Greece legalises equal marriage

[Dakran]

The Americans have infiltrated many societies.... They must be countered.

The Americans turned Greece gay! I genuinely can't tell if you're a parody account or not.

Of all the things to infiltrate a foreign government for, gay marriage hardly seems to be one of the most important things to be gunning for as opposed to like... resource rights, highly favorable trade deals, etc etc...

[Kaumudeen]

The Americans turned Greece gay! I genuinely can't tell if you're a parody account or not.

Of all the things to infiltrate a foreign government for, gay marriage hardly seems to be one of the most important things to be gunning for as opposed to like... resource rights, highly favorable trade deals, etc etc...

They infiltrate in regards to other things too.

[San Lumen]

You pivoted from saying the Greek government ignored the will of the people to 'those ignorant yokels couldn't possibly formulate their own opinions' awfully fast.

The Americans have infiltrated many societies.... They must be countered.

This is an utterly ridiculous statement.

[Ineva]

Of all the things to infiltrate a foreign government for, gay marriage hardly seems to be one of the most important things to be gunning for as opposed to like... resource rights, highly favorable trade deals, etc etc...

They infiltrate in regards to other things too.

Sometimes, the most menacing moral degeneracy happens when trying to prevent it. Let the gays marry, for I cannot imagine your alternatives to be better.

[Princess outfit]

Good to hear!

[Trump Almighty]

The Americans have infiltrated many societies.... They must be countered.

The Americans turned Greece gay! I genuinely can't tell if you're a parody account or not.

I don’t believe they are a parody account. Dislike of neoconservatism is a popular sentiment on this website. Especially after Joe Biden suffered a humiliating loss in Afghanistan. Not sure how that translates to a foreign nation legalizing gay marriage though

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

[Uiiop]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

When your opponent is making a fool of themselves beyond what traditional religion advocates it's hard to blame religion rather than personal neuroses.

It's not like we're walking back the gloating on the first page either.

[Adamede]

Good for them. Equality before the law should trump religious dogma.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Again you speak in hypotheticals, "what ifs" and "this is just the first step." You cite examples that only exist in your mind. How, in the here and now, does two gay people getting married adversely affect you?

I'm not a libertarian, Ruso. Not remotely.

No, you really don't seem to care about people being left alone to do as they please, free from government restriction. Which makes it very annoying when you decry "liberalism" or "democracy" for supposedly being totalizing and coercive, despite the fact that you have no issue whatsoever with coercion.

You talk about how what a lot of us are saying has no relevance to you, since our positions are based on values which you don't believe in. But why then should we take you seriously when you appeal to values that you don't even believe in?

[Essic]

"Conservatives" are liberals, in reality.

There is nothing wrong with kin and kind being in the same house. That's the way humanity existed for all eternity until the 20th century.

Conservatives are wrong.

Call me a racist asian but I think American most 'conservatives' aren't conservative at all, mostly just stinky corrupt politicians licking corporation's feet for lobbying monies and spreading immoral rumors just to win a minuscule election.

I have also heard some crap about some people REALLY disliking the idea of someone marrying a divorcee, does that have to do with the nuclear family and is that true btw?

[Cessarea]

"Conservatives" are liberals, in reality.

There is nothing wrong with kin and kind being in the same house. That's the way humanity existed for all eternity until the 20th century.

Conservatives are wrong.

I have also heard some crap about some people REALLY disliking the idea of someone marrying a divorcee, does that have to do with the nuclear family and is that true btw?

It's a thing, though as with all things related Christianism, its importance varies from person to person. Some people don't give a fuck, others will discriminate openly against divorcees. It has less to do with the nuclear family and more to do with Christian marriage being, supposedly, a life-long ordeal. When it goes wrong, relationships with the Church are... complicated.

[Cessarea]

I'm not a libertarian, Ruso. Not remotely.

No, you really don't seem to care about people being left alone to do as they please, free from government restriction. Which makes it very annoying when you decry "liberalism" or "democracy" for supposedly being totalizing and coercive, despite the fact that you have no issue whatsoever with coercion.

You talk about how what a lot of us are saying has no relevance to you, since our positions are based on values which you don't believe in. But why then should we take you seriously when you appeal to values that you don't even believe in?

The supposed coerciveness of "liberalism" is not the problem. "liberalism" itself is. Again, Distruzio seems perfectly fine with advocating for their faith alone, finding no need to justify their beliefs in any sort of materially relevant way. 'tis what the Church and God wants, therefore, 'tis what must be done. There seems to be no further complexity to their beliefs - contrary to regular conservatives, Distruzio is open about their moral proposals being solely based on faith, and their belief that their religion is exclusively correct and legitimate above others. It's purely theological politics, a kind that seems to be in decline given the ever-increasing necessity for materialistic arguments.

