@kevcvs57 saidA child's right to life is not a civil liberty, but a human right that transcends whether or not you and your woke wamen friends declare it a right because it'd be such a bummer if you had to confess to daddy that ya got preggerz after a one-night stand off Tindr.
A woman’s right to choose is a precious civil liberty to some of us wether you like it or not.
No one is telling you to get an abortion or how to manage your fertility. You seem to think that forcing a woman to take a foetus to term is actually possible, it’s not, the pagans had ways of terminating a foetus and you don’t need a big clinic to do it in, it’s just safer for the woman.
@kevcvs57 saidSource on the Temple being exclusively non-theistic Satanists?
“ I am aware that there are people who call themselves Satanists that are atheistic Satanists, but I was not sure if this group is made up exclusively of atheistic Satanists, and thus is solely existent for pushing for secularism of this stripe, or if it is a mix of all of these. ”
I’m sure there are theists who worship Satan the Fallen Angel but the members of The ‘Temple ...[text shortened]... they would demand the right to erect a statue of Satan or one of his many manifestations next to it.
@kevcvs57 saidIran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc., have all had sizable Christian minorities.
And again if your alluding to religious specific laws such as sharia then obviously the society in question would have to be overwhelmingly of that religion.
It's totally fine if they choose to practice Shariah to some degree or another, as far as I am concerned. It's their country, anyway, and the opinions of us debauched Westerners is completely irrelevant even if we want to shake our limp wrists in rage.
@philokalia saidOnly one of his marriages are legal. The rest are "spiritual" marriages.
No, I am referring to actual polygamy.
There are even families who live in open polygamy on national television shows -- see Sister Wives.
1 edit
@philokalia saidYou say child I say foetus. No one is disputing a child’s right to life. A woman’s right to not carry a foetus to term is definitely a question of her liberty, civil or otherwise.
A child's right to life is not a civil liberty, but a human right that transcends whether or not you and your woke wamen friends declare it a right because it'd be such a bummer if you had to confess to daddy that ya got preggerz after a one-night stand off Tindr.
Your innate misogyny is once again noted.
3 edits
@philokalia saidYou really are a pathetic debater. You have not actually contradicted my point but managed to shoehorn in a tirade against civilised society and a strange nod toward a homophobic stereotype.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc., have all had sizable Christian minorities.
It's totally fine if they choose to practice Shariah to some degree or another, as far as I am concerned. It's their country, anyway, and the opinions of us debauched Westerners is completely irrelevant even if we want to shake our limp wrists in rage.
You and people like you are thankfully a political minority in my society but if you want to roll around in your own medieval faeces in your dystopian society then feel free.
@philokalia saidThat's not the point I was making; I was addressing your first reply to me, about polygamy not being prosecuted as a crime. If that Sister Wives guy tried to legally get married while still having a legal spouse, he would've been charged with a crime.
How does that prove your point that this is polyamory?
But maybe that's splitting hairs. The Sister Wives are married in every other way, even if it's not legal. A quick Google search showed some states could still seek legal action against them even though there's only one official marriage between them.
@philokalia saidHow did I miss this gem?
A child's right to life is not a civil liberty, but a human right that transcends whether or not you and your woke wamen friends declare it a right because it'd be such a bummer if you had to confess to daddy that ya got preggerz after a one-night stand off Tindr.
@vivify saidI am glad you have come around a bit to my position.
That's not the point I was making; I was addressing your first reply to me, about polygamy not being prosecuted as a crime. If that Sister Wives guy tried to legally get married while still having a legal spouse, he would've been charged with a crime.
But maybe that's splitting hairs. The Sister Wives are married in every other way, even if it's not legal. A quick Googl ...[text shortened]... ld still seek legal action against them even though there's only one official marriage between them.
In Utah, they are flaunting the laws against polygamy, and it cannot be conceived of as polyamory, IMO, because they are literally just doing a traditional, old practice in Mormonism of marrying multiple wives, and there is obviously no circumstance in which those women are allowed to take on lovers on the side, as if they are in some modern, hippy polyamorous relationship.
Some of them continue to do this in several states.
So, in a sense, it really isn't illegal in spirit, but only illegal to be done bureaucratically.
-Removed-The rules of these forums are not a mistake. They were implemented because people want the forums to be alive and to not be a total waste of time by being just flame wars.
I am grateful for the mods enforcing civility.
You are just complaining about not being able to be rude and underhanded.
@philokalia saidWhat you mean set up an interview room for you to interrogate every member?
Source on the Temple being exclusively non-theistic Satanists?
Source to the contrary?