The Federal Government Of Iowa #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

Hanafuridake #fundie forum.nationstates.net

My political beliefs are pretty straightforward. I believe in religious nationalism because countries need a transcendent center, otherwise they degrade into chaos and unbridled consumerism, and the Buddhist religion is the true and perfect religion which can unite Asia. I look at new solutions to problems when necessary, but I'm not going to throw away everything valuable in the name of neophilia

United Muscovite Nations #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Much has been said about rational reasons on the desire for monarchy: order, stability, hierarchy, etc. Some even simply find the aestheticism of the monarchy to be endearing, or they desire the tourist revenue from this. However, while God has gifted us with reason, we are not machines, for God has also gifted us with emotion, which serves to drive reason towards goals to be accomplished. For without our emotions, we have no desires and therefore nothing to direct our reason towards. CS Lewis writes that men have a desire for monarchy, and if not sated with a monarch, it will latch itself to wasteful men. I contend that this desire for a monarch is not rational or political, but rather is erotic. What I mean by this is less that it is sexual (though there certainly is an aspect of the sexual) than that it is based on a romantic love. It is not a platonic, or passive love, but is a desirous, possessive, and therefore erotic love that we bear for a monarch. Rather than being shameful or excessive, in this context, erotic love is rendered its most noble, it is the most Christlike expression of love. When Christ loves us, he does so erotically, so the Fathers say, in that he desires to obtain us for salvation. Likewise, when we love God, we desire to possess him, to acquire his grace and love. Likewise, when we love a monarch, it is out of a desire for his rule. This erotic desire for a rightful, lawful king exists even in those who explicitly despise the institution of monarchy. Speak to the most ardent anarchist of Nestor Makhno, and watch his or her eyes glaze over with tears and their voice begin to tremble with admiration, and you will see plainly their desire for him. The people will seek a lawful king even in the absence of a monarchy, and if there are no lawful kings to be found, they will find unlawful, or base monarchs to appease them, and this is what CS Lewis speaks of.

Just as Christ woos or seduces us towards virtue and salvation through his own virtue, a lawful (i.e. virtuous) King seduces our desire for such as himself, for the institution of the monarchy is a miniaturized icon of the marriage of Christ and the Church, of bridegroom and bride. It is, then, an icon of a marriage, for the monarch is not only married to his physical bride, but to his spiritual bride (i.e. the people over which he rules). A lawful king, therefore, is one who rules with an erotic or romantic love towards his "bride", that is, desiring to possess them, and to charm them with his actions, to prove himself worthy of such a fair bride. It is an unlawful king that is neglectful in his love, or who behaves with simple beastly lust, who commits adultery against his bride through pursuing only his own interests at the expense of his bride. Who is flamboyant but without beauty, for beauty is found not only in aesthetics, but in nobility of character. A monarchist is not merely one who believes a monarchy is just, but one who desires a monarch, even if it is a monarch of their heart's desire, and not a living man. Like all people who choose their bridegroom, there is the danger of a poorly made match, of being wedded to an unvirtuous monarch. In such a case, the monarch is unlawful in that his desire for his bride is not genuine, and as such the people maintain their right for a divorce, and to crown a rightful, lawful king. This is not lawlessness, but rather the law of nature, for when adultery is committed, it is a crime not only against the bride, but against God and the covenant, and is a crime which cries out to all humanity to correct by divorce, for erotic immorality was one of the great crimes against which the Law and the Prophets speak against, and which Christ and the Apostles condemn. However, erotic love fulfilled with continence, loyalty, and marriage, is virtuous and a great calling from God. And it is this which is the basis of monarchy. Rather than social contract, it is spiritual contract, for man and wife are anointed by God to follow their love.

Geneviev #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Creationism in Public Schools

The US Supreme Court has not allowed creation science to be taught in public schools since 1968, when it invalidated an Arkansas law that didn't allow evolution to be taught in schools (Epperson v. Arkansas). The Supreme Court continued to encourage evolution instead of creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, in which it held teaching of creation science along with evolution to be unconstitutional. However, many scientists believe that there is more scientific evidence for creation.

Christian groups have attempted to bring creation science back into public schools since it was banned. South Carolina's House Bill 3826, while unsuccessful, proposed teaching creation science in schools. However, none of these attempts have been successful.

