Strong leaders are required to control some regions.
The West likes to demonise strong leaders who are forced to do some distasteful things (in our eyes living in "peaceful" nations) in order to keep order.
I strongly believe that Putin is doing what is best for Russia, like Trump was doing what's best for America.
"But Putin is against homosexuals", yeah, because he knows that the "slipery slope" is real. Just look at where the West is now.
Homosexuality used to be quietly accepted in the West, as in if you keep it quiet and don't flaunt it, then people will keep quiet about it. Now we have gay marches in the West and have moved on to the completely evil idea that "well we accept gay people as a sexual orientation, so why don't we accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation?".
I am ashamedly one of those people who didn't used to believe in the slippery slope argument, but I now realise it was totally correct.
Sexuality, sex, fetishes etc. those should all be kept private and not promoted within society.
The primary goal of a society is survival and the best way to do that is to focus society on the interests of children, which is to have an intact family with a mother and father and to keep children away from all things sexual. There's more to it, of course, but we should all agree that's a good start!
I understand what you’re saying to a degree, but the right isn’t always right either. TL;DR gay marriage cannot be logically or morally illegal when the church is supposed to be separate from the state. Like it or not, you can’t make religious arguments against it when an atheist and a Jew can walk into any courthouse and get married. Of course, no church should be compelled to perform them. The fact remains however that the government grants marital privileges that have nothing to do with religion. The only logical argument is that the government should stay out of marriage completely, and it should remain within the church.
“But the slippery slope and polygamy.” The government does not currently recognize polygamy.
The flaunting of it needs to do a 180 though. We don’t need a gay character in every piece of media. And of course children shouldn’t be exposed to anything sexual.
I'm not a right or left winger, I believe In freedom. Wanna be gay, go-ahead. Make sure I never hear about it as of you bring it into my sphere I will protect that sphere. I'll then openly oppose your shit.
I didn't hire gay people when I was in the position of hiring if they were blatant about it.
Come ro an interview with any of the following:
florescent color3d hair
Painted nails
Rainbow patches
Eccentric look at me accouterments.
Having said that, I hired at least 2 gay men who came in and interviewed well. Kept it about the job MD i didn't even find out until much later they were gay.
Didn't care, good employees amd no drama. I'm not out to hurt people but if you come to hire with an agenda you will advertise it. Trannies, wouldn't even interview them. May as well go to the mental hospital and hire people.
I agree with this 100%. My overall point about gay marriage was how the Right likes to look at it like a slippery slope without stepping back and considering the slippery slope the government has been on for decades. I shouldn’t be able to pluck a random schmuck off the streets and pay less in taxes after legally marrying them but here we are.
I have no problem with people being gay at all. I have some gay friends and worked with gay people, it's no issue at all.
But there is a part of the gay culture that is just not good for society, much like there are parts of heterosexual culture that are bad for society (fetish groups, partner swapping, cuckolding etc).
The purpose of hiding that degeneracy away is to keep children and impressionable minds from seeing it.
Sexuality is supposed to be private and kept out of the public view. Do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, but keep that off the TV and out of the public discourse.
Can an argument be made for the purpose of the law? Is the law in place to protect the status of marriage and the dependents that live within it? Or is the law in place to protect the "rights" of the consenting adult, regardless of the impact on society or laws that govern the rights of the married?
In blue states, children are treated as chattel by the state when a divorce occurs.
The toxic, parasitic behavior of each spouse is tolerated as they have the right to be "imperfect" rather than a duty to be "good enough" parents or spouses.
I am no legal expert, but come from the perspective of dealing with the fall out of hedonism as a Clinician.
The problem with gay marriage is the contradiction to natural law. If gays can marry, anyone can marry...so marry you mother?! Gays can form partnerships to share property, but marriage insinuates children, whether you have any or not. The state has an interest in protecting children. I remember when gays were saying they just wanted to be left alone...how's that going now?
That’s the problem, consenting gay adult couples COULDN’T share property or healthcare privileges before they had state marriage privileges. That’s my overall point, the government needs to stay out what consenting adults wish to do. (The government in general is too big.)
I live in a red state and right now I know of a father who was denied emergency custody of a child who was severely and permanently injured after being left unattended by their incompetent mother and this is not the first incident. How’s that going, the state protecting children?
And LEGALLY marriage does not insinuate children at all. You can get married to any random schmuck off the street for money, Healthcare, and even better tax rates. If marriage is supposed to be sacred, how is that sacred? That’s why I said the government needs to stay out of it.
Strong leaders are required to control some regions.
