4 y.o. boy is fine with gay marriage http://americablog.com/2014/09/4-y-o-boy-fine-gay-marriage.html ------------------------------------------------- It should really put a great many adults to shame that this four year old boy understands the premise of love and gay marriage whereas many adults apparently do not. The boy's mother simply asks him questions about a male couple and he answers directly and truthfully as he sees it. KUDOS to this four year old boy for having such great insight as he is one whom adults should learn to emulate.
Very disgusting. First she leads the boy to answer as she wishes favorably towards gay marriage, then leads to boy to want violence and to feel hatred towards those who do not agree. Imagine how much hatred and violence she is going to continue to instill in that little boy. Using and abusing that little boy in this was is truly disgusting.
Homophobes deserve hatred and disgust. When you want to make second class citizens of a relatively large segment of the population, you don't deserve to be taken seriously and have your ideas seriously considered. You deserve to be ridiculed. And don't even try to claim the high ground over me. I've earned my anger. I would need to commit a lot of evil deeds just to make things even.
At the age of four a kid is simply trying to anticipate what Mom wants him to say. He looks at her to see if the visual cues are the same as the verbal cues in her tone to guide his answers. this tells me her values, which of course I like, but I don't confuse them with his. he doesn't even really understand what 'in love' is.
You have posted you only care about whatever gets you what you want for yourself. But go ahead and tell us all that you have terribly suffered in tangible terms.
I'm willing to be ruthless and hypocritical for my goals because I genuinely believe they're the only humane and decent options.
Marriage is not, was not and never has been limited to men and women in order to make second class citizens of homosexuals. It is instead to improve the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce. Limited to men and women for the exact same reason this statute and similar statutes are limited to men and women in all 50 states. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if: (1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage; Its BIOLOGY.
It doesn't matter what fake reasons you might come up with, it's de facto discriminatory because of the objective material impact it has. And let's be honest: Those aren't the actual reasons for anything. You're full of it.
The "humane" and "decent" thing is to be "ruthless" and "hypocritical?" Then it is reasonable for other people to be ruthless and hypocritical to get what they want too. Fair is as fair does. Curiously, I tend to agree with you in some regards. Anyone who believes in "fairness" is foolish, as is someone who makes their life about declaring unfair victimhood. "It's unfair!" and "I'm a victim" is not only worthless, but usually self destructive as a more a self imposed handicap. Calling people accusatory names also usually is counter productive. I/we are highly tactical in relation to other people, government and society under your premise of getting what we want and what is best for us.
Biological parentage and marriage laws are not the same topic whatsoever. The fundamental issue is whether laws - tax law, civil law, criminal law etc - should give superior rights, benefits and privileges to "married" people - and then exclude gays. I say no. But then I also say "marriage" should not be ANY factor in tax, civil or criminal laws to begin with. Actually, to declare that government should control religion's definition of marriage is an absurd concept to begin with. Rather than legalizing gay marriage, which is an expansion of discrimination, the ruling should have been that the government can not have any punitive laws against unmarried people and no special rights for married people.
Extremism in the pursuit of a noble goal is nothing to deride. Was John Brown wrong when he killed and terrorized to try to free the slaves? Was Malcolm X wrong to pursue an end to racism, even if it meant violence? Exactly. If you want the world to be a better and more fair place, you need to make it that way.
Both John Brown and Malcolm X are a mixed bag in terms of ethics, nor am I that fine detailed familiar with either of them or the overall of it. Trying to make the WORLD a better place is very risky business of which the law of unintended consequences can come into play. My comment was more on a personal note about looking out for yourself, those of your immediate circle and of your own community of interests. I'm not going to pretend I can change the world nor do I feel a responsibity towards everyone in it.
