Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who had one bullet he had to keep in his pocket. It wouldn’t work well.today. BTW my grandmother was the stunt woman for Aunt B. When you see Aunt B jumping over a fence that’s my grandmother
Theres plenty apart from the ones that Ana and I listed which are the obvious ones. The evdience shows that having a mother and father is better for kids. Especially having a father in light of the problems facing young males. Secular ideology claims it doesn't matter if kids don't have both parents or a father because theres no difference between male and female. A female can be the father aned a male can be the mother.
You keep saying 'no evidence' despite the evidence. As I said, just because you you don't agree with something doesn't mean it magically doesn't exist.
You must have excelled at dodgeball.
And evidence that says that children with same sex parents do just fine if not better than the average. Evidence is what is required. Not simply 'it is written.' You can't say 'evidence shows X' if you're trying to say that evidence doesn't matter.
If secularism is an alternative to religion then its a religion itself. It cannot be an alternative unless it offers an alternative to religious belief. Secularism cannot remain neutral when it comes to belief because its by nature that we attach beliefs to how we govern be it via communism (denying freedoms) which is about morality or by capitalism (value through private ownership) or even democracy (upholding freedoms).
Yes it is. If the State rejects Christianity or any belief for that matter from the public square then that is undemocractic. If it then acts antangonistically towards a certain belief then its actively denying it.
Thats an unreal view of things. You cannot seperate the job description from the ethical codes of conduct. In fact I would say that just as much importance goes into the ethical aspect such as DEI in all professions than the actual practical knowledge of doing the job. You cannot seperate the two just like you cannot seperate the States beliefs and ideology from governance.
That seems unreal. In some ways entire economic ideas are protested as immoral. capitalism is protested against by most Leftis and Marxist like its the root of all evils. Realistically I don't think we can seperate these things ethically. Even the Welfare State a bastian of Democrates, Labor aned socialists is steeped in morals. Any government that tries to govern by the cold facts of economics will be condemned by all sides.
It does in the sense that secular means the public square should not promote one belief over another but rather be free of belief and religion. A secular government is religious and belief free. But if they promote a particular belief or deny a religion then they are no longer secular but aligning with a belief.
You have completely missed the point. Its not fearing being a minority, it is fearing that our long held principles such as free speech, freedom of religion and conscience are being denied. Thats not just a fear Christians should worry about but something we all should be concerned about. It seems that what is happening now is undoing these long help truth principles rather than creating some better society.
Not so. I want all my grandkids to vote.
So lets consider the logic. Are you saying that a child doesn't need a mother or father. That the evdience doesn't show their importance for development. Even logic shows that any idea that SS parenting is better is unreal. Otherwise why on earth is there such a thing as a mother and father when they can easily be replaced by the same sex. It means there is nothing about the unique role of a mother and father than makes a difference to a child.
If you want to discuss the problem, start a thread about it. Your solution to it means disenfranchising voters, which is somewhat relevant to this thread. But there is no support for doing that.
Completely, totally and utterley irrelevant to the question posed in the op. Again, please try to stay on topic.
Of course they are all relevant examples, contrary to your claim., The rights of citizens are not absolute and the government can and does restrict them. Likewise, voting is not a universal right but a legal privilege. And that privilege is amendable.
So, lacking any serious input as to altering the dynamics of electing our politicians, you now want to pickup your dodgeball and go home. Because, if you don't support it then there can be no support for it. Sorry, but that's not how the game is played.
You want my grandkids to vote? No you don't. They're under 10. If yours are voting age then I'd want them to vote. Whether they are on social security or are in some other way a negative burden on the the state.
Ok but then what does "One can have a law against murder. That’s fine" even mean. All that says is there is a written law in contempary society that says Murder is illegal. Whats the difference, they are both written laws.
Your premises are undeniable. I haven't argued against them because they are undeniable. What you need to do is give an example of when that right can be removed. You've done that. I don't agree with it. For the reasons I gave when you first suggested it.
Then if there is a reason for the law - if it is as you say what is 'best for a society to live together' then we can examine the evidence and consider it. But again, this is completely off topic.