They do not expect us to take them seriously. Ever. Their arguments will only resonate with those that find their particular brand of faith first. Religion - and religious interpretations aligned with them - are required to believe in whatever they're peddling. It's not rational argumentation, nor is it evidence-based.

[Asherahan]

Not if I am in the majority.

The fact remains you have no basis in reality for your disdain of gay people adopting, so no, even if you are in the majority, that should not matter.

Yeah we will see in the elections how that is gonna go down.

[The Archregimancy]

I have also heard some crap about some people REALLY disliking the idea of someone marrying a divorcee, does that have to do with the nuclear family and is that true btw?

It's a thing, though as with all things related Christianism, its importance varies from person to person. Some people don't give a fuck, others will discriminate openly against divorcees. It has less to do with the nuclear family and more to do with Christian marriage being, supposedly, a life-long ordeal. When it goes wrong, relationships with the Church are... complicated.

Putting this as neutrally as possible, and explicitly offering a broader historical perspective across Christianity rather than outlining my own personal views on the subject, a prohibition on divorce is one of the very few moral precepts involving family life that has a specific saying of Jesus to reinforce it. Jesus says nothing (as far as I can remember; I'll now be embarrassed when someone corrects me) on homosexuality, abortion, or many other topics often associated with small-c conservative perspectives on Christianity and broader politics, but He was unambiguously firm on divorce, only offering an exception when the other partner had cheated. See, for example Matthew 19 (particularly 19:6 & 19:9).

KJV: Matthew 19:6; Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder 19:9; And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

NIV: Matthew 19:6; So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

Now, it's fair to note that individual denominations - never mind individual Christians - have tended to approach the subject of divorce differently. But it's also explicitly clear that Jesus was strongly against divorce except under a very specific circumstance. The same verse in Matthew also assumes that marriage will be between a man and a woman, but also doesn't command as much - the point being made is focused on divorce - so mileage on whether that's an unbreakable precept or simply using cultural context may vary. The Gospels otherwise have Jesus saying very little on other topics of family morality - though many people of faith with conservative politics will argue that other Bible verses will support their perspective.

Jesus was, however, indubitably quite keen on supporting the poor, sceptical of the rich (and anyone using religion to make money), and particularly supportive of the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the merciful, those who are persecuted because of righteousness, and anyone suffering because they were following His teachings.

[Essic]

Jesus was, however, indubitably quite keen on supporting the poor, sceptical of the rich (and anyone using religion to make money), and particularly supportive of the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the merciful, those who are persecuted because of righteousness, and anyone suffering because they were following His teachings.

It is simply just too sad and bad that MAGA conservatives trick the righteous and the religious into voting for them. No real theist or even just a religious person would think of cutting taxes to such an absurd degree.

[Port Carverton]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

FYI Karl Popper was friends with Hayek and supported Thatcher. The paradox of tolerance is not an anti-conservative theory like the left presents it to be.

[Neu California]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

FYI Karl Popper was friends with Hayek and supported Thatcher. The paradox of tolerance is not an anti-conservative theory like the left presents it to be.

I'm looking, but I'm not finding anything about Popper supporting Thatcher, and some suggesting that Thatcher co-opted Popper. Do you have a source suggesting that Popper supported Thatcher?

Also, I'll note that Popper proposed the Paradox of Tolerance in 1945, long before Thatcher came to power, and was probably thinking about naziism and the like. Whatever Popper's opinions of Thatcher, they were formed long after he proposed the paradox of tolerance.

[Port Carverton]

FYI Karl Popper was friends with Hayek and supported Thatcher. The paradox of tolerance is not an anti-conservative theory like the left presents it to be.

I'm looking, but I'm not finding anything about Popper supporting Thatcher, and some suggesting that Thatcher co-opted Popper. Do you have a source suggesting that Popper supported Thatcher?

Also, I'll note that Popper proposed the Paradox of Tolerance in 1945, long before Thatcher came to power, and was probably thinking about naziism and the like. Whatever Popper's opinions of Thatcher, they were formed long after he proposed the paradox of tolerance.

In the book Twenty-Four Conservative-Liberal Thinkers Part II, the author, Hannes Gissurarson (who is a well-respected professor of politics in Iceland) writes about his only meeting with Popper in which he claims he said that he supported Thatcher. Of course, that is not much proof, but then again it wouldn't be completely far-fetched as he hung out with Hayek who did sympathize with the Iron Lady and while he supported welfare and regulations, he favored the market and like any liberal advocated for a limited role of government in society.

