None taken. From now on I will post in black in the political section.
And your correct, it's nice to see some other right/libertarians on here. For a long time it was only P4B, me, and one or two others.
Printable View
None taken. From now on I will post in black in the political section.
And your correct, it's nice to see some other right/libertarians on here. For a long time it was only P4B, me, and one or two others.
What the heck? The institution of marriage today is a joke. Get out of the 1950s, the nuclear family no longer exists. The most common type of *families* in this world are struggling single mothers, who much better deserve all the resources being squandered on preserving what is the minority, nuclear families...Quote:
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
Nobody is entitled to hand outs, not even,"poor little helpeless" "single mothers" If you don't want to be a "poor little helpeless" "single mother" then don't have kids if you can't provide for . :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajpoj
This is just an example of what has become or is becoming the acceptable attitude , "No I have no accoutability for my actions. The government owes me anyway! If I pop out a kid that I can't take care of by god the "rich" SHOULD PAY for it! They owe me, I am entitled to it!" PUKE!
Not to mention that implying that anyone that is a single mother must be so stupid that they can't possibly make it witout the fed "helping" them is pathetic!
God forbid someone just work hard and earn what they want huh? Why do that when we can make them dependant on the federal government for food, shelter, health care, ect...gives liberals job security, and an excuse to take money from people that work their asses off and overcome all sorts of tough circumstances and re-distribute it to the "have nots". And of course it sures up the base, because people that ARE dependant on the government for handouts, will only vote for the politicians that are advocating giving them handouts! That's why I laugh my ass off when libs talk about poverty, the poor, the unfortunate, ect....they don't want any of those problems to go away! They don't want people to be able to take care of themselves! It's not in their political intrests! The democratic party is completley dependant on keeping people in those conditions! What garbage! Not the country I want for my kids! :D
I am also confused as to how "resources being squandered on preserving what is the minority, nuclear families", enlighten all of us please!! Do you understand "how" the federal government spends money, who it is TAKEN from, and who it is GIVEN to? Single mothers, that are "poor" (according to you "deserve" handouts" don't pay federal income taxes, but they sure as hell benefit from "nuclear families" that pay federal income taxes on their earned income. :thumbsup:
THANK YOU! Finally SOMEONE gets it!Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Wow you guys took that the wrong way. I'm trying to establish how the "sanctity of marriage" are never grounds to stand on when trying to suppress gay marriage.
The families that John McCain describe are very few compared to vast majority of Americans that have grown up in less than "standard" family arrangements, and society is still functioning fine because of it. It's preposterous for McCain to claim that protecting sanctity is important to society, when there is no evidence to support this.
ps. I'm a feminist and a womens studies major and no, the majority of these women that I'm describing are hard-working moms that have to deal with dead-beat dads. I'm not talking about those on welfare.
But lets go there: Poor mothers should starve while millions are wasted on a campaign(marriage) claiming something that is not? We "rich" already gave up our tax dollars, I'd rather see it feed people than wasted at this point...
Matrilineal societies are the most backward in the world. If you want societies to go back to the stone age, that's your ticket. Most youth gangs are made up of children from exactly the type of homes that you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajpoj
What we should do is stop all government support and forced child-support payments to women and girls that breed children out of wedlock. If private institutions and charities want to help them, that's fine - but the taxpayers should not be the ones to foot the bill for their offspring.
Anthropologist Margaret Mead was in favor of permanent marriages, for couples that desire to have children. She also believed in pre-marriage education, formal agreements, and counseling - for the benefit of the children. I would support a law that only allows divorce after all children are in their upper teens.
Married people that are not interested in having children would be free to divorce as they please.
First of all, it's no surprise that you are learning "feminist" theory in college. You are too young to remember when the overwhelming majority of children had a mother and a father in their homes, and divorces were a rare thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajpoj
If a man and woman are not married, or have some kind of formal, legal agreement regarding children, why should the man have to pay for a child? There is such a thing as birth control and abortion. If a woman is not capable of supporting a child herself, those are the other choices.
If we MUST have divorces, then the father should get automatic custody of the children. The best way to solve the "dead beat dads" issue is to give them back their roles as provider and head of the household - so that it becomes integrated into our society again. Men should have rights along with responsiblities. Most fathers have very little of the former.
