The Future of Secularism

[The New California Republic]

I'm not sure LGBT relationships have much to do with the future of secularism. Just sayin'...

True. A minor detour.

[Eglaecia]

Why only religious people>?What makes you so special?

Marriage is a religious institution.

Ever heard of butting out of peoples personal lives because it is harming no one?

Harming the moral fabric of society.

First off religion is like an opinion. There are many different ones people have so saying they are wrong is pretty pretentious. And second how are they hurting the moral fabric of society?

No religion is like a multiple choice question with one correct answer. You can choose any possible answer, but only one is right.
Because their teachings are wrong.

So it's not LGBT but abortion (Which I have a moral problem with anyway)?

So much for "Common sense"

Well you gave a few handpicked examples. LGBT is definitely a factor because it's while not exactly tolerated, it's undeniably a thing.

Oh fucking hell, that is golden!

And being homosexual is not a choice.

Never said it was. It is however, objectively, a choice whether or not you want to have sex with someone of the same gender.

So if gay people engage in intercrural sex then you don't have a problem?

I don't really consider intercrural sex to actually be sex, however I'll humour you and respond anyway. It isn't physically dangerous (though if the person who's thighs are being rubbed against is fat, there is a potential for physical harm) but it is hedonistic and therefore morally wrong.

And that link doesn't support what you are saying. Try again.

Yes it does.

Have some consistency for fuck's sake. First you said that "Safe sex = abstinence until marriage, and then only having intercourse for the purpose of reproduction", now you are saying that "sexual intercourse, if performed between two clean people, is perfectly safe and natural" ??? Jeez Louise...

Well I thought it would be obvious the first time though I felt the need to clarify. I'll give it in detail.

The only way to have safe sex, is a disease free man, and a disease free woman, waiting until marriage, and after that only ever having consensual intercourse.

Anal and oral sex is disgusting and dangerous.

[Eglaecia]

The few nations that are having a massive decline in Birthrates/Population Growth are actually nations like Japan, Russia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Japan and Russia are heavily anti-LGBT for the record. So, no, it is not common sense

Also, the nation with the lowest birthrate not counting immigration is the Ukraine

I'm not sure LGBT relationships have much to do with the future of secularism. Just sayin'...

A secular society doesn't mean an irreligious society. Apparently, Sweden is very secular -- with the Church separate from the State -- yet 64% of Swedish people are members of the Church of Sweden.

The Church of Sweden spends more time promoting atheist liberal values than it does promoting actual Christian values. Not a surprise since they're Lutherans, atheists in name only, but nevertheless.

[Andsed]

Marriage is a religious institution.

No it is really not.

Harming the moral fabric of society.

How? Because you think it´s icky?

No religion is like a multiple choice question with one correct answer. You can choose any possible answer, but only one is right.
Because their teachings are wrong.

And what makes yours right? Because you say so?

[Eglaecia]

No it is really not.

It is. But like everything, the government just stole it. Supposedly living in a secular society, the government sure does love to stick it's nose into religion a lot.

How? Because you think it´s icky?

That's one way to put it.

And what makes yours right? Because you say so?

Because there's a whole load of evidence behind it.

[The Free Joy State]

And what makes yours right? Because you say so?

Because there's a whole load of evidence behind it.

Incidentally, the "my religion's the one and only" thread's over there.

[Andsed]

It is. But like everything, the government just stole it. Supposedly living in a secular society, the government sure does love to stick it's nose into religion a lot.

Let me ask you a question does gays getting married really harm you?

That's one way to put it.

It´s the only way to put it. The only pepole who are offended by homosexuality is those wanting to be offended by it.

Because there's a whole load of evidence behind it.

That is what all religion say. What makes your so damn special?

[Eglaecia]

Let me ask you a question does gays getting married really harm you?

Yes. Also harms all of society.
Don't know why you keep going back to this "it doesn't harm anyone!!" talking point, as if it's infallible.
No, it doesn't harm anyone directly. SSM does however tear apart the moral fabric of society. It also harms people in these SSM

It´s the only way to put it. The only pepole who are offended by homosexuality is those wanting to be offended by it.

Or maybe it's because as a taxpayer, I don't like my money going towards a health service where it's resources are being drained by bad lifestyle choices - gay sex being one of them.

That is what all religion say. What makes your so damn special?

Not the thread for this. TG me if you want and I'll explain!

[The New California Republic]

So if gay people engage in intercrural sex then you don't have a problem?

I don't really consider intercrural sex to actually be sex, however I'll humour you and respond anyway. It isn't physically dangerous (though if the person who's thighs are being rubbed against is fat, there is a potential for physical harm) but it is hedonistic and therefore morally wrong.

Any source to back up your claim that it is hedonistic? Or is it just an assertion that is pulled from nowhere?

---

And that link doesn't support what you are saying. Try again.

Yes it does.

It really doesn't.

---

Have some consistency for fuck's sake. First you said that "Safe sex = abstinence until marriage, and then only having intercourse for the purpose of reproduction", now you are saying that "sexual intercourse, if performed between two clean people, is perfectly safe and natural" ??? Jeez Louise...

The only way to have safe sex, is a disease free man, and a disease free woman, waiting until marriage, and after that only ever having consensual intercourse.

Two clean gay men in a relationship having intercrural and oral sex is safe too.

---

Anal and oral sex is disgusting and dangerous.

Then you can choose not to engage in either. However, us folk that like that kind of thing will continue to engage in it using protection, and there is fuck all that you can do to stop it.