What do you think, NSG? Should public schools be allowed to teach creation science? Should they teach evolution and creation science? Or is creation science unconstitutional?

I think creation and evolution should both be taught equally so students in public schools can choose for themselves what they believe. Although it would be unconstitutional if only the Christian perspective is taught, other religions could also be taught.

Racist Commonwelath of East Virginia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Should we euthanize orphans?

I was watching CNN the other day and they were doing a segment on animal euthanasia in Japan. They are so flooded over there that they decided that if animals aren’t adopted they should be put in a metal box and gassed. I was thinking, here in the US we have a broken welfare system and dozens of kids in care who nobody wants to adopt, most will probably turn into criminals and end up in prison or death row. Maybe it would be better if we euthanized the orphans nobody wants, we’ll be saving them from a horrible life and society from juvenile delinquents and future crimes. With the money we save with euthanasia, we could spend it on those families that do adopt making sure they are financially supported and that the adopted kids have access to good schools, sports and psychological care maybe even college.

@Third Asopia

To be honest I am not in favour. Why euthanise an orphan when he has a bright future in front of him? I know his parents died, but he still has a future. Everyone does. Unless you are at the last stages, then yes, because you have completed the most important parts of life. But, an orphan? Who's probably young? Come on. There's something better than euthanasia.

Well, most orphans get bounced around from home to home so they’re constantly being psychologically traumatized. Orphanages are hell holes. Unadopted orphans are like an anchor weighing down the welfare system, if we can cut them loose we can save money to spend supporting successful adoptions. Many uncared for orphans will end up in prison. Instead, why not save everyone trouble and euthanize a small number to benefit the rest? It’s nice to believe that everyone has a bright future but that’s not true. Let’s support the ones that are likely to succeed and rather than torturing those that won’t by throwing them from home to home or dumping them in orphanages that are more like prisons than homes, we should have the option of euthanizing them humanely.

[Submitter's note: Thread got euthanised within a day]

Cranborne #sexist forum.nationstates.net

On The Distribution of Spouses
I was pondering on the right to life when an idea popped into my mind. The right to life is among the most important, if not the most important right, we have as human beings - it is among the highest of all natural rights. But life is not just our current lives, but our children are continuations of our lives and just as we are the continuation of the lives of our ancestors. Marriage is the optimum way in which new life is created.

Governments are also supposed to enforce rights and not let them fall into neglect. Unfortunately, as can be seen with the likes of incels and even worse, MGTOW community, this right to life has been neglected. So what is to be done by the government in such a case? The distribution of spouses.

I propose that each heterosexual person be placed into a lottery system - both male and female. Once the person is called up, they are to be paired with the other person drawn from the lottery alongside them. They are then to be man and wife, preferably for the rest of their lives. It is not too drastic of a change from arranged marriages, which have served humanity well. This would ensure that every person has a spouse and thus better further ones chances of continuing their lives than our current courtship system does. Further, the lottery system would help ensure that the rich are less able to bribe their way into being pared with high quality mates - the poor should not be punished and I consider myself to be a friend of the poor.

This system would further reduce crime, as women calm men's darkest tendencies, and improve the economy through reduced crime, increased happiness, and a far more stable labor force that is self-replicating (as natalist policies should naturally be enacted in any system, not just this one).

Agree or Disagree?

(Submitter's note: He also uses the Croatian flag...)

Freedom4Merica #fundie forum.nationstates.net

First, your WikiPedia arcticle means absolutely nothing. Remember when like Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and then wait, suddenly they are a major ally of ours in the pacific. How did that's happen? Maybe because relationships and countries change.
Secondly, are you out of your mind? Please explain to me how Western Civilizarion and America was not based on Judeo Christian values. Obviously most of the founders were diest, but that does not mean that they were not majorly influenced by Judeo Christian values because it isn't obvious that they were. Here's a brief list of some of the values, please explain to me how the Consitution was not based off of these principles:
Dignity of Human Life
Traditional Family Values
Right to a God-Centered Education
A National Work Ethic
Common Decency
The Abrahamic Covenant: If people or a nation follows the Bible, they will be blessed by God
Personal Accountability
Freedoms coming from God and not government

The Parkus Empire #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(full exchange posted here quoted is the other poster)

Marriage makes someone your family. All the griping about how gays need marriage without even knowing what is, smdh


I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important

Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

The Ozark Frontier #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I imagine places such as the Middle East and the more rural parts of South America will one day be known as the "last bastions of religion". In other words, it's purpose has been served, and more and more people are waking up to reality.

