An Army report on the record number of soldier suicides says the trend reflects a rise in risky behavior including drunken driving and drug abuse in a military stretched to the breaking point by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38472795/ns/health-mental_health
Mamaditto Speaks: And they still want to repeal DADT?! Imagine how that will compound "risky behavior!"
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Civil Unions Ridicule the Sanctity of Marriage (Encore from 2007)
Those who voice opposition to same-sex "marriage" yet support civil unions insert a somewhat deranged school of thought into the national discourse. Proponents use the same tired buzzwords of 'equality' and 'diversity'. This semblance of altruism is something the public can do without. A snake is still a snake despite the euphemisms people invent.
Civil unions would provide the legal approbation necessary for its advocates to gain access to the next generation. As the cultural supports for traditional, monogamous, heterosexual marriage are eroded away, the downside for the kids being denied an opposite sex parent will be astounding.
Children being exposed in school and in society to the idea that they can ''marry'' either a boy or a girl when they grow up will have a confounding effect on the national psyche.
Family infrastructure will suffer from the effects of instability as rates of adultery and divorce accelerate. Courts will be more logjammed than ever. And what will be the economic toll on health care as more dollars are allocated to treat AIDS, STDs and psychopathology?
These are some of the projected consequences to creating a parallel institution that mimics authentic marriage.
Civil unions would provide the legal approbation necessary for its advocates to gain access to the next generation. As the cultural supports for traditional, monogamous, heterosexual marriage are eroded away, the downside for the kids being denied an opposite sex parent will be astounding.
Children being exposed in school and in society to the idea that they can ''marry'' either a boy or a girl when they grow up will have a confounding effect on the national psyche.
Family infrastructure will suffer from the effects of instability as rates of adultery and divorce accelerate. Courts will be more logjammed than ever. And what will be the economic toll on health care as more dollars are allocated to treat AIDS, STDs and psychopathology?
These are some of the projected consequences to creating a parallel institution that mimics authentic marriage.
The important thing to remember about sexual politics is it's not about "rights". It's about an agenda hell-bent on redefining marriage (whoever you are infatuated with), family (whoever you live with) and relationships (fidelity is passe).
No need to thank me. I'm always glad to help.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The Folly of Same-Sex Relations
This ought to be a slam-dunk, but these are strange times we are living in. So, to recap:
(1) Marriage is the social contract which protects the children WHO MAY RESULT from the union of their parents.
(2) Since men are not physically equipped to copulate with other men, there is no need for the state to recognize their “unions.” The worse-case scenario is death.
(3) Since women are not physically equipped to copulate with other women, there is no need for the state to recognize their “unions.” The worse case scenario is infection.
(4) Since men and women are physically equipped to copulate with each other and since men make sperm and women make eggs (read babies) the state has a vested interest in encouraging monogamous unions between men and women BECAUSE KIDS HAVE RIGHTS, TOO!
Some people point to childless marriages as a rationale for homosexual relations. That argument does not work because reproduction is necessary for a SPECIES, not for every individual.
(1) Marriage is the social contract which protects the children WHO MAY RESULT from the union of their parents.
(2) Since men are not physically equipped to copulate with other men, there is no need for the state to recognize their “unions.” The worse-case scenario is death.
(3) Since women are not physically equipped to copulate with other women, there is no need for the state to recognize their “unions.” The worse case scenario is infection.
(4) Since men and women are physically equipped to copulate with each other and since men make sperm and women make eggs (read babies) the state has a vested interest in encouraging monogamous unions between men and women BECAUSE KIDS HAVE RIGHTS, TOO!
Some people point to childless marriages as a rationale for homosexual relations. That argument does not work because reproduction is necessary for a SPECIES, not for every individual.
Now, go back and re-read (4).
No need to thank me. I'm always glad to help.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)