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.
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.
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.
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.