she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption
[…in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.
Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.
Others may find them stifling.
You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.
If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of yourfaith.
Jesus is an important part of the Bible, but it’s not entirely about him.
Overall, I’d say that the Bible provides universal guidance and principles in the affairs of human life. It’s up to you to accept or reject the guidance.
You missed the 1943 part of that. 2000 years of knowledge has been gathered and put down so we can advance humanity and you idiots are still looking for answers of a 2000+ year old book
I very much doubt that nuclear was even a word when the shit was invented.
Seriously you have had too much bible it is rotted your brain
Yes, right. So courageous.
As side effect, she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.
A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.
This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.
I could get into more details, but I don’t feel I’m in the right community to do so.
Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.
The nuclear family is bad, all the fuckin radiation has to be bad for you.
Any credible sources for any of those ludicrous claims?
How about you make your own research
Funny to bring up research in a discussion about religion.
So “no” then, got it
“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)
Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.
Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)
This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.
Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.
Others may find them stifling.
You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.
If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.
Purpose - control large groups of idiots whom can’t be bothered to think for themselves
Please elaborate on nuclear family then how nuclear fits into the bible as it was harnessed 1943 years after the death of your so called Messiah
Jesus is an important part of the Bible, but it’s not entirely about him.
Overall, I’d say that the Bible provides universal guidance and principles in the affairs of human life. It’s up to you to accept or reject the guidance.
You missed the 1943 part of that. 2000 years of knowledge has been gathered and put down so we can advance humanity and you idiots are still looking for answers of a 2000+ year old book
I very much doubt that nuclear was even a word when the shit was invented.
Seriously you have had too much bible it is rotted your brain