The Mamdani Model: More Socialist Mayors to ComeBeware! The DSA will attempt to repeat Mamdani’s success in other Democrat strongholds.

[stevevw]

[Note to other readers: Yeah, this doesn't have anything to do with Mamdani or mayors,

In the overall scheme of power vacumes its human nature to fill that void with some sort of philosophy in how we should order society and the world.

It has everything to do with this whether its mainstream Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Communism, Conservatism, Christian Nationalism or Fascism. It use to be Christian and biblical norms now its a different set or basis.

but it is absolutely about the moral panic centered in the OP.

Why is it moral panic. Is it not unusual that a socialist type leader is elected in modern times. Especially in one of the most capitalist cities in the world. People are merely reacting to Mamdanis own words that framed this as some sort of moral situation in stopping the bad guys.

I'm going to break my response to this extensive list of errors into one on culture and one on politics. Scroll past if you're looking for socialist mayor content. Cheers.]

Influence and control are different things, Steve. You wanted to know who "controls" society. I gave the only answer that makes sense: No one. This is because no one person or group "controls" society, certainly not the government. Societies evolve under a wide variety of influences. When authoritarians *try* to control societies, their efforts break eventually. Now lets look at some other ways you were wrong about this:

I am still disagreeing with this premise that no one controls society. Sometimes an individual can have control over how something is ordered ie money. Money buys power.

But also groups have power over the government. Then you have all the academic idologues who managed to take advantage by being in positions of power. Head of Universities pushing an agenda and ideology that it influences policies and laws. Then theres lawfare.

So within this dynamic there are forces that continually jossel and have their 15 minutes of power control. But also individuals and groups that are controlling the outcomes over time. Even with the control of information through legacy media.

There are popular movements, fads, celebrities, influencers (old style and new), propagandists, advertisers, etc. They all "influence" society, but they do not "control" it.

How do you know. If these forces band together than they are a strong force controlling society. Often it is the groups like say BLM who wield power along with those influenced by this ie celebs and activists groups echoing the same ideology that then influences policies and laws.

But also social norms to the point where people are ostrised and suffer real consequences. So there are situations where all these forces can work together to actually change or socially engineer society in a certain direction.

What are you talking about?!?
On to social norms...

You don't know the history of the 'Long March through the Insitutions'. It actually relates to the OP and socialism and such ideas permeating today where a lot of young people have been brain washed under Cultural Marxism being pushed in the Insitutions like Universities.

The children of the Revolutionaries such as the Feminist and Civil Rights movements became the academic ideologues that were in positions of power and influence that engineered the institutions through the Critical theories.

That then became the basis for the institions and agencies that brought all the Woke, PC and Cancel and Deplatforming culture of certain beliefs and opinions. A form of brainwashing and propaganda.

A SILENT REVOLUTION The intellectual origins of cancel culture

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DP110_A-silent-revolution_web.pdf

The Genesis of Critical Theory and Cancel Culture

https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2023/6.pdf

They kind of change a lot, and not just the parts that are freaking you out in the last half of the century, so the only short answer I can give is: various things that changed.

What does that mean. I think if we look at the 20th century we can see a major cultural shift in terms of say religious, traditionalist and conservatism. To more liberal and progressive social norms.

Maybe some of that is natural in the sense of modernisation. But as the norms are so different and in a short time this shows they were engineered to do exactly what they achieved. Which was a counter culture.

Assumptions that abortions were mostly had by sexually promiscuous unmarried young women.

But this was a well founded assumption by the fact that abortions increased with the breakdown of the insitution of marriage. You do realise that for the church and Christian ethics that any sex outside marriage is a sin, is being promiscuous. That is the extent of how these two positions are conflicting.

(That and "baby killing" were the two things they tried to sell us on in church in the 80s.)

Why is saying abortion is baby killing as being wrong. Its the exact truth of what abortion represents to biblical Christians. Now some churches may have used the wrong language and politicised this truth. But its a biblical truth that abortion is murder.