It’s Porpoise has hardly been served. Belive me, People cannot survive a Meaningless life like what Atheism Offers. Because in an Atheist Society, Your tiny, miniscule, Worthless. No one would care if you were to Kill yourself. Such a Sad Existence has no place in Life.

Russian Federation white ethnostate #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(a few months old but the way it goes from zero to fundie to creepy has me wanting to submit it)

Homosexual activities can lead to drug use, depression, stds and stis as worse as aids, the dissolvement of the normal family, degeneracy, and the death of races. You see homosexuality is fine to a certain extent bisexuals are fine however full on gays have a few screws loose. Another thing is their supposed "oppression" the only reason why they think this is most likely due to their sensitivity which reaches levels of crying and depression because someone criticizes their lifestyle and even disregarding fact and research to move their agenda. Another thing is that despite multiple claims they are not natural seeing as how it is all psychological or caused by experiences as a child which influence a lot of different fetishes for and example my sister would leave her stocking lying around and now I find stockings kinda hot.

Calexicai #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Traditionalist Elites mobilise against technology


Discuss. Is this the new world order trying to take away children's liberties after all Macron is a globalist according to infowars right? Conspiracy but remember never stop questioning!

Do the elite have a plan to destroy the modern world and take us back to the stone age? The modern world encourages individualism

FreedLymonia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I do not hate freedom. But I hate selfish sociopaths who who use "freedom" as a shield to hide behind while caring not in the slightest for anyone else's freedom or the other needs of society.

And projection it is. I care for others, look at any the averages, right wingers donate more than liberals. And you say not caring for anyone else’s freedom? On what they are free unlike In a socialist system where they can’t voluntarily transact. It’s not charitable to reach into some one else’s wallet man, dig into your own. Obviously you lack the basic knowledge of the situation or you would be on my side.

a socialist system where they can’t voluntarily transact.

Which I do not advocate (in character or in reality), nor does any but a few fringe lunatics with zero relevance in real life.
Obviously you lack the basic knowledge of the situation or you would be on my side.

[eyerolling smiley]

cough fascist Blackshirt thugs aka antifa cough not to mention corbyn having a literal communist and attending communist meetings... well to be fair europe is unimportant anyways

The Parkus Empire #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I'm not a bigot, I can tolerate Muslims dissenting from me, no problem. Muslims agreeing with me, however, would force me into an existential crisis

Why exactly?

Because I would lose all faith in my own narrow-mindedness. And if I'm not narrow-minded, what does that make me? A freethinker. And freethinkers reject revelation, which would mean I'm living a lie.

Feylands #sexist forum.nationstates.net

This is a consequence of the pill. Western men wanted to have sex with no consequences, and now our tribe(s) are dying a slow death because those get into the water and cause men to stop being able of making as many babies as before. :(

They also have the consequence of making girls getting into puberty earlier and making men more feminine as well, in a time when bad people from distant lands who like really young girls are marching on our streets and we need exactly the opposite - men who can act like protectors and not some self-absorbed "ze's". >:( It's Western Rome 2.0. :(

The Theocracy of Faustian Satanic Empire #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Who is among the New World Order ?

I've been wondering who is among the New World Order ? I figure they must be rich guys and probably Satanist. Satanist because there loyalty towards Satan get the best of everything. But anyway, 2who do you think they are ?
Most people make fun of conspiracy theories. I don't. I mean, when you figure the Illuminati and other secret organizations, they have real pull in this world. So, what conspiracy theory do you believe but others think is absurd ?
I wish I knew so I could join them. Being in a secret society would be fun, I think.

Taviana SSR #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

(In a discussion on Gernan Neonazi Otfried Best wanting to replace arabic numberals with "normal" ones)

Shows once more how fascism is still strong in capitalist Germany. The government is more interested in smearing the legacy of the antifascist GDR than lerning from the terrors of fascism. Capitalism gives birth to fascism, as seen by the neofascist racist party of AfD being 3rd in polls.