[Cessarea]

It's a thing, though as with all things related Christianism, its importance varies from person to person. Some people don't give a fuck, others will discriminate openly against divorcees. It has less to do with the nuclear family and more to do with Christian marriage being, supposedly, a life-long ordeal. When it goes wrong, relationships with the Church are... complicated.

Putting this as neutrally as possible, and explicitly offering a broader historical perspective across Christianity rather than outlining my own personal views on the subject, a prohibition on divorce is one of the very few moral precepts involving family life that has a specific saying of Jesus to reinforce it. Jesus says nothing (as far as I can remember; I'll now be embarrassed when someone corrects me) on homosexuality, abortion, or many other topics often associated with small-c conservative perspectives on Christianity and broader politics, but He was unambiguously firm on divorce, only offering an exception when the other partner had cheated. See, for example Matthew 19 (particularly 19:6 & 19:9).

KJV: Matthew 19:6; Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder 19:9; And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

NIV: Matthew 19:6; So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

Now, it's fair to note that individual denominations - never mind individual Christians - have tended to approach the subject of divorce differently. But it's also explicitly clear that Jesus was strongly against divorce except under a very specific circumstance. The same verse in Matthew also assumes that marriage will be between a man and a woman, but also doesn't command as much - the point being made is focused on divorce - so mileage on whether that's an unbreakable precept or simply using cultural context may vary. The Gospels otherwise have Jesus saying very little on other topics of family morality - though many people of faith with conservative politics will argue that other Bible verses will support their perspective.

Jesus was, however, indubitably quite keen on supporting the poor, sceptical of the rich (and anyone using religion to make money), and particularly supportive of the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the merciful, those who are persecuted because of righteousness, and anyone suffering because they were following His teachings.

That's... unfortunate. I didn't know the Bible was this clear on the subject. Is there no argument to be made for abortion in cases of abuse?

[The Archregimancy]

Putting this as neutrally as possible, and explicitly offering a broader historical perspective across Christianity rather than outlining my own personal views on the subject, a prohibition on divorce is one of the very few moral precepts involving family life that has a specific saying of Jesus to reinforce it. Jesus says nothing (as far as I can remember; I'll now be embarrassed when someone corrects me) on homosexuality, abortion, or many other topics often associated with small-c conservative perspectives on Christianity and broader politics, but He was unambiguously firm on divorce, only offering an exception when the other partner had cheated. See, for example Matthew 19 (particularly 19:6 & 19:9).

KJV: Matthew 19:6; Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder 19:9; And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

NIV: Matthew 19:6; So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

Now, it's fair to note that individual denominations - never mind individual Christians - have tended to approach the subject of divorce differently. But it's also explicitly clear that Jesus was strongly against divorce except under a very specific circumstance. The same verse in Matthew also assumes that marriage will be between a man and a woman, but also doesn't command as much - the point being made is focused on divorce - so mileage on whether that's an unbreakable precept or simply using cultural context may vary. The Gospels otherwise have Jesus saying very little on other topics of family morality - though many people of faith with conservative politics will argue that other Bible verses will support their perspective.

Jesus was, however, indubitably quite keen on supporting the poor, sceptical of the rich (and anyone using religion to make money), and particularly supportive of the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the merciful, those who are persecuted because of righteousness, and anyone suffering because they were following His teachings.

That's... unfortunate. I didn't know the Bible was this clear on the subject. Is there no argument to be made for abortion in cases of abuse?

Sorry, I don't quite follow. Did you perhaps mean 'divorce' rather than 'abortion' here?

[Kaumudeen]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

We don't want open societies (which is a code word for societal degeneration). We don't want Karl Popper. We don't want Western ideas, American ideas.

[Port Carverton]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

We don't want open societies (which is a code word for societal degeneration). We don't want Karl Popper. We don't want Western ideas, American ideas.

That's not necessarily true. There are many liberals within Iran who oppose the regime.

[Tillania]

Why all these waffling and soft words over discrimination and tolerance?

Yes, gender and sexual minorities should have equal rights. If traditional religion is opposed to that, then yes, we should stop tolerating traditional religion.

Next question?

Like, this is a classic Paradox of Tolerance. Why overthink it? Just stop pandering to anti-egalitarians.

FYI Karl Popper was friends with Hayek and supported Thatcher. The paradox of tolerance is not an anti-conservative theory like the left presents it to be.

It is an anti-intolerance-theory.
If the shoe fits...

[Port Carverton]

FYI Karl Popper was friends with Hayek and supported Thatcher. The paradox of tolerance is not an anti-conservative theory like the left presents it to be.

It is an anti-intolerance-theory.
If the shoe fits...

I don't disagree that Popper would be against right-wing populism, but at the same time he would also hate socialists.