't have. Just one option he doesn't have sends him into a frenzy of demanding equality.

Exactly. And how equal is it that women are the ones that get pregnant and have to gestate and deliver if they choose to not abort? Or, if they do abort, they have to pay for it (in the US) and go through the procedure.

 

[Scrabaholic]

many right wingers would love a Gilead type world where they can murder non believers and people of other races and rape women

May that never, ever happen.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If god thinks sex is a sin yet gave humans a huge, natural instinct to want to have sex, than he's a sadistic bastard.

I am Christian and I agree. It does not make sense. Same with homosexuality - why did he make some to be gay, then say they cannot have gay sex? Something is missing, perhaps a mistranslation in the Bible or something.

 

[Lursa]

I am Christian and I agree. It does not make sense. Same with homosexuality - why did he make some to be gay, then say they cannot have gay sex? Something is missing, perhaps a mistranslation in the Bible or something.

Exactly. A just and loving God would never do such cruel a thing.

 

[weaver2]

Exactly. A just and loving God would never do such cruel a thing.

The God of the Old Testament is not a just or loving God.

 

[Lursa]

The God of the Old Testament is not a just or loving God.

True and that's why He sent His Son Jesus and the Old Testament is just that...old news.

The Lord's Message changed with the Coming of His Son.

Fundies love all that vengeance and intolerance crap from the OT.

 

[Crusader13]

But she ends up with one (at least.) She has no choice.

She has no choice?? The HORROR! Meanwhile you're celebrating and supporting the fact that men don't get a choice.

And if she doesnt want a kid and doesnt believe in abortion, she's stuck with having a kid.

And if the man doesn't want a kid and chooses to walk away, he's stuck with a kid (or at least having to support it). Why don't his post conception choices count?

And it can kill or harm her in doing so.

And supporting a child he doesn't want can lead to extreme impacts on a man's life too - lack of freedom, sacrificing his career, financial hardship, depression, the list goes on.

 

[Crusader13]

I am Christian and I agree. It does not make sense. Same with homosexuality - why did he make some to be gay, then say they cannot have gay sex? Something is missing, perhaps a mistranslation in the Bible or something.

What's missing is your proper education or even a base level understanding of the religion you claim to be a part of.

God created sex for procreation and the solidity of a union. Every creature on earth has sexual instincts yet only one of them complain about it...the rest have learned to enjoy them responsibly. God made it feel so good because its supposed to be a reward.

If you read the Bible, you'd understand that straight sexual urges are just as sinful as homosexual ones. Straight Christians have laws and rules to follow when it comes to sex as well, so no, God didn't single out the gays.

Everyone has trials and burdens in their life. Jesus was the son of God, a guiltless hippie who only did good on earth and he suffered the worst burden of all. Nobody is immune as it's part of God's way of strengthening people. Homosexuals are called to a life of chastity, just like many straight people. That can mean priesthood or any other vocation. In fact given that homosexuals cannot get married in the faith, one would argue that the decision of which vocation to take is a lot simpler.

 

[Lursa]

God created sex for procreation and the solidity of a union. Every creature on earth has sexual instincts yet only one of them complain about it...the rest have learned to enjoy them responsibly. God made it feel so good because its supposed to be a reward.

Jeebus Mary and Joseph! :doh

 

[Slartibartfast]

Jeebus Mary and Joseph! :doh

What you've never seen squirrels attending classes to learn about appropriate sex?

 

[Lursa]

She has no choice?? The HORROR! Meanwhile you're celebrating and supporting the fact that men don't get a choice.

Dont be dishonest and take it out of context. You know very well I have posted repeatedly that BOTH men and women have a choice "before" sex. And after that, both may face consequences. If there is a pregnancy "she has no choice," she must face consequences, she cannot escape them: have a kid, have a miscarriage, have an abortion, or die during pregnancy/childbirth. All are painful and may leave permanent health damage. All can even kill.

And if the man doesn't want a kid and chooses to walk away, he's stuck with a kid (or at least having to support it). Why don't his post conception choices count?

Yes. Didnt he know this was a possible consequence when he had sex? If so, then why shouldnt he be held accountable for his choice? No one put a gun to his head.

And his post-conception consequences are his because otherwise, they fall on the child and the taxpayers. How is that fair? How is it fair that the taxpayers end up paying more when the people accountable for creating the kid are available to pay their share?