[First "long march", now "cultural revolution", do you live to close to China down under where you see all "bad thing" as some how "Maoist"? Weird.] I don't know why you keep labeling women's liberation as "revolutions", 'tis very odd.

I think this is conflating all 'Revolutions' as Chinas communist revolution. Giving new meaning or rather your meaning to the word 'Revolution'.

That liberation is from bad husbands and the "tut tut" clucking of the town scolds. It is critical that the earlier decision on access to birth control products is based on a right to privacy in ones life.'

This all sounds like the very complaints the ideologues of the social revolutions are complaining about.

As for what was "held by society for generations" I would suggest reading a history on the topic (birth control/abortion) than just assumming that "society" was universally condemnatory until some magic "revolution" came.

It doesn't matter.. We were Christian nations and not Muslims or pagans ect. The bible was part of our fabric so we knew the bibles position on abortion and when we did toy with laws they were never pro abortion. Even social norms were anti abortion as it was hidden and tabood. The same with sex outside marriage and homosexuality.

The changes in the 20th century and especially the later part and into the 21st are profoundly different and this is conflicting with those long held norms. The fact we have all these culture wars over this and the same biblical/Christian norms are being used in defense against the progressive norms is evidence for this.

Social norms and laws are very much not the same thing.

Once again an extreme claim that requires strong evidence for which you have not shown. The fact that the political has become the personal means that the policies and laws are very much intertwined with social norms.

So many possible things to respond here. Can't make up my mind...

There is "Christianity is just a variant of the non-Western religion of Judaism ."

Man you sure make some far out claims without any reasoning or support. Even the claim "Christianity is just" seems dismissive.

Christianity is so much more than just a variant of Judaism.

or "When the Christians got control of Rome it fell", but I think I'll go with:

Much of the best stuff "the West" has came from pre-Christian Rome and Greece or was revived from pre-Christian Rome and Greece during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Are you kidding lol. Surely this is the view of someone who is not a Christian lol.

If Christianity came from say Roman philosophy and belief then why did the Romans persecute the Christians and want them to bow to their pagan gods. Why did their norms of sex outside marriage and for men to take lovers and prostitution ect conflict with Christian beliefs.

You can find the same moralizing about sex and family from various non-Christian Classical writers and philosophies. Even the stuff you want to focus on has non-Christian antecedents. The rest is just which god you worship, and I don't care.

This is a bias view and one that wants to deny the massive influence God, Christ and the bible has had on humankind. Deminishing it to the same or even less than other beliefs and morals.

Christian ethics revolutionised Roman philophy at the time with social norms like all are equal slave and free, man and women and marriage and sex within marriage.

I'm not concerned about "the west" (unless you're talking hemispheres, then, like Jim Morrison wrote "the west is the best, baby".) only about discussing the US. I don't need to waste my time building meta-narratives that span so many different societies. You realize there are more actual atheists in the US than Muslims and Hindus combined, right, right?

But why was the west the best baby. Unlike Muslim or communist nations. Why was the west the best.

In what way do you know "behavioral sciences"? I've never seen evidence of this and behavioral science isn't relevant to our topic as we are discussing history and political science which don't fall in that grouping.

Political science is related to political philosophy and ideology. These are beliefs which influence behaviour. Primarily behavioural science is mind and psychology. Sociology is the bigger picture of the philosophies and ideologies and sociology of the society.

Especially in that the very ideologies who are now pushing the culture wars are the ones who made the poilitical the personal. Thus bringing in ideological beliefs and morals as the central justification.

I don't how you can say I don't understand when you are clearly wrong. Unlike you, I live in the land regulated by the US government, and I can say unequivocally that the US government does not regulate my beliefs. I get to decide those for myself.

Surely this is subjective and depends on what beliefs and situation. If your beliefs align with the State then you will not experience any conflict. But then tell that to say Christians who may want to implement their beliefs in public and are told they cannot.

