Incestuals and beastuals need to do a better job marketing themselves. They should just add themselves to the LGBTIB cause and piggy back those other causes to get enough sympathy for themselves.
I'm not sure that it's actually true that producing more kids is better for the government or civilization as a whole. There's the concept of the carrying capacity of the land, a concept in which overpopulation is a bad thing. We see the effects of overpopulation in many different ways but the clearest ways are those that effect the natural environment. Human civilization arose in a particular set of environmental conditions. It is unlikely to prosper in the changed environmental conditions that overpopulation creates. The Middle East isn't the land of Milk and Honey anymore. It's an arid desert filled with angry combative people competing for scarce resources.
I didn't say they didn't want more kids (and taxpayers). I just said that it wasn't at all clear that having more kids was actually better for us. Capitalism and specifically the John Maynard Keynes variety wants lots of people to do lots of spending to keep the economy moving and revenues flowing in. The Club For Growth (sort of Milton Friedman but not totally) variant wants lots of people to do lots of spending so that taxes can be cut without slowing the overall spending cycle. It's not clear that either variant has any coherent plan for trying to manage an economy that is essentially a demographic pyramid scheme, especially when the costs of doing business on the environment and overall health front begin to come due.
This is just such a stupid argument. Has any of that happened? When it does, argue against it. Until then, what skin is it off your apple if two people of the same sex love each other and want the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. Explain the harm in that? What in the world is wrong with a gay couple wanting the same rights to commit to each other as heterosexuals? Have you no empathy or common decency toward fellow human beings? Here you go- refute this quote from the majority decision by Kennedy “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” That pretty much sums it up.
The religious position on Gay Marriage is essentially formed off of the teachings of a culture many thousands of years ago where a man was the ruler of his household and owned all the women in it and procreated with whom he damn pleased to procreate. Women who didn't agree with his demands and men of lesser status were stoned to death legally when they chose to actually love and procreate with somebody else. God help you (not) if your proclivities ran to anything else. They've tidied up the various good books over the years to make the mayhem and horror present in early monotheism less apparent but there's only so much you can do with the Old Testament...
I sort of tend to agree, except the inevitable cost to be reckoned with, (and btw..the environment is doing just fine except for the alarmism) is the overall cost of the middleman. People need to wise up and realize how much overhead our Oligarchs in D.C. add to the equation. And thats a serious trickle down effect...which is why Fairfax VA is one of the wealthiest enclaves n the US. It's a Company town. Of the US Government.
Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay ‘marriage’, starting at 4 years old https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/l...-kids-to-accept-gay-marriage-starting-at-4-ye
Yeah. How terrible to teach kids tolerance and how stupid and ignorant bigotry is. None of those kids will grow up gay because of these lessons. You are what you are. But these kids are growing up without the burden of " ridiculous" stereotypes and unfounded biases and hatred of people they don't even know. Most people under 30 have a "live and let live" attitude and the world will be a better place for it.
Most won't remember such a teaching. All I'm saying is leave the kids out of this. Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk
4 year old kids don't think about sex. most don't understand the concept of tolerance. so why are we teaching them about homos? do you think we should teach them about trannies too? how about we teach them what butt fucking is all about? no one said they were going to grow up gay, that's a ridiculous strawman. congrats. I don't have any problem with fags and dikes getting married, that's their own business and I'm glad the government made this ruling. when teachers start talking about gay couples to my 4 year old I have a problem with that. politicizing children is just wrong. that's exactly what this whore is doing too.
You miss the main point. Regardless of whether you can argue there is positive social value in doing so, sex and sexual orientation has no place in being part of the kindergarten curriculum and it reveals a serious lack of judgement on the part of the teacher to believe her agenda should supersede what is plainly not only inappropriate but academically irrelevant. Defending her actions reveals the same.
Just to confirm/play devils advocate you would make the same argument if the teacher was presenting anti gay material to the children as well?
