She doesn't know.
What do we tell the children?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
She doesn't know.
His name is Top, but he's a bottom.
Tell that shit to OwlWoman who went into hiding behing the ignore the first time I made that cunt look like a fool.
It's all over the forum how much control I have over her. All I have to do is demand she show it and she quickly obliges.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Same sex supporters, when posed with that scenario, have said that there are male-female marriages where there is no offspring and if that is an argument against same sex marriages, it should be one against marriages where the couple has no intention of having children. It's easily debunked.
When a male-female couple chooses not to have children, that is a result of a personal choice. When a same sex couple can't have biological children, it's not a choice, it's biology.
A friend of mine and his wife weren't able to have children. After testing, it was determined it wasn't one or the other but both unable to do so. They adopted. Their inability to have biological children was due to medical conditions they couldn't control not a choice to marry the same sex producing the biological impossibility of doing so.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Yeah, it’s a vapid argument.
The institution of marriage is [well, was] centered around the concept of procreation and *not* whether every single couple are able to procreate. And I think they actually knew this but they were determined to have their way.
The reason the institution was set up that way was to ensure that kids would be created and raised in a stable environment with [ideally] good role models as parents. And society would benefit from it. And it did.
When so many put children before marriage, the bastard birth rate being 40% overall with blacks being over 75%, it has shown that an unstable environment results in many cases. Society does not benefit from a 40% illegitimate birth rate. Children in single parent households face tougher times due to that instability.
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
Yes, exactly. A socialist administration innately desires BIG ,centralised government and central planning by that BIG government since it still (in 2020) ultimately seeks to control/own the means of production and prohibit private property The socialist BIG government is like a gigantic octopus whose tentacles reach out into society strangling the freedom of individual citizens conscience and thereby their FREEDOM. The citizen is bound up with myriad bureaucratic rules and regulations and government programs and restrictive legislation that have been concocted by a small elite cadre of government social engineer and social planners who think that they understand the phenomenally complex and dynamic essence of human nature and politics.
Basically, what ALWAYS happens is that socialism and its big intrusive, authoritarian, omnipresent government turns individuals in its society into slaves who have no FREEDOM. In the socialist state, the Christian libertarian ideal of maximising individual FREEDOM and minimising government interference in people's lives, is intentionally turned completely on it head. Any political order, like socialism, that prohibits the individuals freedom of conscience to act as they believe duty demands is doomed. Because to do this is to strangle the very essence of individual human nature, and that is not a sustainable state of affairs. The socialist political system that attempts this WILL fall; tragically, in the 20th century, a number of then seized power and then took 120,000,000 innocent lives with them on the way down. There is an example of profound moral evil for you.
Dachshund
Last edited:
Dachshynddawg
Verified User
Well, did you have the talk yet? ( PS...If you took them to school today, go back and get them...Schools are closed for the holiday
Excellent post.
Thanks.
Socialism, where the misery is shared, equally.
The control of goods and services (Socialism) is just a hop, skip and jump from the ownership of goods and services (Communism).
They are both anathema to Capitalism, freedom and prosperity.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
No, I'm speaking of the president in general. Should the president's personal life and values matter?
The reason the Fascists won't answer this question is because they don't care about the president's personal life, but they want to pretend it matters when the president is a Democrat. That's why instead of answering the question, you brought up Bill Clinton.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Most likely it was because she couldn't defend what she believes. It's easy to not have to do so when you go into hiding then blame the other person for your inabilities.
Doesn't change that I have control over her and can get her to respond in the manner I desire simply by saying so.
No, an explanation of the double standard by lefties.
I don't care either way as long as it's done the same for all. You lefties have shown you make the determination depending on who is in office.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
I have noticed that many of the Hollywood left wing, elitist type chastise the President on his number of marriages. The problem with that is many have been married as many times, or more, than Trump.