They aren't.

So are abortion or marriage laws underpinned by any ethics. Surely it depends on whether the policy or law has some ethical connection. Its not like we are merely dealing with particals or rocks.

Morality is subjective, but the government is not in control of it or controlled by it.

If they decide that abortion is legal they just gave the OK for abortion. They cannot detach themselves from their moral obligation and responsibility.

But they don't. The State is not an entities with moral opinions because it is not alive. It's just a big bag of laws, people trying to enforce the laws, and other people making the laws.

Ok so it is those who represent the State and fill that void with their political ideologythat brings the morals in. It is the system that allows people to lobby politicians in positions of power that can implement ideological agendas.

This is falsified by the two principle abortion decisions in the US Supreme Court in 1973 and 2023. The 1973 decision put the right of decision on the pregnant woman based on her personal privacy during the period when the fetus was not viable to live outside the uterus -- overriding the power of the individual states to have restrictions beyond those.

How is this not a moral position. The State is more or less making a moral determination that abortion is ok before the cut off time. Thats a moral determination. In fact the very point that there is a cut off time shows we are talking about a moral determination.

The 2023 decision was that the states had the power to regulate abortion since women were free to exercise their privacy rights to abortion by going to other states. This is a legal decision based on personal rights versus devolution of powers to states (federalism) and as it has in both eras flipped from and then back to "states rights" in a manner roughly consistent with other rulings of the period.

Its still a moral determination one way or the other. Even the idea of allowing the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions is a moral issue as to whether the State can over rule people or not.

I believe you are alluding to the clinic protection law. The right to protest abortion clinics is not taken away, but the protestors are prohibited from interfering with the rights of the patients to enter. Are you not aware of the "flying fist" analogy for the competition of individual rights. The short version goes like this: "my right to thrust my fist ends at your face".

But there are no fists involved. Its a case on one right and moral determination over riding another. The State chose to side with allowing abortions and thus the need for abortion clinics.

The right to practice a belief and to protest is also a right. Why is it the right for one and not the other. Because ultimately when you have a society that tries to be all things to all people and allow conflicting beliefs someone is going to be denied when the beliefs conflict.

Two? We've got more than two and all have the same legal status.

I said "two or more" please read my words. But evenso that makes it even more complicated and will eventually either cause conflicts or make some bow down to something they disagree with in certain situations.

I don't think you appreciate how diverse in morality, belief, religion, lifestyle, etc., the US has always been. We had radical abolitionists and slavedrivers;

Abolitionists was a movement coming from Christian ethics that all were equal in Christ. Wilberforce was a great Christian abolitionist.

free-love communes and local theocracies; isolated communities with their own language and neighborhoon "melting pots" and so many more and I'm only talking about the 1840s and 50s.

I think primarily western nations were more united and had a stronger identity about who they were and what they stood for. Though we had generous immigration programs people primarily integrated into the western life.

I don't think its any coincident that the more we have allowed unbridled immigration of ideas and beliefs that are different the more we have destablised society.

It sure can. (I assume you meant "without".)

Yes as argued above the State cannot divorce itself from the moral responsibility of its social policies.

This is the problem with your binary thinking. You speak as if there only two sides when there are many just as there are many gods worshiped by the people. This is why the best policy is religious neutrality in government. We try to keep it that way, though there are some...

You are creating a strawman. I did not say there were just two. I specified there were "two or more". But primarily there is for the sake of the core issues only two positions. Either abortion is ok or not and either marriage is biblical or not and the same for most social issues.

It does not matter if pro abortion is because of a number of reasons and moral positions. Its still a binary choice of it being allowed or not. Or is a biblical marriage or not.

The insistence on their being more than 2 positions on belief and morals actually makes it worse. Now society has to accommodate many possible conflicting positions. What people forget is part of belief and morals are for people to actually live out and live under their beliefs. Otherwise they being denied that belief.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In the overall scheme of power vacumes its human nature to fill that void with some sort of philosophy in how we should order society and the world.

