Homosexual "marriage" advocates lie; anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Is banning “gay marriage” discrimination? No. Under the legal system prior to the legalization of such unions, anyone was free to marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter your gender, race, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation. You are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, and the law is applied equally to all people, so banning “gay marriage” is not discrimination.
As far as homosexuals being allowed to do what they desire, why not let anyone from a cookie thief to a child molester do what they want, homosexuals included? We ban certain things because in a society, culture matters — if we live in a culture of sexual perversion, we will get the consequences of that culture.
If the gays want to win their argument, they are going to have to re-tool their propaganda machine — the current line is too obvious a lie.
US government-backed group to lie and trick men into being sterilized.
After major world events where someone attacks the US or one of her strong allies, news reporters always ask “Why do they hate us?” Libertarian/conservative types always respond “Because they hate our freedom” — a stupid reply. Liberals ignore the question — also stupid. They hate us because what we do to them.
Add to that list forced sterilization of African men in Rwanda.
The United States government-backed Family Health International plans to use misinformation about circumcision preventing AIDs to get to men’s reproductive systems to sterilize them. If successful, they will sterilize 700,000 men. How many will look to the US for revenge?
From time to time our readers send in questions. Most are handled privately but in the future we may use more for teaching opportunities. Jason from Wakefield, Massachusetts asks: “I really like what you say about divorce. I’ve been dating my girlfriend for about two years know but I don’t know if I want to marry her. I’d like to have kids but she wants to finish her PhD first — and then maybe have kids. Should we get married?”
Jason, you’ve just about hit the nail on the head. The intent to have children is the only logical reason for two people to marry. It sounds like you want kids but she isn’t so certain. With something so important as that, you have to be on the same page. Getting married and waiting years (or decades) to have children is insane. Chances are, you’ll wreck your marriage.
My advice is to let her pursue her PhD. You should meet other people. Before you marry someone, you need to ask, “Are they going to make a great mom for my children?” The answer to that question needs to be the #1 reason you make your decision to marry or not. Hopefully the next girl you meet makes better mother material than your current girlfriend.
Anyone else with a question can email us — see our about tab.
President Obama’s healthcare law (Obamacare) does a lot of things — but it is most known for putting control of healthcare into the government’s hands and for requiring everyone to own a health insurance policy (universal mandate). There is good reason many are concerned — increased healthcare costs, increased taxes, and the problem of what to do with the sick when the money is gone. But when everything is all said and done, people will still be born, they will still be raised by their parents, learn, grow, eventually marry and have kids, grow old, and die. The new healthcare law can make certain things more difficult, but family life will still happen. And that is what is most important.
Reagan's no-fault divorce has destroyed the fabric of American life, strong families.
Now contrast Obamacare with no-fault divorce. Before no-fault divorce, divorce was difficult. There needed to be evidence of wrong-doing and it was even more difficult if both parties did not consent. After the passage of no-fault divorce (thank you Ronald Reagan), children are often not raised in a stable two-parent home. Traditional marriage, as an institution, is in retreat. The whim of one infects all. It doesn’t matter what the other partner wants. It doesn’t matter what is the best for the children. All that matters is that one person is free to pursue their own selfish will. Children no longer have mom or dad (or suffer from custody fights) and they endure all the results of losing a parent. We know the statistics about suicide, about academic failure, about behavior problems, crime, etc.
The fact of the matter is that, under Obamacare, people will continue to live their lives much as men have for the past generations. With no-fault divorce, we change the family and the world we live. Significantly.
So why do the state legislatures, courts, and congress ignore this real evil that needs to be addressed?
There is zero value in parents allowing their children to watch TV. Zero. The fact of the matter is that parents are busy — too busy for their children. TV is the babysitter, it is the narcotic, it is the weapon of choice for keeping kids occupied. The problem is divorce. The problem is problem is two-income households. And the problem is poor parenting.
So here are a few facts about television.
The truth about television:
Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680.
Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5.
Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54.
Television is child abuse.
“Millions of Americans are so hooked on television that they fit the criteria for substance abuse as defined in the official psychiatric manual, according to Rutgers University psychologist.”
“Heavy TV viewers exhibit five dependency symptoms–two more than necessary to arrive at a clinical diagnosis of substance abuse. These include: 1) using TV as a sedative; 2) indiscriminate viewing; 3) feeling loss of control while viewing; 4) feeling angry with oneself for watching too much; 5) inability to stop watching; and 6) feeling miserable when kept from watching.”
“The media can wreak great harm on the family when it offers an inadequate or even distorted vision of life, of the family itself and of religion and morality.”– Pope John Paul II, May 2004
Parents, your children cannot benefit from television in any meaningful way. TV will only harm them. Get rid of your TV. Use the shotgun method. Use the 10-story building method. Drive over it like a monster truck. Involve your kids. Make it an outing with mom and dad. They will appreciate it now and when they are grown.
Turn off the TV!
And for when you are outside of your home and want to eliminate the unnecessary distraction, we always recommend TV B Gone.
A housewife and mother possess more power and influence in the world than a city full of voting men, for only she can create new life — and it is she, more than any other, that influences how the next generation will think.
It is not a shock that there are many women, like the woman in this video, who recognize their duties are vastly superior to the banal duties of men — and it is women such as these who would give to their husbands their vote. Should women have the freedom to transfer their vote to their husband? Ballot below.
Comments appreciated: Does full women’s suffrage include the freedom to give her vote to her husband?
Hilaire Belloc criticizes Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” with basic arithmetic:
“The exceptional product of two exceptionally endowed parents – such as a cock and a hen who glory in slightly webbed feet–diminishes in geometrical proportion with ever generation. If one in a hundred display this tiny original advantage, in the next generation only one in ten thousand will fully show the benefit, let alone increase it; and in the third generation only one in a million.”