And supporting a child he doesn't want can lead to extreme impacts on a man's life too - lack of freedom, sacrificing his career, financial hardship, depression, the list goes on.

And he has 100% control over those consequences not happening...correct? Yes or no? Can he decide whether or not to have sex with a particular woman or not? Yes or no?

I'm going to give men credit, I believe they can control themselves and make the best decisions for their own best interests. My answer is Yes. How do you justify then, men not being held accountable for their decisions?

 

[Scrabaholic]

What's missing is your proper education or even a base level understanding of the religion you claim to be a part of.

Please do not lie about me again.

Everyone has trials and burdens in their life. Jesus was the son of God, a guiltless hippie who only did good on earth and he suffered the worst burden of all. Nobody is immune as it's part of God's way of strengthening people. Homosexuals are called to a life of chastity, just like many straight people. That can mean priesthood or any other vocation. In fact given that homosexuals cannot get married in the faith, one would argue that the decision of which vocation to take is a lot simpler.

It makes no sense to create us as sexual beings and then say we aren't supposed to have sex.

Gays can get married, so they can have marital sex.

BTW, there are churches that ordain gays. I belong to one of them.

 

[Crusader13]

Dont be dishonest and take it out of context. You know very well I have posted repeatedly that BOTH men and women have a choice "before" sex. And after that, both may face consequences. If there is a pregnancy "she has no choice," she must face consequences, she cannot escape them: have a kid, have a miscarriage, have an abortion, or die during pregnancy/childbirth. All are painful and may leave permanent health damage. All can even kill.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't become any less of a lie. Two of those are a favourable outcome for 100% of women on earth, and the other 2 would only happen if they willingly decided to go ahead with their pregnancy. To use your own argument, a woman who dies during pregnancy "knew the risks". These are not consequences; they're outcomes which happen 100% by the woman's consent.

Yes. Didnt he know this was a possible consequence when he had sex? If so, then why shouldnt he be held accountable for his choice? No one put a gun to his head.

You keep asking this question for men while refusing to answer it (validly) for women. Women can opt out of parenthood after conception. Men cannot. If you're all for holding people accountable for their choices, then you should be lobbying to ban abortions.

And his post-conception consequences are his because otherwise, they fall on the child and the taxpayers. How is that fair? How is it fair that the taxpayers end up paying more when the people accountable for creating the kid are available to pay their share?

They don't fall on the taxpayer. They fall on the woman. If she can't afford to raise her child she shouldn't have it in the first place.

And he has 100% control over those consequences not happening...correct? Yes or no? Can he decide whether or not to have sex with a particular woman or not? Yes or no?

So you want to deny men the right to have sex while women get the right to enjoy it without the risk of parenthood? Noted.

 

[Crusader13]

It makes no sense to create us as sexual beings and then say we aren't supposed to have sex.

God wants you to have sex and it's perfectly OK by the faith - you just need to enjoy it as it was intended, within marriage. This is so the act retains value and meaning beyond a cheap thrill, and lets you solidify your relationship.

I guess you could say sex is God's way of luring us into marriage because it helps society.

Gays can get married, so they can have marital sex.

They can't get married within the church. .

BTW, there are churches that ordain gays. I belong to one of them.

Of course - some of the best priests I've known are gay. Like I said, the Bible tells us that gays are called to chastity and priesthood, which is ironic given that this is the highest honor within the faith yet the church is constantly labelled as "gay-haters".

 

[Scrabaholic]

God wants you to have sex and it's perfectly OK by the faith - you just need to enjoy it as it was intended, within marriage. This is so the act retains value and meaning beyond a cheap thrill, and lets you solidify your relationship.

I guess you could say sex is God's way of luring us into marriage because it helps society.

Marriage is a man made institution. It was around long before the Bible.

They can't get married within the church. .

Yes, they can. There are churches that perform same sex weddings. I belong to one of them.

Of course - some of the best priests I've known are gay. Like I said, the Bible tells us that gays are called to chastity and priesthood, which is ironic given that this is the highest honor within the faith yet the church is constantly labelled as "gay-haters".

Does not make sense to create us as sexual beings and then say do not have sex.

 

[Crusader13]

Marriage is a man made institution. It was around long before the Bible.






Yes, they can. There are churches that perform same sex weddings. I belong to one of them.





Does not make sense to create us as sexual beings and then say do not have sex.

Nobody ever claimed that Christians or the Bible invented marriage.

Homosexuality is forbidden in every major Christian sect. It is condemned clear as crystal in the Bible so any such church that promotes it is hardly a church to begin with.