It has everything to do with this whether its mainstream Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Communism, Conservatism, Christian Nationalism or Fascism. It use to be Christian and biblical norms now its a different set or basis.
Why is it moral panic. Is it not unusual that a socialist type leader is elected in modern times. Especially in one of the most capitalist cities in the world. People are merely reacting to Mamdanis own words that framed this as some sort of moral situation in stopping the bad guys.

Seriously, dude, you are writing 2 paragraphs in reponse to my note to *other* readers (that is the ones that aren't you) about how this sub-thread is off topic. Can you just try not responding to something?

 

[FireDragon76]

I mean, I don't want to have to work hard for things either. I want to play video games, and find shortcuts in life, and have it easy. But nobody will let me have that.

If I were to vote for Sanders or Mamdani types, would I be on my way to achieving that?

The implication that young people, particularly young people that vote for progressive candidates, are particularly lazy just isn't true.

 

[stevevw]

Seriously, dude, you are writing 2 paragraphs in reponse to my note to *other* readers (that is the ones that aren't you) about how this sub-thread is off topic. Can you just try not responding to something?

Sorry I can't help it lol. As you can see I covered a lot of history in those posts. I think its needed for context. What is happening now is the result of that history.

 

[stevevw]

Not by "religion."

I thought you just said that they don't want to be told what to do by some religious group.

Or you can just define them out of existence.

I am not sure what you mean. Who is being defined out of existence.

Because I don't consider them a threat to Constitutional government.

So you only see men and religious groups as a threat. What about other identity groups as a threat. Just because you don't see them as a threat doesn't mean they are not a threat. Some people see the rise of Marxist ideology a threat.

We have seen the rise in radical groups in recent years due to the culture war. More extreme politics and people willing to use violence. Why single out some groups and not others. Seems like playing identity politics.

Not at the groups, only at their public policy agenda.

So why is it only about these groups public policy agendas. Why is it the religious group (specifically Christian) and specifically men. What is it about the religious groups policy agenda that should be singled out as opposed to other identity groups.

Not a chance. You'll just have to define them as non religious because they are progressives.

Ok it doesn't matter. Like I said it really is a choice between whether abortion is ok or not. Or whether its biblical marriage or not. To be a progressive within the Left you have to accept moral positions that will conflict with biblical norms.

Your more likely to end up in that situation by the fact that (progressive) within secular society means whatever the current generation thinks is morally ok. That happens to be pro choice and SSM and other norms that conflict with Christian morals.

They mave have started out as moral precepts but the state has no power to make a moral judgement, only a legal one.

What do you mean "They may have started out as moral precepts"

Does not a legal judgement include the moral aspect. If pro choice is protected law or rights for abortion is that not also making a moral judgement that the State is allowing pro choice over anti abortion.

Its an ethical dilemma. A choice between two ethical scenarios. One persons rights over anothers. Thats a moral determination.

They were all protesting the actions of the state, not its ideology.

I thought they were protesting 'white supremecy and the white system of oppression' that had been institutionalised. If people protest against the States laws of anti abortion what is the difference between whether its the State aparatus or the people in power.

Why is it not all about what is morally right or wrong regardless of whether its the State system or the actions of those representing the State. Its still about morality.

You think all of that is anti-Christian?

No I am saying these are all associated with ethics. The State cannot seperate morality out of these situations. The State is the body of humans who are the political party with their set of political ideologies which includes moral precepts.

Injustice is what they are protesting. The immorality of it is for the clergy who also oppose it to consider..

The 'Injustice' is the morality lol.

And somebody later added, "Be careful they don't hate Him because of Christians."

Yes that was Satan trying to conflate evil with Christ. You know very well what I mean and the world will hate Christians because of Christs truth. Do you think this is truth.

Do you think there is a difference in the morals of this world and Christians under Christ. Do you think we are all sinners and that need Christ.