I hope The Left, DKP and MLPD gain majority in elections.

Guelder #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(In a discussion on Gernan Neonazi Otfried Best wanting to replace arabic numberals with "normal" ones)

I also support banning Arabic numerals

... First, Arabic numerals are better suited for math and already used worldwide. Second, it isn't even Arabic. Third, proper Latin numerals can't exactly describe numbers bigger than one million. Or the number zero. Fourth, do you seriously want to do 45,278,629 multiplied by 964 with Latin numerals?

There's practicality and common sense involved in this equation.

I understand your point, but in my opinion, Arabic does not belong to Europe and America, and about the fourth point: No, i only want the current 123-numbers used in the western world, thus in Europe and America


So, yeah. Good luck being backwater economies. You're gonna desperately need to cling to it.

Oh, by the way. "In your opinion" is not a good indicator of objectivity.

I see liberal tears
And how are you going to count them?

I don't count it, i just know that liberals don't like conservatives, and every time they hear a conservative speaking they burst their tears out :p

I didn't, I simply made fun of you.

That's for me the same, because that's what Liberals do

I could rebuke your thought-out arguments, but you have none.

That's your opinion, i see here only liberal tears because a conservative is speaking


And that's your opinion.

I'm speaking the truth, Liberals just can't get into arguments, Conservatives can get into arguments. If a Conservative confronts a Liberal with the truth, they'll cry like babies


First, I'm not crying, second, it's just your opinion.

Okay, you're not crying, good job, but you now don't want a argument anymore with a conservative


That's your opinion, because I want this argument to last as long as it can.

I'm having a lot of fun doing it.

I'm also having fun to argument with a liberal, because liberals don't want to know the truth and are brainwashed


Indeed. I put my brain into my Electrolux for every night, for 90°C and maximum RPM, and it's squeky-clean now.

What did you just say?

The New Communist Order #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Would Slavery Exist in the Ideal Minarchical Society?

Minarchism is a form of Libertarianism, with the philosophy that the ideal government would exist to provide only a few necessary services to the people. It often limits the State to three institutions, that could not be handled properly by the free market, the military, the police, and the courts. The actions that these three institutions would provide would be to protect citizens from aggression, and protect their property laws and natural rights. Now, I go back and forth between whether or not slavery would exist in this ideal Minarchical society, as the government would ideally protect citizens' natural rights to life, liberty and, property, and therefore, society would not allow slavery. Yet, this line of thinking becomes problematic, because who/what would decide who is a citizen and who is not? I go back and forth in my mind and was wondering what you guys think? Ultimately, I believe slavery would exist as there is no definite way to define who or what would be a citizen in this society, yet my mind is open and my opinion is subject to change on this topic.

Seradahn #racist forum.nationstates.net

The War On Whites

Can we please talk about this? Every single day we are being demonized something we didn't even do. Every day we are told that we are violent "Nazis" for wanting to preserve our race. Meanwhile some black dude can scream "Black power" and he'll have a crowd join him. The same goes for any other race except whites. Not every single white person is a racist, quite the opposite. Can we stop saying only whites can be racist? It's complete bullshit and they don't realize that it could be considered racist saying that. Meanwhile we have movements like Black Lives Matter that has created anti-white violence and have become the black Shutzstaffel. It's like saying all black people are violent thugs. Yes, we do have a history of expanding empires to foreign lands and sometimes treated the natives like crap, but we aren't alone. Africans and Native Americans had been doing that for centuries before branched out. I mean the Japanese invaded the Chinese, murder and raped its people, but nobody bats an eyelid. We've done nothing wrong, so cut it out.

Telconi #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I think the difference is a matter of degree. You say you're very pro 2nd Amendment, and yet you're willing to tolerate a candidate that pushes for an 'assault weapon' ban.

"We need to get the military style assault weapons off of our streets" is right next to "We need to exterminate the Jews" in my handbook of 'Absolutely unacceptable beliefs

Kaitland #racist forum.nationstates.net

Everything is wrong with miscegenation. It destroys the physical appearance of a race

[So there we were, the Black race and the White race, and from one moment to another, wouldn't you know, BOOM!


