What is the strangest or most obnoxious religion?

[KenHorse]

Originally Posted by LATB

Marriage is a covenant not a contract. And yes it is biblically based. The government has no place in marriage but they inject themselves into it.

Abortion has nothing to do with religion. It only appears that way because most who oppose it are traditional Christian people.
Abortion is evil. Period. And I would oppose it if I was not a believer. Just as many people who are not believers oppose clubbing puppies to death.

Nicely stated

[Bill]

Originally Posted by LATB

The GOPe would rather lose graciously than win viscously.

You might say they're "thick as a brick."

Originally Posted by LATB

Marriage is a covenant not a contract. And yes it is biblically based. The government has no place in marriage but they inject themselves into it.

Abortion has nothing to do with religion. It only appears that way because most who oppose it are traditional Christian people.
Abortion is evil. Period. And I would oppose it if I was not a believer. Just as many people who are not believers oppose clubbing puppies to death.

This isn't true, at least once Social Security was instituted. If two straight people can contract together, such that the surviving spouse can collect Social Security benefits based on wages paid by the dead person, then that option needs to be made available to ANY two adult persons. The equal protection clause indicates that the government MUST treat all Americans the same. (Obviously, it's OK to treat Trump and his supporters differently, more harshly, almost like a formal pogrom against them....but that's a different issue.)

Of course, the simple solution is to phase out Social Security and let Americans use that ~15% of their earnings each year to fund their own retirements, maybe paying off a home mortgage faster, saving it for retirement, funding the kid's education so the kid has the wherewithal to take care of the parents in their old age, etc.

[Unsuspicious]

Originally Posted by aerovette

Any religion's extreme side is problematic.

I don't recall any headlines about extremist buddhists

[6spdC6]

Originally Posted by Unsuspicious

I don't recall any headlines about extremist buddhists

During the Vietnam war they were pouring gasoline on themselves and lighting it off. In my book that is extreme!

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by 6spdC6

During the Vietnam war they were pouring gasoline on themselves and lighting it off. In my book that is extreme!

Just a skosh.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by Unsuspicious

I don't recall any headlines about extremist buddhists

I don't find them annoying so I guess that supports my statement.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by Taurus

So you support gay marriages and abortions? That's government and you can vote those folks in or out of office and choose where you want to live. No one is forcing you to do anything unless you let them.

I think that if government gets involved in the marriage business (which they shouldn't in the first place), then they should not discriminate by gender based on the 14th amendment. Gay marriage bans did NOT discriminate by sexual orientation but by gender. Mary can marry George because she is a woman. Henry can't marry George because he is a man. So, Hendry is being discriminated based on GENDER, not sexual orientation.

As for abortion, I don't like abortions but support abortion rights to 15 weeks.
Especially bans that include rape are insane. Those are all religious motivated laws. I oppose late term abortions except for a serious risk to the mothers life. 15 weeks are sufficient to make that decision. Some women don't even know that they are pregnant after 6 weeks, so banning abortion at that stage is not acceptable.
FACT about abortion is that legality or lack thereof does not change the abortion rate. Abortions still happen, either out of state/country or illegally. Look at Philippines and Brazil. ILLEGAL abortions there and yet, they have more abortions than the US. Then look at Austria which has LEGAL, GOVERNMENT PAID abortions and the abortion rate in Austria is 1/10 of that in the US. Both, gay marriage and total abortion bans are laws based on religion.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by LATB

Marriage is a covenant not a contract. And yes it is biblically based. The government has no place in marriage but they inject themselves into it.

Abortion has nothing to do with religion. It only appears that way because most who oppose it are traditional Christian people.
Abortion is evil. Period. And I would oppose it if I was not a believer. Just as many people who are not believers oppose clubbing puppies to death.

I agree with you on point one.. Government should NOT be in the marriage business but if they are, they should not discriminate by gender. I'm all for eliminating government sponsored marriage. Government marriage is only about tax benefits. No reason to give the tax benefits to some couples and not to others.

Abortion is about religion. If you don't believe that a SOUL exists, a embryo is nothing but cells that can't even feel pain.
I support the abortion policy that was in place when our founders were alive. Abortion was 100% legal in all states to Quickening (15 - 20 weeks) and states could restrict it after that.

