I went through these backwards. Thank you for responding. I appreciate it. These responses are not well thought through at all, just keeping track of some of my thoughts.

The atomic family is not natural, true. But likewise, American society, with its broad range of cultures and peoples living in it, is incompatible with a communal effort to raise children anymore. Nuclear family is the best solution for this that I can see.

Homes were part of the ancestral environment. They weren’t always in the same place, but even a teepee is a home. They moved seasonally, not every day.

Yes, we are seeing the effects of divorce and fatherlessness on children.

Not single parent. Mother stays home with the children, father goes to work and comes home. Both parents.

Are they operating successfully? Women paid 77 cents less than men for the same work, and one of the largest contributors to that is that women, on average across the board, underestimate the value of their work and don’t ask for raises? Women having to work jobs and pick up children from school, take care of them when sick, etc., it is no wonder the average family only has two kids now. On top of that, childless women report feeling depression, regret, and a strong desire to have children at around age 30. Women want to have children, but the economic demands on them are to have full careers. It is incredibly difficult, and I don’t see the state of motherhood now as more successful than it was with the nuclear family.

Marriage is not just efficient, although it is, but it is naturally how we are organized. It’s so fundamental I can’t even explain it with my own thoughts, though I am sure there is an argument out there. One man and one woman, across all cultures and societies.

I guess it could be both. Good point. When i say grasping for power, I am mostly talking about the way a feminist argument would say that men are inherently oppressing women by taking positions of power in society.

Men are the ones who build large, expansive structures. Look at the military, the church, the government. Historically that is how it has happened, I guess you could say it couldn’t be women because they were not in a position of power to do so so I should find a better argument for this.

Most societies.

Meant by the biological calling of each gender. We are more alike than different, but we have our differences, hence the vast majority male prison population and such.

It may not be fixed biologically completely, but heavily influenced at least.

Cruel domination can be natural. I am claiming that men being in power and exercising it is not inherently cruel. Men exercising power can be extraordinarily cruel and evil, like Stalin or Kim Jong-Un. It’s not inherently cruel.

No it doesn’t, but just want to refute this interpretation.

I agree with you on the new habits of media consumption, such as social media, and especially the echo chambers. As much as I want to believe that what I believe came from a neutral position, in reality the algorithms of every online media platform have kept myself and even yourself from experiencing legitimate arguments against our beliefs.

It is also intriguing that the political divide is now rural/urban. You are right, urban voters, suburban voters, and rural voters all have extremely different experiences of life. No matter what my political beliefs are, I can’t see myself living in the city and not voting Democrat, because they support these public policies and social programs that are simply necessary to run a city, but nor for a suburb or a rural area.

Thank you for calling me out on the straw man. I should have worded my thoughts more carefully: “Attacking all Trump voters on the basis of a small minority of his voter base is a shallow attack. There are extreme groups of people in each party, which the majority of party voters do not share political beliefs with.”

This quote is from a book called “Biblical Literalism.” I believe that this bishop’s literal interpretation of the “fall from perfection” is inappropriate and theologically inaccurate. My personal understanding (I didn’t think of this myself, just what I believe) of the “fall from perfection” is more like an awakening from unconscious to conscious. Reading the story of the Garden of Eden closely, the timeline of events is: 1, Adam and Eve eat the apple and become conscious “like God,” 2, God discovers them and their awareness, and 3, God punishes them by removing them from the Garden of Eden. First, Adam and Eve eating the apple represents our own desire to be God. We were living in perfection and the immense beauty of God’s creation, and we still wanted more. Second, God discovers us in our conscious state, when Adam and Eve dresses themselves. We became self-aware, and then ashamed of ourselves. We could see how weak we were, and how strong God was. God is loving and forgiving, but also all-powerful, and even though we are invited to walk with Him, we are scared to do so. Third, God punishes them. This is the “fall from perfection.” We were sent out of the Garden of Eden to feel the suffering of the world. When we do not walk with God when He invites us, we suffer. So, the “fall from perfection” isn’t a literal reduced state of being, or that God made us biologically inferior to whatever we supposedly were in the Garden of Eden. The fall from perfection explains the suffering we experience in life, illustrates humanity’s wish to be God, and even gives us insight on our fear of walking with God and dealing with our conscious thoughts. After all, life would be much less strenuous if we were unconscious beings, who did not have to think about morality. The priest’s literal interpretation of us being physically perfect is not accurate.

Moving back on topic,

If you don’t think science and religion go together, please bring up an argument. I do see how the quotes were cherry-picked, as many of those scientists lived in a society that forced religion into everyone. However, even with most scientists being atheists, believing in God is rational and there are scientific arguments for God. I wish for you to respond.

Anyone saying that Trump voters just hate minorities are ill-informed. Most Americans on either side of the aisle are more same than different. Racists and other extreme groups fall on the right-side, but marxists and other extreme groups fall on the left. There are extremes on both sides.

I will acknowledge the rise of an extreme, or alt right-wing in recent years. I would like to hear people’s thoughts for the cause of this rise. Personally, I think the political correctness and the left-lean in most educational and corporate institutions is causing the reaction from young men who do not wish to comply with their ideology. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?