Our physical appearance got destroyed by miscegenation. Horrible. Just horrible.]

Yes. Horrible. I don't care how pretty she is.
Ancestral genome has been completely destroyed. And she is the personification of that destruction. She is called a hybrid.

Korhal IVV #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Creationism v. evolution debate.]

Preventing children from being drug users because they don't see themselves as accountable to God is better than crappy freedom.

[How does not having faith in God automatically translates to being a druggie? What the hell?]

Not automatically. Only if the children actually are taking it seriously.

Valcouria #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[On Colombia legalizing same-sex marriage]

Meh, South America was swallowed by the pink tide 30 years ago, so something as offensive to tradition and morality as this is not surprising, no more so than finding worms writhing on pavement after a rainstorm.

My own stance will never change on the matter, however, no matter how many nations stoop to accommodating sexual deviancy like this.

Kautharr #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[In a thread about Colombia legalizing same sex marriage.]

terrible news
Latin America was meant to be very Catholic as well, what a shame.

[Kautharr used homophobia.

But nothing happened.]

I don't care if you call me a homophobe or any other regressive leftist buzzword, I'm proud to be a homophobe and idrc if you call me one.

Kauthar #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Sounds like someone is a bit mad. How about you shut the fuck up about how entitled you are, and Christians have never been a protected group in the US. And for the record, no one gives a shit about sodomite marriage, it's degeneracy and is such a small issue only soccer moms, lesbians and leftists care about.

Constantinopolis #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the modern atheist is whining that Christianity is overly controlling and crying about individual rights, while at the same time insisting that God, if He were truly good, should directly take over the world and establish a totalitarian theocracy so as to eliminate evil. The modern atheist is a spoiled brat, demanding freedom to do whatever he wants, while also throwing a tantrum because his parent does not fix all his problems for him.

And you have the audacity to accuse UMN of focusing on his "first world problems", when atheism is overwhelmingly a phenomenon found among the rich, the privileged, the pampered. Those starving children and their parents are far more likely to believe in God than you ever will be. They understand that a world without God is a world without justice. They understand that it is precisely the existence of God that makes their suffering mean something, that guarantees their lives are not in vain. But you, from the comfort of your first world lives, talk about suffering and death as one talks about war after having played Starcraft. You don't know the first thing about suffering and death.

A lot of the suffering in this world can be fixed, but there is a lot more than we can do nothing about. There are hundreds of millions of people in this world for whom, even in the best of circumstances - even if we abolished capitalism, war, and world hunger - life would still be filled with suffering. Some of them have an incurable chronic medical condition, some of them have childhood trauma that they will never overcome, some of them have seen loved ones die and will never be able to smile again. Atheism has nothing to say to these people, and nothing to give them but despair and darkness. "Life sucks and then you die."

That is why atheism is the religion of the rich and privileged. Because only the rich and privileged can endure to look at this rotten world and say "yup, this is all there is, and I'm fine with that."

Grand Calvert #fundie forum.nationstates.net

God deserves the glory because He created us, and the air we breath and food we eat that maintains our lives. He deserves our praise. Humans who are selfish do not deserve the glory because all of their achievements were accomplished with something that they would not have without God.

[God deserves the glory because he made us for his own amusement and punishes us for acting in a manner that he has specifically created us to. But hey, he made us, so... that makes him good? What kind of morality is that? Does an abusive mother deserve eternal praise because she birthed and fed her kids?]

What? He never punishes us for acting the way He created us for, He punishes us for acting sinfully (which because of Adam and Eve's sin is now a part of human nature). And I would say that a mother does not deserve eternal praise because ultimately it was God who created those children.

Constantinopolis #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Correct. This is what I am saying.

And yeah, Plato may be rolling in his grave... but Plato lived over 2300 years ago. If it were actually possible to get an objective good without God, then why haven't secular philosophers reached any sort of consensus on what is objectively good after 2300 years of discussing it?

Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find.

Korhal IVV #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Korhal IVV #fundie forum.nationstates.net

[Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.]

Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol

And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now

Lordareon #fundie forum.nationstates.net

10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Imperium Sidhicum #racist forum.nationstates.net

This Trudeau guy seems to have the right idea, given how it's single young men who usually become a problem. Considering how the majority of the migrants are single young men, barring them from entering Europe and deporting the ones already here would also solve the uncontrolled immigration problem to a large degree and restrict immigration to fathers with families, women and children, who are more likely to be in legitimate need for asylum and less likely to cause trouble.


Interestingly, there seems to be a co-relation between an excessive population of young men and civil wars, political instability and general violence and lawlesness. Considering how these places also tend to have a sexually-repressive religion, cultural norms that forbid sex outside marriage, condemn prostitution and other forms of sexual release, have high unemployment and low education levels, require men to pay a large bride-price in order to get married (which many cannot afford for the aforementioned reasons of unemployment and poor literacy), and there's a general shortage of females of marriable age anyway, no wonder there's a plentitude of sexually-frustrated horny young men with raging hormones looking for ways to vent their frustration.

Unsurprisingly, many of them who come to Europe with it's population of spineless emasculated men who are too accustomed to rely on authorities for justice and too pussy-whipped and beaten down to defend their women find Europeans and especially their womenfolk easy prey for their destructive urges, which is further aggravated by the inaction of authorities.

Sahrani South #fundie forum.nationstates.net

One of my friends came forward and told me he was an atheist. I asked him why he was an atheist and he said, "I prayed to God for help, but he never helped me." That's no reason to disbelieve in God. Do you atheists seriously think he will help you with everything. Creator put you on earth to fix your mistakes. He won't solve the problems you caused. And stop blaming him for taking away people you care about. It's not his fault you failed or lost someone.

Those who disbelieve in God are what I call 'clouded minds'. You don't realise you are one until you are freed from corruption. I know from experience. I was once a disbeliever and then came to realise that people are not educated on who God actually is and how religion and science can coexist.

Atheism should be banned because it is very wrong. I seriously think these atheists should read the Bible! I hate it when some kids these days say that they are atheist, it is absolutely WRONG.

Every Christian knows Atheists have no morals because they think they can ignore God’s Holy Bible. Some of them even deny the existence of Hell! They murder, steal and rape all the time as if there is no tomorrow. It is no coincidence that most criminals are Atheists. It is time to stop all this! It is a known fact that Atheists like nothing more but killing unborn children (abortion) and defenseless elders (euthanasia).

Christians know that life begins BEFORE conception: Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Only Christians realize that murder is bad: Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”

There can be only one conclusion! Atheism has to be outlawed, just like the Bible tells us: 2nd Chronicles 15:13 “That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”.

Mortuus Luciferus #fundie forum.nationstates.net

I oppose LGBT rights and lgbt "marriage" because 1) it's a threat to western culture and tradition and 2) it's not marriage

[Since when is tradition good? There used to be a tradition of having soldiers scorch the earth or people burning witches. We don't do those things anymore.]

Thanks to socialism and "progressivism".

Durstan #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Why do you guys support homosexualism???

[Homosexualism? What are you selling? The term is homosexuality. And to answer your question, it's because it's bigoted, silly and utterly backwards to say that two people of same gender who love each other can't get married the same way a straight couple can.]

Are you saying that submitting to the will of God is backwards? Sorry, but people of the same gender can't ever have a real marriage or love.

Italian-Australia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(the topic is a non-religious woman wants to get a different councilor because the one the court ordered her to go to decided to open every session with a prayer)

Right, the fucking line has been crossed. This woman disobeyed a court order, she can rot in a cell for all I care. All you have served to do is reinforced the fact that atheists are evil, untrustworthy and unable to change. Fuck atheists and fuck the U.S Constitution. Go ahead and make your disparaging comments about me, because I'm not going to look at them. Australia for life!

Stellonia #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Just because Wikipedia says it does not mean it is so. If you look at other Wikipedia pages, such as the timeline starting several billion years ago, you will see that it is partial towards the unscientific theories known as the Big Bang and neo-Darwinism.

[I am sure yu can show how it is unscientific. What is neo-Darwinism, is it like neo-Eisteinism? I am also sure you can show evidence beyond the bible that those scientific theories are indeed not true.]

Neo-Darwinism is another term for macro-evolution, a theory that claims that dinosaurs, humans, eggplants, and bacteria all share a common ancestor.

Also, how can the entire mass of the universe fit into a volume the size of a speck of dust on my keyboard?