[KenHorse]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

I agree with you on point one.. Government should NOT be in the marriage business but if they are, they should not discriminate by gender. I'm all for eliminating government sponsored marriage. Government marriage is only about tax benefits. No reason to give the tax benefits to some couples and not to others.

Abortion is about religion. If you don't believe that a SOUL exists, a embryo is nothing but cells that can't even feel pain.

So how far along in the pregnancy do you believe is too late to abort?

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by KenHorse

So how far along in the pregnancy do you believe is too late to abort?

I go with our founders on that one. Abortion was legal to quickening (occurs between 15 and 19 weeks) in all states when our founders were alive. States were allowed to restrict abortions after a woman was quick with child. This was the policy then and should be the policy today.

[KenHorse]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

I go with our founders on that one. Abortion was legal to quickening (occurs between 15 and 19 weeks) in all states when our founders were alive. States were allowed to restrict abortions after a woman was quick with child. This was the policy then and should be the policy today.

Actually, we're not too far off on this. I am not against abortion pre-fetus and I base that on the realization that a fetus has all the major organ systems developed (not fully of course) whereas an embryo does not

[Onebadcad]

Originally Posted by KenHorse

This is how The Left operates. They know how to play the long game. All the while, the useless GOPe sits with their collective thumbs up their ass

The socialists will ALWAYS speak to ALL social issues, as they cannot bring in supporters based on the real issues, such as ecomomy, standard of living, debt, deficits, border security and foreign policies.

When you SUCK at ALL things, introduce petty things, the petty minds will follow.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by KenHorse

Actually, we're not too far off on this. I am not against abortion pre-fetus and I base that on the realization that a fetus has all the major organ systems developed (not fully of course) whereas an embryo does not

Exactly. I'm in no way in favor of late term abortions with the only exception being risk to the mother's life. There are actual conditions where giving birth comes with an extremely high risk of death for the mother. She should have the right to self preservation.
Other than that, 12 - 15 weeks would work just fine for me. I just have an issue with bans that occur before a woman doesn't even know that she is pregnant.

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by Onebadcad

The socialists will ALWAYS speak to ALL social issues, as they cannot bring in supporters based on the real issues, such as ecomomy, standard of living, debt, deficits, border security and foreign policies.

When you SUCK at ALL things, introduce petty things, the petty minds will follow.

SOCIAL issues have nothing to do with socialism.. This is aburd.

As a Libertarian, I'm left leaning on social issues (but not to the extremes that the left go to) but extremely right leaning on fiscal issues. That said, I don't vote based on social issues but that doesn't change the fact that I lean on the side of individual liberties. I'm not hypocritical like the left and the right when it comes to personal liberties. Libs want to infringe on gun rights and the right to keep most of my paycheck and the right wants to force Christian morality on everyone with anti gay and anti abortion laws.

[HOWSER]

All of them.

[HOWSER]

Originally Posted by Don Rickles

I thought there was a sub forum called Politics and Religion?

That delineation broke a long time ago. A majority of OT today is politics and religion. I can assume it because the other subforums are dead.

[KenHorse]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

....the right wants to force Christian morality on everyone with anti gay and anti abortion laws.

You had me until this.

I would probably agree about the anti abortion laws BUT the claim that the right is "anti gay" is utter bullshit.

How is the right "anti gay"?

[GrandSportC3]

Originally Posted by KenHorse

You had me until this.

I would probably agree about the anti abortion laws BUT the claim that the right is "anti gay" is utter bullshit.

How is the right "anti gay"?

Before the Supreme Court ruling, several RED states had laws preventing same sex marriage. There is no non religious reason why same sex couples can't have the same benefits of opposite sex couples. Let's face it, this was denying them tax benefits, visitation rights or inheritence rights.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

Before the Supreme Court ruling, several RED states had laws preventing same sex marriage. There is no non religious reason why same sex couples can't have the same benefits of opposite sex couples. Let's face it, this was denying them tax benefits, visitation rights or inheritence rights.

And I bet a very small percentage of homosexuals get married for those reasons.

[Louie Detroit]

Originally Posted by GrandSportC3

There is no non religious reason why same sex couples can't have the same benefits of opposite sex couples.

I would submit it is because some people won't submit to the sodomite agenda. Some people just don't want to legitimize faggotry.