Just for the record, I don't care for the religious "sanctity" argument. It has nothing to do with religion - it's a question of logic and compassion.
...[/quote]Wow you guys took that the wrong way. ...[/quote]
"The most common type of *families* in this world are struggling single mothers, who much better deserve all the resources being squandered on preserving what is the minority, nuclear families... "
Really? Because I quoted you ver batum? Where were you talking about gay marriage? I missed it.:wtf:
...[/quote]I'm trying to establish how the "sanctity of marriage" are never grounds to stand on when trying to suppress gay marriage....[/quote]
Why not? I believe that comes down to "subjective" or philosophical views, are you saying that people that believe in the sanctity of marriage and are opposed to gay marriage can't express or advocate their position because you say so? And why no mention of gay marriage in the previous post if that's what you "meant" Here are your exact words again:
"The most common type of *families* in this world are struggling single mothers, who much better deserve all the resources being squandered on preserving what is the minority, nuclear families... "
...[/quote]The families that John McCain describe are very few ...[/quote]
Really? Is that an opinion, or fact? What is very few? Less than 10%, or less than 50%. Last I checked the majority rules here, if they are such a small minority, then how are they getting their intrests represented in our government? O, I forgot, it's because there is a vast right wing conspiracy to hunt poor people for sport from black helicopters! Silly me.
...[/quote]compared to vast majority of Americans that have grown up in less than "standard" family arrangements, and society is still functioning fine because of it. It's preposterous for McCain to claim that protecting sanctity is important to society, when there is no evidence to support this....[/quote]
No evidence huh? How do you sustain a population without heterosexual procreation? I am so confused? I would also suggest to you that there is plenty of evidence. I think it would be a question of whether or not you would even acknowledge it.
...[/quote]ps. I'm a feminist and a womens studies major and no, the majority of these women that I'm describing are hard-working moms that have to deal with dead-beat dads. I'm not talking about those on welfare....[/quote]
What do you call who much better deserve all the resources, I assume that the "resources" are liberal code for government handouts and redistribution of wealth. If it's not then what are you talking about?:wtf:
Yeah it's all the "dead beat dads fault", the women that choose to concieve children with men like this have no accountability at all they are completely innocent victims huh? And not only that, I should have to give them the money that I earn, lord knows they are more entitled to it, since they can fuck and have kids with no hope of supporting them. Unless you are talking about some super natural occurence when some women becomes pregnant, then I don't feel sorry for any of them. Like I said, don't make babies if you cannot afford to provide for them, and don't expect me or anyone else to provide for you. I work for my family, not yours. If people want to be generous and help great! If some turd in government wants to take my money just because they "think" it's the right thing to do then fuck ya!:D
"The most common type of *families* in this world are struggling single mothers, who much better deserve all the resources being squandered on preserving what is the minority, nuclear families... "
News to me!!!! Single mothers make up the majority of American households!!! You heard hear first! If we are just going to make stuff up then I say, vote McCain, he has a goose that shits gold eggs!!! We'll be the richest nation ever!!!!:D
"The most common type of *families* in this world are struggling single mothers, who much better deserve all the resources being squandered on preserving what is the minority, nuclear families... "
Those are your exact words, again, ver batum. Just because you are "hard working" does not mean that you are struggling. Most of the people I know that are "struggling" are so because of their own personal choices, not because of anything that the government did to them. Most people struggle at some point in their lives, the people that perservere are the ones that bust their asses, the ones that don't, look for handouts.
...[/quote]But lets go there: Poor mothers should starve while millions are wasted on a campaign(marriage) claiming something that is not? We "rich" already gave up our tax dollars, I'd rather see it feed people than wasted at this point...[/quote]
So now there is an epidemic of "poor starving single mothers", and the federal government is spending money on "campaigning for marriage"? I would love to see you support either of those claims with facts, not opinions. How many poor single mothers died due to starvation last year? How many millons of dollars did the government spend "campaigning for marriage"? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support either of those to claims.
"It's preposterous " is about right.:toilet_claw:
Hey rebgirl, if she's a feminist what's that make you?:D
woops, didn't realize I posted and was still editing. GDP Hash(fire!!) + kush oil on top of a bowl of HC Snowcap. ooohm
I love this forum . . . i know thats nothing profound or anything, but . . . :jointsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by rebgirl420