Which Trump is trying to turn the US into, at the behest of his Christian Nationalist base.

No its not just Trump and radical Christians. Thats just a reaction to other radical groups that have been allowed to fester and bring chaos. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Christ church is not even in the game. They are out there somewhere and I think rising as their own group that is different to the rest. A light in the darkness of all this culture wars.

AOC is a devout Christian and Mandami is a Shia Muslim with a version of the Ten Commandments tougher and more specific than yours.

Politics has come down to identity and politicians like AOC have been the cultivaters of such hate and division by making everything about race, gender and other identities. How do you know AOC is not a wolf in sheeps clothing. Ilhan Omar is another,

It seems to me this type of politics of lies and misrepresentations is very harmful and bad fruit.

 

[BCP1928]

It does not matter if pro abortion is because of a number of reasons and moral positions. Its still a binary choice of it being allowed or not. Or is a biblical marriage or not.

The state does not perform "biblical "marriages and never has. i'm not even sure what that means. Christian marriage is a sacrament and must be administered by a clergyman. The state does not administer Christian sacraments.

The insistence on their being more than 2 positions on belief and morals actually makes it worse. Now society has to accommodate many possible conflicting positions. What people forget is part of belief and morals are for people to actually live out and live under their beliefs. Otherwise they being denied that belief.

And "we, the people" have to decide which of those practices are going to be allowed and which are not, in accordance with the Constitution..

 

[BCP1928]

Politics has come down to identity and politicians like AOC have been the cultivaters of such hate and division by making everything about race, gender and other identities. How do you know AOC is not a wolf in sheeps clothing. Ilhan Omar is another,

Maybe so, but for the time being AOC's policy positions appear to me to reflect her faith in Christ, Likewise, Omar's actions appear consistent with her faith in the God of Abraham and not hostile to Christianity

 

[Landon Caeli]

Maybe so, but for the time being AOC's policy positions appear to me to reflect her faith in Christ, Likewise, Omar's actions appear consistent with her faith in the God of Abraham and not hostile to Christianity

So it's good then for politicians to apply their religion into politics? I thought separation of Church and State was the objective of the left?

It almost seems like there is no foundation. Just blowing in the wind without a compass... Without an idea... Wherever the party goes, it just goes.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Maybe so, but for the time being AOC's policy positions appear to me to reflect her faith in Christ, Likewise, Omar's actions appear consistent with her faith in the God of Abraham and not hostile to Christianity

Abortion is a mortal sin in Catholicism. Why on earth would AOC call abortion a human right if she's making policy decisions based on Catholicism

 

[BCP1928]

So it's good then for politicians to apply their religion into politics? I thought separation of Church and State was the objective of the left?

It is good. It was the intention of the founders that individuals amongst "we the people" supply their own moral justification rather than rely on the state to do it.

It almost seems like there is no foundation. Just blowing in the wind without a compass... Without an idea... Wherever the party goes, it just goes.

It depends on who you elect.

 

[BCP1928]

Abortion is a mortal sin in Catholicism. Why on earth would AOC call abortion a human right if she's making policy decisions based on Catholicism

Perhaps she realizes that she is not in a position to make abortion a crime in a secular state for non-Cathlics who don't think its wrong. Making it a legal right does not make it less a sin.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Perhaps she realizes that she is not in a position to make abortion a crime in a secular state for non-Cathlics who don't think its wrong. Making it a legal right does not make it less a sin.

Ah so there was no win or lose condition for your statement to begin with. Gotcha

 

[Landon Caeli]

It is good. It was the intention of the founders that individuals amongst "we the people" supply their own moral justification rather than rely on the state to do it.

Their 'own moral justification" can be applied to their own life, yes. To apply their 'own moral justification' into politics for everyone? No..!

Here, we are discussing AOC and Omar directing national policy, based on their religion. And you said "that's good".

 

[BCP1928]

Ah so there was no win or lose condition for your statement to begin with. Gotcha

Win or lose what? I'm not into the game of proving that AOC is not really a Christian because she's on the politica left. I'm just amused that people like you seem to need to.