This would be on the level of a few Muslims opening their own mosque and preaching that Tom Cruise is the only true God.

The Bible does not forbid sex. If you're a Christian and you want to have sex, all you need to do is find the person you want to have sex with, treat them with some respect and decency, and ask them to marry you. You can then enjoy all the free unrestricted sex you want. In fact how's this hating sex - some parts in the Bible even encourage or demand that women put out for their husbands. Sex haters indeed!

Your church should spend less time marrying gay people and more time teaching the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[Obscurity]

God wants you to have sex and it's perfectly OK by the faith - you just need to enjoy it as it was intended, within marriage. This is so the act retains value and meaning beyond a cheap thrill, and lets you solidify your relationship.

As was intended? So the cavemen who were early human beings, who had no concept of jealousy or marriage or monogamy, they were impregnating each other at absurd rates, thanks to high death rates among early man, that was all as "intended?"

How do you circle that square? Cheap thrill?

I guess you could say sex is God's way of luring us into marriage because it helps society.

Even if I grant that your god exists (and I don't), how can you even presume to know what this entity is "luring" anyone into? Moreover, since when did "religion" declare dominion over the language we use?

[

They can't get married within the church. .

And? This is irrelevant.

Of course - some of the best priests I've known are gay. Like I said, the Bible tells us that gays are called to chastity and priesthood, which is ironic given that this is the highest honor within the faith yet the church is constantly labelled as "gay-haters".

Why does what the bible, a flawed, contradictory text, say, have any bearing at all on the broader societal context?

Why does your interpretation of words on a page entitle you to dictate to me what I do with my person in my home, where I apparently do not enjoy the right to privacy from you people?

 

[Obscurity]

Nobody ever claimed that Christians or the Bible invented marriage.

Thanks for admitting the truth. Then you should stop acting like you have -any- say at all in this society about who can, and cannot get married, since clearly you didn't invent the term, nor do you have dominion over it.

Homosexuality is forbidden in every major Christian sect. It is condemned clear as crystal in the Bible so any such church that promotes it is hardly a church to begin with.

Let's apply a naturalistic answer to the question of homophobia in ancient middle eastern texts, shall we, and then we can play a game called Occam's Razor.

A naturalistic answer for MAN'S fear of homosexuality is that during those times, society was small, fractured, tribes were common, and "able bodied" men to defend the tribe against ravenous outsiders was desired. Thus, any man who did not procreate and create more tribesmen was a liability. Thus was born the notion homosexuality was bad, and heterosexuality is good.

Now, that naturalistic explanation very simply puts into perspective societal fear of men not procreating.

Which is more likely? That war, plague, famine, etc, which literally threatened ENTIRE PEOPLES were both common and rampant; and that men who did not sire offspring proliferated that problem. OR, that a magic man in the sky who has not revealed himself but to middle easterners and africans 2000 some odd years ago demanded people not be homosexual?

This would be on the level of a few Muslims opening their own mosque and preaching that Tom Cruise is the only true God.

You mean like plenty of christians are doing now with Trump?

The Bible does not forbid sex. If you're a Christian and you want to have sex, all you need to do is find the person you want to have sex with, treat them with some respect and decency, and ask them to marry you. You can then enjoy all the free unrestricted sex you want. In fact how's this hating sex - some parts in the Bible even encourage or demand that women put out for their husbands. Sex haters indeed!

Or you can rape them, and be forced to marry them. Or offer a dowery and buy them. There are a plethora of malignant, odious practices the bible fully condones that this "Secular" modern society shuns and finds both grotesque and sickening.

The reason you're attacked for the christian stance on sex is very simple. You try and get laws passed (and have in the past) that restrict who can have sex with whom and even how. It's the most invasive, sickening kleptocratic necrocracy I've ever seen.

Your church should spend less time marrying gay people and more time teaching the fundamentals of the faith.

Your church should stop insisting it alone knows how to interpret the word of god, stop injecting politics into faith and thereby destroying the very premise faith has; You should also stop telling other people how they should live their lives.

I haven't dropped in on your church to disgrace it with my anti christian, heathen propaganda. So don't do the same to me.

You **** your wife how you want and I'll **** mine the way I want. Even?