The West likes to demonise strong leaders who are forced to do some distasteful things (in our eyes living in "peaceful" nations) in order to keep order.
I strongly believe that Putin is doing what is best for Russia, like Trump was doing what's best for America.
"But Putin is against homosexuals", yeah, because he knows that the "slipery slope" is real. Just look at where the West is now.
Homosexuality used to be quietly accepted in the West, as in if you keep it quiet and don't flaunt it, then people will keep quiet about it. Now we have gay marches in the West and have moved on to the completely evil idea that "well we accept gay people as a sexual orientation, so why don't we accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation?".
I am ashamedly one of those people who didn't used to believe in the slippery slope argument, but I now realise it was totally correct.
Sexuality, sex, fetishes etc. those should all be kept private and not promoted within society.
The primary goal of a society is survival and the best way to do that is to focus society on the interests of children, which is to have an intact family with a mother and father and to keep children away from all things sexual. There's more to it, of course, but we should all agree that's a good start!
I understand what you’re saying to a degree, but the right isn’t always right either. TL;DR gay marriage cannot be logically or morally illegal when the church is supposed to be separate from the state. Like it or not, you can’t make religious arguments against it when an atheist and a Jew can walk into any courthouse and get married. Of course, no church should be compelled to perform them. The fact remains however that the government grants marital privileges that have nothing to do with religion. The only logical argument is that the government should stay out of marriage completely, and it should remain within the church.
“But the slippery slope and polygamy.” The government does not currently recognize polygamy.
The flaunting of it needs to do a 180 though. We don’t need a gay character in every piece of media. And of course children shouldn’t be exposed to anything sexual.
I'm not a right or left winger, I believe In freedom. Wanna be gay, go-ahead. Make sure I never hear about it as of you bring it into my sphere I will protect that sphere. I'll then openly oppose your shit.
I didn't hire gay people when I was in the position of hiring if they were blatant about it.
Come ro an interview with any of the following:
Having said that, I hired at least 2 gay men who came in and interviewed well. Kept it about the job MD i didn't even find out until much later they were gay.
Didn't care, good employees amd no drama. I'm not out to hurt people but if you come to hire with an agenda you will advertise it. Trannies, wouldn't even interview them. May as well go to the mental hospital and hire people.
Well said, fren.
I agree with this 100%. My overall point about gay marriage was how the Right likes to look at it like a slippery slope without stepping back and considering the slippery slope the government has been on for decades. I shouldn’t be able to pluck a random schmuck off the streets and pay less in taxes after legally marrying them but here we are.
Shouldn't have to pay taxes either.
Well put.
Yep, I agree.
I have no problem with people being gay at all. I have some gay friends and worked with gay people, it's no issue at all.
But there is a part of the gay culture that is just not good for society, much like there are parts of heterosexual culture that are bad for society (fetish groups, partner swapping, cuckolding etc).
The purpose of hiding that degeneracy away is to keep children and impressionable minds from seeing it.
Sexuality is supposed to be private and kept out of the public view. Do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, but keep that off the TV and out of the public discourse.
What someone does isn’t what someone is.
It’s wrong, and it’s because we have a weak society that we see people act weak
Can an argument be made for the purpose of the law? Is the law in place to protect the status of marriage and the dependents that live within it? Or is the law in place to protect the "rights" of the consenting adult, regardless of the impact on society or laws that govern the rights of the married?
In blue states, children are treated as chattel by the state when a divorce occurs. The toxic, parasitic behavior of each spouse is tolerated as they have the right to be "imperfect" rather than a duty to be "good enough" parents or spouses.
I am no legal expert, but come from the perspective of dealing with the fall out of hedonism as a Clinician.
The problem with gay marriage is the contradiction to natural law. If gays can marry, anyone can marry...so marry you mother?! Gays can form partnerships to share property, but marriage insinuates children, whether you have any or not. The state has an interest in protecting children. I remember when gays were saying they just wanted to be left alone...how's that going now?
That’s the problem, consenting gay adult couples COULDN’T share property or healthcare privileges before they had state marriage privileges. That’s my overall point, the government needs to stay out what consenting adults wish to do. (The government in general is too big.)
I live in a red state and right now I know of a father who was denied emergency custody of a child who was severely and permanently injured after being left unattended by their incompetent mother and this is not the first incident. How’s that going, the state protecting children?
And LEGALLY marriage does not insinuate children at all. You can get married to any random schmuck off the street for money, Healthcare, and even better tax rates. If marriage is supposed to be sacred, how is that sacred? That’s why I said the government needs to stay out of it.