Adultery bans after Dobbs?

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Then why, I once again find myself asking, don't we go Full Purge?

Because if we did go full purge then the rulers would actually have to live in fear for thier own necks and we can't have that now can we? You're acting like "everything was great until them heathens came along" when that's never been the case. the rules has always been little more than a one sided boot that's never applied to those that actually worn it. but people tend to ignore it so long as there is an "other" more often than not it manifest in race (not just black or Asian contrary to what the left likes to reee) but it can apply to other things too.

Everything that has happened has been for the benefit of the rulers and the rulers alone the difference is up until this past century or so, is that straight white males (and anyone that "aligns" with them) are now the "other"

The great irony of all this is I hate adultery. I can't stand whoremongers and I frankly find the courting game hard enough to play once let alone doing it 2-5 times.

But frankly I trust someone with the sword of law not to stab me in the back about as much as I trust a lion not to maul me.

 

[Captain X]

I find the lack of reading that which is posted disturbing:

I read what you said - I disagree with it and find it disturbing. Government has no place in the bedroom. And while you can try to claim this isn't some Christian thing, that's what it ultimately comes down to, which is you trying to force others to live by your religious beliefs, which no more belongs in this country than communism.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I find the lack of reading that which is posted disturbing:



Morally driven laws has been a consistent facet of Western Civilization since its inception; Pre-Christian Rome took a negative view of adultery, so it extends earlier than just Christ's teachings. Even ignoring that, there's plenty of examples of "breach of contract" resulting in imprisonment.

Do you support banning gay sex?

 

[WolfBear]

Do you support banning gay sex?

Yeah, in Bowers v. Hardwick, some of the Justices talked about how gay sex was historically proscribed by various Western countries and societies. I wonder if HL wants to bring that logic back. Or would he say that being gay is innate and that thus people shouldn't be punished for it? But of course one could also say that a desire to engage in polyamory could be innate:

If You Want to Know If Your Spouse Will Cheat, Show Them a Picture of Someone Hotter

Some people may be hardwired to look away from temptation and/or underrate attractive alternative partners, and are less likely to cheat as a result.

www.fatherly.com

 

[WolfBear]

Beyond the numerous problems of using wikipedia as a source, that's a very skewed reading to take of what even that says:

Some couples report that open marriage contributed to their divorces. Janus and Janus asked divorced people to list the one primary reason for their divorces.[52] Approximately 1 percent of men and 2 percent of women listed open marriage as the primary reason for their divorce. This seems like a small percentage, but keep in mind that only 1 to 6 percent of the population have open marriages.[27][53][54][55] Open marriage is perceived as a primary cause of divorce in a substantial minority of the 1 to 6 percent of people who have open marriages.​

How many people get divorced? 1/3 of the total, right? So, around 33%. What's 2% of 33%? Less than 1%. Even if we round up to 1% here, and estimate that 6% of the population have open marriages, then this would mean that 1 in 6 open marriages end up in divorce as a result of this marriage being open. That's 17%, which fares rather favorably with the general 33% divorce rate. Even if some people in open marriages divorce for other reasons, it's entirely possible that on the net, the divorce rates for people in open marriages would be comparable to the divorce rates for people in closed marriages. And if this is indeed the case, then there is sound logic behind this: Specifically assortative mating. People often choose compatible traits in their marriage partners, which in turn makes it easier for them to get along as married couples. This applies to polyamory just as well as it applies to various other traits, such as people who love fat people marrying fat people. Obviously sometimes people have their expectations disappointed, but that's true in general, not just for polyamorous marriages.

 

[History Learner]

... Murder is wrong because it violates another person rights. Consensual poly doesn't. The other party agreed to this. No party was harmed.

Except the children of the couple in question, society at large as that family unit breaks down and ultimately the other party in the relationship itself when it ends in divorce.

Murder isn't illegal because of some nebulous feeling that it is wrong. It's illegal because it actively harms another human. Same with hitting someone with a car. The degree has to do with the state of mind of the offender (accident, on purpose, heat of the moment, etc).

No, it's precisely because of it being wrong and was understood as such for millennia. If you feel otherwise, might want to explain why dueling was legal until fairly recently historically speaking.

But doing it with consent and full knowledge doesn't meet one of the key requirements of what crime should have: doing someone harm.

Which we've already quantified as being the case and to which you've not addressed.

And if you start regulating for a nebulous social good, congrats, you've agreed with the communists in everything they need from you. Now what argument do you have against them teaching your kids to be gay? "It's for the greater good" they'll say right back at you.

In which case, Western Civilization has always been "Communist" and I can safely reject this morally bankrupt ideology you're attempting to peddle as the true historical aberration in the long run of civilization. The reason these "Communists" are winning is because you're either so foolish or naïve as to believe "FACTS AND LOGIC!" actually matter to them; it doesn't. It's like expecting the butchered peasants at Tambov to reason with the NKVD and hope they change. It doesn't work and the fact you believe that fairy tale is exactly why things are the way they are because they actually understand the concept of power, you only understand the gaslighting of it being a matter of principles and consistent logic.

If I don't want them teaching my kids to be gay, it's very simple: you don't try to reason with them, you use the power of the State to suppress them.