 

[Lursa]

No matter how many times you say this, it won't become any less of a lie. Two of those are a favourable outcome for 100% of women on earth, and the other 2 would only happen if they willingly decided to go ahead with their pregnancy. To use your own argument, a woman who dies during pregnancy "knew the risks". These are not consequences; they're outcomes which happen 100% by the woman's consent.

Of course they are...**when they want a child!** :doh If they dont, it's a nightmare and has the potential to destroy their entire futures. To FORCE it on women violates our bodily sovereignty and takes away our right to self-determination.

And yes, she knew the risks and must accept the consequences. Again, I have never written anything else.

You keep asking this question for men while refusing to answer it (validly) for women. Women can opt out of parenthood after conception. Men cannot.

Yes, they can:

Yes they can. Legally-recognized men get pregnant and have kids.

Trans man and partner expecting first child - CNN

The story of one man’s pregnancy: ‘It felt joyous, amazing and brilliant’ | Life and style | The Guardian

Thomas Beatie: What Happened to the Original 'Pregnant Man'?

Texas Transgender Man Gives Birth to Baby Boy | PEOPLE.com

You are the one continually lying about it. Here's the proof ^^^.

Not only that, you are disrespecting these men every time you deny this.

Men and women are legally allowed to opt-out of parenthood pre-birth. The law is equal.

The law is equal.

If you're all for holding people accountable for their choices, then you should be lobbying to ban abortions.

Abortion is a very responsible choice, are you not aware of that?

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you cant afford and expecting tax payers to take up that burden with public assistance.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid you arent emotionally prepared to have and may abuse or neglect.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid if you know you wont stop drinking, smoking, doing drugs, etc that will damage the unborn.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant and dropping out of high school or college or missing work and not fulfilling your potential in society.

--There's nothing responsible about remaining pregnant/having a child and not being able to fulfill your other commitments and obligations to family, dependents, employer, church, community, society.

--There's nothing responsible about having a kid and giving it up for adoption when there are already over 100,000 kids in America waiting to be adopted. It means one less waiting will find a home.​

They don't fall on the taxpayer. They fall on the woman. If she can't afford to raise her child she shouldn't have it in the first place.

Er, in 'real life,' they fall on the tax payer: public assistance, medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc etc.

So you want to deny men the right to have sex while women get the right to enjoy it without the risk of parenthood? Noted.

This is a blatant lie since every time I post that women must also decide BEFORE they have sex if they are willing to risk the consequnces of a pregnancy and point out that if there is a pregnancy, a woman cannot escape consequences (whereas a man often gets to).

 

[Scrabaholic]

Homosexuality is forbidden in every major Christian sect.

Not true. The Anglican Church of Canada, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Canada and Lutherans, I believe, all ordain gays and perform same sex weddings.

The Bible does not forbid sex. If you're a Christian and you want to have sex, all you need to do is find the person you want to have sex with, treat them with some respect and decency, and ask them to marry you. You can then enjoy all the free unrestricted sex you want. In fact how's this hating sex - some parts in the Bible even encourage or demand that women put out for their husbands. Sex haters indeed!

No loving, caring god would make people to be sexual creatures then say do not have sex unless you've signed a piece of paper.

Your church should spend less time marrying gay people and more time teaching the fundamentals of the faith.

Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about what others do and concentrate on your own life. Have *you* had sex without marriage?

 

[Crusader13]

Why does what the bible, a flawed, contradictory text, say, have any bearing at all on the broader societal context?

Why does the Constitution, a flawed, contradictory text, have any bearing at all on the broader societal context? Are you against all documents being used to declare what is right and wrong, or just some based on your own prejudice?

Why does your interpretation of words on a page entitle you to dictate to me what I do with my person in my home, where I apparently do not enjoy the right to privacy from you people?

You've been triggered to the point of taking my posts completely out of context. I never said you're not allowed to do whatever you want in your own home. Your bedroom is your business and it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Crusader13]

Thanks for admitting the truth. Then you should stop acting like you have -any- say at all in this society about who can, and cannot get married, since clearly you didn't invent the term, nor do you have dominion over it.

My taxes pay for the guns that the State uses to protect your right to marriage. My taxes are also used to pay for your family subsidies or any other welfare you receive. You can **** whoever you want, but when you outright demand that I don't get a say on how my taxes are spent, you've lost me. You want my money and the money of millions of tax-paying Christians around the country, you'll damn well respect our right to voice concerns over how it's spent. Don't like it? Leave.

A naturalistic answer for MAN'S fear of homosexuality is that during those times, society was small, fractured, tribes were common, and "able bodied" men to defend the tribe against ravenous outsiders was desired.