---

And with that, back to Secularism!

[Andsed]

Yes. Also harms all of society.
Don't know why you keep going back to this "it doesn't harm anyone!!" talking point, as if it's infallible.
No, it doesn't harm anyone directly. SSM does however tear apart the moral fabric of society. It also harms people in these SSM

How in the hell does it harm society? And no it does not tear up any ¨moral fabric¨ because there is nothing immoral about two consenting adults fucking. And yes homosexual relationships may have higher domestic abuse rates. Your point being?

Or maybe it's because as a taxpayer, I don't like my money going towards a health service where it's resources are being drained by bad lifestyle choices - gay sex being one of them.

Being gay is not a ¨bad lifestyle¨ it is two consenting adults fucking. And yes gays can get STD just like everyone who sex. Your point? Because by this logic you should be against all sex.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Why don’t we discourage extremists and fundamentalists from all sides? There are evil Christians, Muslims, atheists, and (probably) Jews. So many people have been killed by those pretending to represent everyone in their groups. Being a moderate of whatever beliefs you have, that’s the only we’ll fix this.

[Crylante]

I don't see most of the UK's de facto secularism really being eroded by anyone in the near future, and if the southern parts of the USA are what results when religion gets involved in politics, I'd rather it stayed out.

[Alvecia]

Not for you perhaps, but there'd be a lot of people who would get seriously fucked over.

Yes fucked over because... you're not allowed to defile the sanctity of marriage or kill babies.

Oh deary me that would be horrific!

[Eglaecia]

I don't see most of the UK's de facto secularism really being eroded by anyone in the near future, and if the southern parts of the USA are what results when religion gets involved in politics, I'd rather it stayed out.

Every secular country is a hedonist and consumerist corporate slave state where national culture is thrown out for economic growth. =

[The New California Republic]

I don't see most of the UK's de facto secularism really being eroded by anyone in the near future, and if the southern parts of the USA are what results when religion gets involved in politics, I'd rather it stayed out.

Every secular country is a hedonist and consumerist corporate slave state where national culture is thrown out for economic growth.

Source?

[Eglaecia]

Every secular country is a hedonist and consumerist corporate slave state where national culture is thrown out for economic growth.

Source?

its my fucking opinion if that isn't obvious.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think unfortunately western societies will become more secular.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Source?

its my fucking opinion if that isn't obvious.

It's also my "Opinion" that the Catholic Church is run by the gay and have secretly united with the Protestants to destroy the one true church

[Aglanen]

Let me ask you a question does gays getting married really harm you?

Yes. Also harms all of society.
Don't know why you keep going back to this "it doesn't harm anyone!!" talking point, as if it's infallible.
No, it doesn't harm anyone directly. SSM does however tear apart the moral fabric of society.

As a straight man, if your "morality" allows self-righteous bigots to dictate to consenting adults what they can and can't do in the bedroom, then I say throw that fabric in the furnace where it belongs.

[The New California Republic]

Source?

its my fucking opinion if that isn't obvious.

Oh right, OK. It is worded like a fact or a claim, so you might want to be aware of that in the future, so that you don't make the same mistake again.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Secularism is bad because it disassociates society with the guiding principles of morality upon which that society should be based. Secularism is a pretend "compromise" that really mean that introduces tolerance of any ideology.

[Crylante]

I don't see most of the UK's de facto secularism really being eroded by anyone in the near future, and if the southern parts of the USA are what results when religion gets involved in politics, I'd rather it stayed out.

Every secular country is a hedonist and consumerist corporate slave state where national culture is thrown out for economic growth. =

I mean apart from the fact that some of the ardent defenders of secular policies in the UK have also been opponents of anything that can be construed as a "consumerist corporate slave state", sure.

There has been a move towards pro-corporate policies that I would consider harmful in this country, but they have nothing to do with the declining influence of religion on today's society; they have been two independent trends, and the fact that some of the original secular policies came originally from the British left, before the move towards a more pro-corporate style of ruling the country, in my view shows that the two factors are not linked.

And how exactly has British culture been thrown out with society becoming more secular? While religion may be a part of culture, there are many other aspects of our culture which remain intact in spite of the country becoming more secular and saying that secularism has destroyed English, Scottish or Welsh culture, or the general British culture, does not seem to be remotely grounded in reality.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I hope it dies. Or at least is quelled very, very much.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Every secular country is a hedonist and consumerist corporate slave state where national culture is thrown out for economic growth. =

I mean apart from the fact that some of the ardent defenders of secular policies in the UK have also been opponents of anything that can be construed as a "consumerist corporate slave state", sure.

There has been a move towards pro-corporate policies that I would consider harmful in this country, but they have nothing to do with the declining influence of religion on today's society; they have been two independent trends, and the fact that some of the original secular policies came originally from the British left, before the move towards a more pro-corporate style of ruling the country, in my view shows that the two factors are not linked.

And how exactly has British culture been thrown out with society becoming more secular? While religion may be a part of culture, there are many other aspects of our culture which remain intact in spite of the country becoming more secular and saying that secularism has destroyed English, Scottish or Welsh culture, or the general British culture, does not seem to be remotely grounded in reality.

If you think culture hasn't changed dramatically because of secularism, read what people thought 500 years ago. It was a totally different worldview.

[Aglanen]

Secularism is bad because it disassociates society with the guiding principles of morality upon which that society should be based. Secularism is a pretend "compromise" that really mean that introduces tolerance of any ideology.

If there are guiding moral principles worth having, they're not to be found in religion.