Archegnum #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Light was created on the first day, but its source was not the Sun. It can be assumed that the light in existence on day three was conductive to the process of photosynthesis begun on day 3, when the plants first came to be. The Sun was created on day 4.

[And yet we know for a fact that the sun existed long before earth came into being, let alone before plants evolved.]

Can I ask why evolutionists believe that the planets existed before the Sun? I am genuinely interested, no one has ever actually given me evidence to support this viewpoint.

Valcouria #fundie forum.nationstates.net

The only thing I'm personally picking up from this debacle is that now, one cannot be a devout Christian and hold a government position any longer. Because its absolute folly to think that someone who is devoutly religious is going to just drop their beliefs on a whim to do something that they find morally abhorrent and disgusting. For example, were I in an elected position as well, I would also be unable/unwilling to violate my deeply-held beliefs that marriage is strictly between one man and one woman, and would not accept or recognize any variation on that God-given sacrament.

It is rather despicable that people that hold such convictions are essentially being bullied into either resigning from public office or forsaking their beliefs...sort of reminds me of the Persecutions of Decius, in a way. You either show your commitment to the pagan gods and the government, or else you face scorn, contempt, and (back then...and possibly in the near-future) martyrdom.

[Translation: Stop telling me I have to be equal to everyone else! Oppression!]

Christians (including myself) generally believe that they are ordained for better in the first place, the ones that will be accepted into Heaven while the heretic, heathen, and morally bankrupt rot in a hot place.

Oceanic People #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(thread topic: is morality possible without god?)

The answer is NO if you believe the traditions an dogma of the Church. On the other hand if you believe 'god' is any power and/or authority that a person submits to, then yes, morality IS possible without 'God'. This is why Atheists who are NOT sociopaths are just cowards.

The Autarkist Social Republic #fundie forum.nationstates.net

For a long time...I too used to have sinful thoughts about other men. I even was involved in a relationship with another man. I thought I loved. We kissed. We laughed. We held hands. We thought we loved each other. When my mother found out, she was outraged by this sin. So, because she loved and respected me so much, she decided to get me help so I could be cured of my sin. Now I am good in the eyes of God. Sure, I still have some sinful thoughts about other men. I'll never act on my sinful urges ever again. I made a promise to mother.

You made a promise to your mother to hide your sexual orientation and be something that you're not. Why do you think that this is a good thing?

Well, I always think of it this way: a prisoner goes to prison to be reformed. The justice system sends people to jail so they can learn a lesson. After the lesson is learned, and the prisoner is reformed...he may be released so he may spread the words of good and righteousness.

POTP #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Whelp... What's next on the list? Let me look... Ah, here it is!
Gay "marriage" - check
Polygamy - next
Incest - getting there
Pedophilia - not yet but it's gonna happen sometime in the near future
Bestiality - long ways off but it'll happen

Un-Supreme Court is not final authority on marriage. God Almighty is. He clearly defined marriage as an institution between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Satan and his minions have their victory for now. But the Kingdom is not theirs. The Lake of Fire is where they'll be residing for the rest of eternity.
I pray for this country. I pray for the religious that will inevitably be persecuted as result of this unholy decision. I pray for our children. I pray for the supporters of this decision. I pray for all "gays". I pray for ALL mankind. Lord Jesus come soon! We are ready! Save us from our sins!


I'm sorry, let me just- I need a second.

This is a fucking hilarious piece of satire, good sir. You've created the perfect stereotype of your typical, bigoted, god-fearing idiot.

At least, I dearly hope you're joking.]

Everything is satire with you people. You can't wrap your mind around the fact that SOMEONE might just happen to disagree with you. That's what all you liberals are like. I will be praying for you sir.

The Highlander Enclaves #fundie forum.nationstates.net

(on removing the Confederate battle flag from in front of the SC capitol)

[And hence, free speech is not being infringed upon. The Swastika is heritage. It would be disgusting if it were flown over the German capitol.]

Of course it would. The Swastika is as symbol used in false religions in Asia. It was also used by a movement claiming to be Christian, but they killed innocents...

[False religions... heh... gonna file that under 'no room to talk'[

The word of Christ is known by over a 7th of the world's population as the only truth.