Can most Christians be negotiable...

[bluegreenearth]

When the majority of Christians and non-theists are not debating each other in various forums, their day-to-day discourse is relatively civil and cooperative. This is, in part, because most Christians and non-theists share common goals which require collaboration in order to achieve those goals. However, when it comes to issues involving the separation of church and state, many Christians would like and often attempt to impose their religious doctrines on non-theists through government legislation. Apparently, it is not enough that Christians in America enjoy the freedom to make important decisions for themselves based on their personal religious faith because many of them are actively seeking the freedom to make those personal decisions for everyone else as well.

The theocratic ambitions of many Christians are routinely manifested in the government legislation they support. For example, same-sex couples finally acquired the right to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples but only after a long and unnecessarily difficult legislative battle with the Christian majority in America. Even so, these and other civil rights of the LGBTQ community remain under threat from the Christian majority. Where secular reasons to limit or restrict the rights of people to be married or adopt children can be demonstrated, there is already reasonable government legislation established to limit or restrict marriage and adoption rights in those specific circumstances. However, there is no demonstrable reason to limit or restrict the rights of consenting same-sex adults from receiving marriage benefits or adopting children. In fact, the prohibition of same-sex marriage between consenting adults or their ability to adopt children has not only been demonstrated to detracted from the well-being of most people but has actually led to increased unnecessary harm. Meanwhile, there are only non-demonstrable theological reasons for encouraging such anti-LGBTQ legislation. Despite the strength of their religious convictions, why can't Christian theocrats understand that supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation does not function to maximize well-being and is actually demonstrably harmful to society? Do these Christians realize that rejecting anti-LGBTQ legislation is not the same thing as endorsing the LGBTQ lifestyle but actually functions to support the religious freedoms of everyone including themselves?

Similarly, a woman's right to choose whether she will maintain an unwanted pregnancy within a few weeks of conception is under constant threat from the Christian majority in America. In most circumstances, the only reasons given to oppose the "pro-choice" position are based on non-demonstrable theological claims. Where secular reasons to oppose an abortion can be demonstrated, there is already reasonable government legislation established to limit the abortion option in those specific circumstances. However, there is no demonstrable reason to limit or restrict a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy when the fetus has only existed for less than a few weeks. In fact, the prohibition of these types of abortions has not only been demonstrated to detract from the well-being of most people but has actually led to increased unnecessary harm. Meanwhile, there are only non-demonstrable theological reasons for discouraging family planning in this way. As such, the government cannot and should not endorse legislation that inhibits anyone's reproductive rights based entirely on theological grounds. Nevertheless, we regularly observe Christian theocrats pushing for "pro-life" legislation which would clearly function as an unconstitutional government endorsement of theism over non-theism. Despite the strength of their religious convictions, why can't many of these Christians understand that supporting theologically based "pro-life" legislation does not function to maximize well-being and is actually harmful to society? Do these Christians realize that rejecting "pro-life" legislation is not the same thing as endorsing abortion but actually functions to support the religious freedoms of everyone including themselves?

Note: While I have initiated this new thread, it is my intention for other members of this forum to engage in most of the debate here because there are other things which require most of my attention at the moment. However, I am interested in following the dialogue that will transpire from this topic and will try to post my thoughts when time permits. Thanks in advance for your understanding and patience.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]


I agree with pretty much everything you have to say, and have actually made the same argument to many Christians, on the same basis. In other words, I have attempted to explain to them that they may be under the impression this is all fine, as long as they are somehow able to control the power, but when, and if the power begins to shift, we may well see those opposed attempt to rid society of religion, and I really do not see where they will have an argument at that point since they seem to be fine with, "might being right" now.

Also, it makes no since whatsoever for us as Christians to attempt to legislate laws, since we as Christians should understand that law, can never save. Therefore, we as Christians should be about attempting to change hearts, and minds, and allow the law to take care of itself.

However, as far as abortion goes, one can be opposed to abortion, in the same way one would be apposed to murder, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with theology, unless of course you would like to argue murder would be fine as well?

Of course at this point, you and I will more than likely begin to argue over when life begins, and I am really not interested in such an argument, since it would be subjective. However, I highly doubt, and certainly hope that you would not be in favor of allowing a mother to decide the child would be unwanted after the delivery?

But my main question here would be, since I oppose abortion, would it be okay with you, if I were to oppose state funded abortion? Or, do you mandate that I support this kind of abortion as well?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

I don't believe that deep down you believe what you wrote. Religions and by that word I include ideology are followed by everyone. The separation of church and state is a myth for the ignorant and a lie told by those who are not ignorant.