No. A naturalistic answer for man's fear of homosexuality is that it's contra to the what nature indented. Your point of siring offspring is correct, but that doesn't refute the beliefs in the Bible. Perhaps the magic man in the sky demanded people not to be homosexual because he knew it was detrimental to society. You do realize that the devious lifestyle of the gay community was a driving factor of introducing and spreading AIDS? Doesn't take a genius to figure out this is not a healthy lifestyle.

Or you can rape them, and be forced to marry them. Or offer a dowery and buy them. There are a plethora of malignant, odious practices the bible fully condones that this "Secular" modern society shuns and finds both grotesque and sickening.

This "Secular" modern society bases most of its laws and moral teachings from the Bible. And you seem to be referring heavily to the Old Testament, which is merely a recount of events during ancient cultures. That doesn't constitute Christian dogma.

The reason you're attacked for the christian stance on sex is very simple. You try and get laws passed (and have in the past) that restrict who can have sex with whom and even how. It's the most invasive, sickening kleptocratic necrocracy I've ever seen.

Every society puts restrictions on who can and can't have sex or get married. Polygamy is mostly illegal. Pedophilia is illegal, even if it's consensual. Incest isn't illegal but it's very heavily (and correctly) demonized by society. Bestiality is usually illegal and socially taboo.

You've been living in a society that dictates who can and can't have sex and under what circumstances for decades. You only chose to stand up and express your disgust when Christians do it. You're prejudiced.

Your church should stop insisting it alone knows how to interpret the word of god

My church has been around since the day the faith was formed, and has apostolic succession dating all the way back to Saint Peter on the rock. What can I say - I trust their deduction more than I trust some ultra-PC church that formed in someone's garage a few weeks ago.

stop injecting politics into faith and thereby destroying the very premise faith has

Homosexuality is clearly condemned multiple times in the Bible. No politics here.

You should also stop telling other people how they should live their lives.

Maybe as soon as you stop telling me and the rest of the Christians how to live our own lives and enjoy our own religious freedoms. You seem to be more than happy to demand that we keep quiet, stop preaching out imaginary book on the streets or in schools, etc etc. Maybe practice what you preach.

 

[Obscurity]

My taxes pay for the guns that the State uses to protect your right to marriage. My taxes are also used to pay for your family subsidies or any other welfare you receive. You can **** whoever you want, but when you outright demand that I don't get a say on how my taxes are spent, you've lost me. You want my money and the money of millions of tax-paying Christians around the country, you'll damn well respect our right to voice concerns over how it's spent. Don't like it? Leave.



No. A naturalistic answer for man's fear of homosexuality is that it's contra to the what nature indented. Your point of siring offspring is correct, but that doesn't refute the beliefs in the Bible. Perhaps the magic man in the sky demanded people not to be homosexual because he knew it was detrimental to society. You do realize that the devious lifestyle of the gay community was a driving factor of introducing and spreading AIDS? Doesn't take a genius to figure out this is not a healthy lifestyle.



This "Secular" modern society bases most of its laws and moral teachings from the Bible. And you seem to be referring heavily to the Old Testament, which is merely a recount of events during ancient cultures. That doesn't constitute Christian dogma.



Every society puts restrictions on who can and can't have sex or get married. Polygamy is mostly illegal. Pedophilia is illegal, even if it's consensual. Incest isn't illegal but it's very heavily (and correctly) demonized by society. Bestiality is usually illegal and socially taboo.

You've been living in a society that dictates who can and can't have sex and under what circumstances for decades. You only chose to stand up and express your disgust when Christians do it. You're prejudiced.



My church has been around since the day the faith was formed, and has apostolic succession dating all the way back to Saint Peter on the rock. What can I say - I trust their deduction more than I trust some ultra-PC church that formed in someone's garage a few weeks ago.



Homosexuality is clearly condemned multiple times in the Bible. No politics here.



Maybe as soon as you stop telling me and the rest of the Christians how to live our own lives and enjoy our own religious freedoms. You seem to be more than happy to demand that we keep quiet, stop preaching out imaginary book on the streets or in schools, etc etc. Maybe practice what you preach.

Lol.

Man oh man.

You sure do have it ass backwards.

Typical with a christian. You pay taxes into society. It gets spent how society wants it spent. Via voting. You dislike that, YOU leave. Maybe you can create this paleoconservative religious society somewhere else.