 

[History Learner]

Because if we did go full purge then the rulers would actually have to live in fear for thier own necks and we can't have that now can we? You're acting like "everything was great until them heathens came along" when that's never been the case. the rules has always been little more than a one sided boot that's never applied to those that actually worn it. but people tend to ignore it so long as there is an "other" more often than not it manifest in race (not just black or Asian contrary to what the left likes to reee) but it can apply to other things too.

Everything that has happened has been for the benefit of the rulers and the rulers alone the difference is up until this past century or so, is that straight white males (and anyone that "aligns" with them) are now the "other"

The great irony of all this is I hate adultery. I can't stand whoremongers and I frankly find the courting game hard enough to play once let alone doing it 2-5 times.

But frankly I trust someone with the sword of law not to stab me in the back about as much as I trust a lion not to maul me.

In which case, what are you even attempting to argue for? It's just empty moral relativism that leads back to the question I asked about going Full Purge; there's nothing to anything you're saying beyond nihilism.

 

[WolfBear]

No, it's precisely because of it being wrong and was understood as such for millennia. If you feel otherwise, might want to explain why dueling was legal until fairly recently historically speaking.

Gay sex was also considered wrong for millennia, no?

 

[History Learner]

I read what you said - I disagree with it and find it disturbing. Government has no place in the bedroom. And while you can try to claim this isn't some Christian thing, that's what it ultimately comes down to, which is you trying to force others to live by your religious beliefs, which no more belongs in this country than communism.

As I asked you before: why then should I suffer to be in the same country as you and vice versa? We can either peacefully balkanize the United States-because our conceptions of it are fundamentally different as to be unreconcilable-or it's eventually going to be decided by a massive blood letting or sheer demographic weight of people like me. You didn't answer what your faith was-presumably you don't have one-and one need only see where the fertility rates and conversion rates are to know where this debate goes in the long run.

 

[History Learner]

Gay sex was also considered wrong for millennia, no?

Yes, and?

 

[WolfBear]

Yes, and?

Should we recriminalize it?

As I asked you before: why then should I suffer to be in the same country as you and vice versa? We can either peacefully balkanize the United States-because our conceptions of it are fundamentally different as to be unreconcilable-or it's eventually going to be decided by a massive blood letting or sheer demographic weight of people like me. You didn't answer what your faith was-presumably you don't have one-and one need only see where the fertility rates and conversion rates are to know where this debate goes in the long run.

That's why the Left aims for the Great Replacement. Well, a part of the reason. To compensate for the higher conservative fertility.

 

[History Learner]

Should we recriminalize it?

Yes, and ban NGOs, etc while you're at it.

That's why the Left aims for the Great Replacement. Well, a part of the reason. To compensate for the higher conservative fertility.

And, ultimately, they've failed.

 

[WolfBear]

Yes, and ban NGOs, etc while you're at it.



And, ultimately, they've failed.

All NGOs?

lol u sure? Take a look at this:



Maybe you guys can still halt this trend. But the progress that it has already made is remarkable.

And FWIW, the American people are considerably more pro-immigration now than they were 30 years ago:

Immigration

In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?

news.gallup.com

Democrats are eager to continue fighting this battle, most likely!

 

[Cherico]

Yes, and ban NGOs, etc while you're at it.



And, ultimately, they've failed.

Birth rates in the devoloping world are cratering too, it comes down to urbanization raising kids in the city is expensive as fuck.

 

[History Learner]

Birth rates in the devoloping world are cratering too, it comes down to urbanization raising kids in the city is expensive as fuck.

Been doing some research on that, you might find it interesting? We can move it to another thread or do you think it would be cool to post it here?

 

[Cherico]

Been doing some research on that, you might find it interesting? We can move it to another thread or do you think it would be cool to post it here?

go ahead.

 

[History Learner]

go ahead.

Tl;dr it's emerging as a pretty strongly supported hypothesis that fertility is a heritable gene, which means that in the long TFRs will pick back up later this century. For many European countries, we're already starting to see it and immigrants aren't enough to explain it. Taking Gen Alpha as the baseline, and assuming three more generations this century, you're going to see TFRs well above replacement in the second half in places that are several generations removed from the Demographic Transition.

 

[History Learner]

All NGOs?

Most, yes. Genuine charities and such should be left alone, but most of this push didn't come from Government, it came from NGOs.

lol u sure? Take a look at this:



Maybe you guys can still halt this trend. But the progress that it has already made is remarkable.

And FWIW, the American people are considerably more pro-immigration now than they were 30 years ago:

Immigration

In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?

news.gallup.com

Democrats are eager to continue fighting this battle, most likely!

Christianity =/= Racialism

 

[WolfBear]

Tl;dr it's emerging as a pretty strongly supported hypothesis that fertility is a heritable gene, which means that in the long TFRs will pick back up later this century. For many European countries, we're already starting to see it and immigrants aren't enough to explain it. Taking Gen Alpha as the baseline, and assuming three more generations this century, you're going to see TFRs well above replacement in the second half in places that are several generations removed from the Demographic Transition.

Yeah, just look at Israeli Jewish fertility between the 1990s and 2019. It increased from 2.62 to 3.16 children per woman per lifetime before significantly declining in 2020.

 

[WolfBear]

Most, yes. Genuine charities and such should be left alone, but most of this push didn't come from Government, it came from NGOs.



Christianity =/= Racialism

I was talking about the Great Replacement in regards to race and ethnicity; less so in regards to religion. I mean, we do have some Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, et cetera coming here, but they're largely elites anyway and don't significantly alter the religious demographics of our country.