You realise the state is a non-negotiable entity. They take taxes from you by force. It's the biggest gun in the room and everyone wants to control it and point it at everyone else. Most states are simply the entropic nature of banditry. If bandits survive for long enough in one place they don't need to rob - they can tax.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Couple of questions.

What exactly are "bisexual" rights? The "B" in LGBT? Who is advocating for bi-sexual marriage? What would that look like?

Secondly. Adoption by homosexual couples implies either men or women are not important for the child's role modeling and the development of their personalities. So there is a legitimate reason to restrict adoption by homosexual couples, at least when heterosexual couples are available. Are you saying that children do not deserve BOTH a father and a mother as role models?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 2 by Realworldjack]

As I implied in the OP, where there are secular reason which demonstrate a need to limit or prohibit abortion, there is a justification for debating whether the existing laws are sufficient or require adjustments. In all honesty, I'm not entirely educated on all the nuances involved with what you've labeled as "state funded" abortions. I suspect there are very specific circumstances where a tax-payer funded abortion could be arguably justified. However, I'm probably not the most informed person to debate on that topic. Maybe someone else will be more knowledgeable on the topic of "state funded" abortions.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Couple of questions.

What exactly are "bisexual" rights? The "B" in LGBT? Who is advocating for bi-sexual marriage? What would that look like?

A friend of mine is bisexual. He married a woman 60 years ago and has remained faithful to her for 60 years. His bisexual marriage looks just like a heterosexual's monogamous marriage as rare as those are.


Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.

What exactly are "bisexual" rights? The "B" in LGBT? Who is advocating for bi-sexual marriage? What would that look like?

Why do you care what a bi-sexual marriage would look like?

Shall we grant approval of marriages by what they look like to outsiders?

Secondly. Adoption by homosexual couples implies either men or women are not important for the child's role modeling and the development of their personalities. So there is a legitimate reason to restrict adoption by homosexual couples, at least when heterosexual couples are available. Are you saying that children do not deserve BOTH a father and a mother as role models?

Does heterosexual marriage provide a mother and a father role models for children?

Are we not aware of high divorce rates and of single parent households? Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%) www.pewresearch.org

If we are actually concerned about children having male and female role models, it might be wise to attend to the primary cause for its lack rather than playing to personal opinions or prejudices.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

Couple of questions.

What exactly are "bisexual" rights? The "B" in LGBT? Who is advocating for bi-sexual marriage? What would that look like?

Secondly. Adoption by homosexual couples implies either men or women are not important for the child's role modeling and the development of their personalities. So there is a legitimate reason to restrict adoption by homosexual couples, at least when heterosexual couples are available. Are you saying that children do not deserve BOTH a father and a mother as role models?

Civil rights for the LGBTQ community involve more than just marriage and the ability to adopt children. Marriage and adoption are just a couple of common examples which may not necessarily apply specifically to the issue of bisexuality.

As for your comments about mother and father role models, the empirical data does not support your claims. To the contrary, all the evidence indicates that children raised by homosexual parents are as emotionally and psychologically healthy as children from heterosexual parents. What you seem to be regurgitating is harmful propaganda that has no place in our civil discourse. You must immediately discontinue spreading that misguided and deceptive rhetoric if you value intellectual honesty. This is not debatable. Such a backward perspective is on par with racism and will not be tolerated.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Adoption by homosexual couples implies either men or women are not important for the child's role modeling and the development of their personalities. So there is a legitimate reason to restrict adoption by homosexual couples, at least when heterosexual couples are available. Are you saying that children do not deserve BOTH a father and a mother as role models?

Do you find it preferable that they have neither? What about all the children currently being raised in single parent households?

In 2019, there were about 15.76 million children living with a single mother in the United States, and about 3.23 million children living with a single father.

[JehovahsWitness]

Do these Christians realize that rejecting "pro-life" legislation is not the same thing as endorsing abortion but actually functions to support the religious freedoms of everyone including themselves?

Much of what you wrote doesnt apply to me as one of Jehovahs Witnesses since we dont vote or get involved in politics.

Still, you make a valid point about the value of religious freedoms. I believe abortions and homosexual marriage are biblically unacceptable to God and appreciate the freedom to belong to a religion that hold this position. As long as neither are made compulsory I can't see how JWs at least pose a threat to the well being of society.





JW




RELATED POSTS


When does life begin?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 476#904476