 

[BCP1928]

Oh yeah by the way even if we ignore the ramifications of enabling mortal sin she doesn't just support legalization for the sake of legalization. She herself supports abortion morally so your backtracking doesn't even make any sense

What backtracking? I have no idea how she arrived at her stance on abortion and what role her faith played on it. I do see her faith at work on issues like immigration and social welfare.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Win or lose what?

It's a figure of speech. You made a claim that is not provable or disprovable one way or the other so when someone gives you pushback you can just walk back what you said (which you eventually did). For example, when it suits you, you will say "Look, AOC's policy positions are based on her faith in Christ!" and then when it doesn't suit you, you will say "Well even if she enables mortal sin doesn't mean she actually supports mortal sin". So your original statement means nothing because your backtracking set yourself up for no losing position

I'm not into the game of proving that AOC is not really a Christian because she's on the politica left.

Maybe so, but you are certainly in the game of proving AOC IS a Christian because she's on the political left.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hans Blaster: Much of the best stuff "the West" has came from pre-Christian Rome and Greece or was revived from pre-Christian Rome and Greece during the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Are you kidding lol. Surely this is the view of someone who is not a Christian lol.

If Christianity came from say Roman philosophy and belief then why did the Romans persecute the Christians and want them to bow to their pagan gods. Why did their norms of sex outside marriage and for men to take lovers and prostitution ect conflict with Christian beliefs.

Hans didn't say that Christianity came from the ancient Greeks and Romans. He said the best of 'the West' did. Things like democracy, natural philosophy, law codes, religious pluralism, navigation, mathematics, architecture, aqueducts...

These great things are Western, but not fruits of Christianity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A reply to your reply to part I of my reply to your prior post. We'll see if I can make it to the end without having a Part Ib as I reply to you ever expanding conversation...

I am still disagreeing with this premise that no one controls society.

That is a very weird hill to die on. Influence and control are not the same thing.

Sometimes an individual can have control over how something is ordered ie money. Money buys power.

But also groups have power over the government. Then you have all the academic idologues who managed to take advantage by being in positions of power. Head of Universities pushing an agenda and ideology that it influences policies and laws. Then theres lawfare.

So within this dynamic there are forces that continually jossel and have their 15 minutes of power control. But also individuals and groups that are controlling the outcomes over time. Even with the control of information through legacy media.

How do you know. If these forces band together than they are a strong force controlling society. Often it is the groups like say BLM who wield power along with those influenced by this ie celebs and activists groups echoing the same ideology that then influences policies and laws.

I said nothing about there not being persons or groups with more or less influence, with influence of more or less durability. Other than the error in equating influence with control, you examples are just reiteration of the obvious.

But also social norms to the point where people are ostrised and suffer real consequences. So there are situations where all these forces can work together to actually change or socially engineer society in a certain direction.

No one said that some won't suffer from the influence of others. That doesn't make it "control".

You don't know the history of the 'Long March through the Insitutions'.

No.

It actually relates to the OP and socialism and such ideas permeating today where a lot of young people have been brain washed under Cultural Marxism being pushed in the Insitutions like Universities.

OK, dude. I don't pay attention to the 'freaky parts' of the university.

The children of the Revolutionaries such as the Feminist and Civil Rights movements became the academic ideologues that were in positions of power and influence that engineered the institutions through the Critical theories.

That then became the basis for the institions and agencies that brought all the Woke, PC and Cancel and Deplatforming culture of certain beliefs and opinions. A form of brainwashing and propaganda.

A SILENT REVOLUTION The intellectual origins of cancel culture

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DP110_A-silent-revolution_web.pdf

The Genesis of Critical Theory and Cancel Culture

https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2023/6.pdf

Oh, great, "critical theory".

What does that mean. I think if we look at the 20th century we can see a major cultural shift in terms of say religious, traditionalist and conservatism. To more liberal and progressive social norms.

