They don’t say punishment, but they talk about consequences all the time.
Yes, evangelicals think there should be consequences for having sex outside marriage. At least all the ones in the church I grew up in did.
Aw, that’s cute. You and your cult have decided that you can tell the Bible was kidding about one kind of non-procreative sex being a sin, but serious about another.
And, in a STUNNING coincidence, the kind of non-procreative sex that isn’t a sin… is the kind you have! Too bad for the people who have the other kind.
Total joke. Total cult.
12 Likes
Every poll that’s called me has been a fundraiser in disguise such that the questions were so completely bad faith that I hung up halfway through. I’m more engaged than median voter and way more engaged than median 18-29 though. I can’t imagine what an 18-29 that responds to the poll calls looks like as a group
Push poll
In my opinion, it’s not so much that there should be consequences to sex outside of marriage, but that there are consequences.
There are consequences for walking off a steep cliff. It’s a moot point whether there should be consequences for walking off a steep cliff.
VD is certainly a possible consequence of fornication, whether there should be or not.
One example of evangelical views on premarital sex is purity culture. If you aren’t familiar with it, you should do some reading on it.
If all else is equal, but no. Idk what is going on but cross tabs are broken this year. Too much is inconsistent and doesn’t make sense.
1 Like
For one thing, we aren’t talking about your views. But why do you think there is so much hatred of and aversion to contraceptives amongst evangelical Christians? Because it takes away the consequences and allows safer “fornication.” Just because most of you are smart enough to not call pregnancy a punishment for fornicating outside marriage doesn’t mean it’s not hard for us to read between the lines.
Full Disclosure: I agree with the RCC position that sex should only be for procreation.
That said, my opinion on the issue wasn’t relevant to the conversation which was what the view of mainstream Evangelicalism is.
Will do!
Election over, WALTZMENTUM from the top of the ropes chokes out Trump and Vance!
8 Likes
If evangelical Christians really cared about unborn babies they should be all in on providing contraception and sex education to kids in our society so that young men and women can prevent getting pregnant when they inevitably give in to their natural urges. Yet, y’all don’t, and you put the lie to the notion that you just care about the children while revealing the truth that you actually care about regulating sexual behavior making sure there continue to be “consequences” for the types of sexual behavior of which you disapprove.
6 Likes
Yep. They’re the real pervs!
It’s definitely a pithy summary of the difference in policy. To be more explicit, the only major constituency for increasing the material help for most things related to children are Democrats, because while Republicans may make general motions about caring about families, the combination needing to assert conservative sexual mores and aversion to the normal welfare state, that is assistance to the poor, means that at most there’s not going to be much in the way of actually helping the families, especially new families who are relatively more poor than others, while plenty of movement in rolling back women’s choices. At most I’d say there’s going to be the Quiverfull Tax Credits that, as usual, benefit rich families and leave poor, new or old, families out.
Hell there was even one of those “Trump’s turned over a new leaf” acts but with anti abortionists where conservatives were saying “Now that we’ve banned abortion, it’s time to open up support for new mothers.” Of course, like Trump, things just kept being the same.
In fact, I’m going to bet if you were to do a scatterplot of support for families against abortion restrictions, I’d almost bet you’d see a strong inverse correlation between material support for women, infants, children and families and abortion restrictions.
1 Like
Except Conservatives aren’t just making some value neutral statement that “having sex has consequences.” They are actively using their political power to shape what those consequences are.
For example, when Conservatives were trying to restrict access to the HPV vaccine, they clearly said that one of the reasons is that they thought premarital sex rates would increase if the risk of HPV transmission was reduced. Reagan and others ignored the AIDS crisis for years because of an implicit (and sometimes explicit) belief that that was an appropriate punishment for homosexuality.
To slighly modify your analogy, yes, there are consequences to stepping off a cliff. Because of that, liberals want to put up some guardrails around the edge and maybe install a net to catch people while Conservatives are running around with a sawzall trying to cut down the rails.
9 Likes
And he has millions of young men following him.
Lagtight’s use of the word “fornication” really helps explain his beliefs, because apparently he’s about 137 years old.
8 Likes
As I noted in my previous response to this post, the bolded is false.
Probably best not to assume what someone believes about a given topic. If we want to know someone’s opinion, we should ask them what it is rather than producing a rant such as the above based on a false assumption.
Man, we’re all just tired of hearing about the orange guy and his angry, violent cult of dipshits every single day for years and years. .
To quote Mr. Spock: “You proceed from a false assumption.”
Protestant views on contraception - Wikipedia
A snippet:
In general, most liberal Protestants, such as the United Church of Christ, hold relatively settled views that accept the use of contraception, while conservative evangelicals denominations mostly also accept the use of contraception; however, some evangelicals are divided on the issue, with a small minority of denominations seeing natural family planning as the only permissible method.[1]
Wikipedia has spoken! 