What does it mean? It means that there is far more to US social change in the 20th century than the 1960s (and to some extent later.) The 1950s was not a social continuation of the first half of the 20th century because there was not simple, unchanged, social structure for the first half of the 20th century. For example the 1950s is by far the most religious decade of the entire century, since the lack of religious influence on society seem to be the main complaint.

Maybe some of that is natural in the sense of modernisation. But as the norms are so different and in a short time this shows they were engineered to do exactly what they achieved. Which was a counter culture.

"Engineered" what does it mean that a cultural change was "engineered"? To explain how this works use the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s/70s as your example. Who engineered it? To what purpose (if known)? (I choose this example because you clearly think it triggered a back reaction.)

The conversation shifts a bit, so I'll continue in part Ib...

 

[stevevw]

The state does not perform "biblical "marriages and never has. i'm not even sure what that means. Christian marriage is a sacrament and must be administered by a clergyman. The state does not administer Christian sacraments.

I mean under the law. The law use to be aligned with biblical marriage. Its there in the vows. Or was lol. Then it was redefined around the year 2000 onwards for most western nations.

This was a redefining of marriage in the public square and social norms. So the State in changing the marriage laws was also legalising as morally good a new definition of marriage. Thus taking a moral position on marriage which conflicts with biblical marriage and the definition the State had previously upheld for generations.

And "we, the people" have to decide which of those practices are going to be allowed and which are not, in accordance with the Constitution..

That doesn't make it morally right. Yes the State laws and policies are usually a reflection of the social norms the community supports. Thats the point. Social norms change with the times and biblical norms don't. Thats why they come into conflict.

But the idea that its "we the people" will decide is unreal. The way its been going lately and being so polarised it seems half the population is devastated they are no longer in power. They feel disenfranchised and like they are living in some alien nation because Trumps in power.

The same when the Dems were in. It seems that half the population is never represented. Let alone all the smaller groups who never get a say. Or get too much say. Its all corruption and power and its no longer about the people.

 

[BCP1928]

I mean under the law. The law use to be aligned with biblical marriage. Its there in the vows. Or was lol. Then it was redefined around the year 2000 onwards for most western nations.

This was a redefining of marriage in the public square and social norms. So the State in changing the marriage laws was also legalising as morally good a new definition of marriage. Thus taking a moral position on marriage which conflicts with biblical marriage and the definition the State had previously upheld for generations.

That doesn't make it morally right. Yes the State laws and policies are usually a reflection of the social norms the community supports. Thats the point. Social norms change with the times and biblical norms don't. Thats why they come into conflict.

But the idea that its "we the people" will decide is unreal. The way its been going lately and being so polarised it seems half the population is devastated they are no longer in power. They feel disenfranchised and like they are living in some alien nation because Trumps in power.

The same when the Dems were in. It seems that half the population is never represented. Let alone all the smaller groups who never get a say. Or get too much say. Its all corruption and power and its no longer about the people.

The state has taken no position at all on the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Same sex marriage is not a new version of civil marriage, merely a reconsideration of the qualifications for it. Civil marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement, allowing couples to form a legal household with respect to the state, nothing more. No physical consummation is required, and the personal relationship between the two parties is not specified, nor are the reasons for entering into the relationship considered. There are countless examples, some known personally to me, where no emotional or intimate sexual relationship was even contemplated by the couple. For example, in the early years of the twentieth century, young women with no other prospects would marry elderly veterans of the American Civil War, to share the pension in return for services as a caregiver. Forming a civil household. provided a convenient legal arrangement. (The last Civil War widow died in 2020, 165 years after the end of the conflict). Considered as a civil contract, there is no reason to deny civil marriage to any two unrelated adult citizens. If the rights of citizenship are extended to homosexuals and homosexuality is not illegal, then it is hard to see why civil marriage should be denied them. It certainly has no effect whatever on me or my marriage.