[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
a sexually promiscuous culture is the norm for a non-christian-influenced culture. So those who are happy about the trend towards that becoming the norm for American culture - be happy. The moral restraint brought by the affect of true practicing Christians in this culture is greatly subsided and soon will be completely dissipated as fewer and fewer true believers remain. Allow those of us who remain in that shrinking group the privilege of continuing to speak out against that which is wrong and harmful to the souls of men and nations as we are slowly ostracized by the deafening roar of the onslaught of your morally unrestrained depravity . . . .
Here is an idea for you:
Monogamy is sexual socialism.
so polygamy is sexual conservatism? WTF?[/quote]
Only if you think that consevatism is the opposite of socialism which it is not.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.
Let’s totally have kids we can’t afford.[/quote]
I argee with you on that, I don’t think people should have kids they can’t afford. I also think you have to look at the word “afford”. I do a pretty decent job supporting my family on buck sergeant’s pay.Hell, we were doin ok when I was an E-4. However their are some so are barely making it. I think it because they buy a bunch of bullshit they don’t need like car mods, cell phones that do everything, and prepack foods that cost more. We shop for value not a name brand. Many of the other soldiers don’t.So if I wanted alot bling no I couldnt afford a wife and 2 kids. Since I’m simple, I can.
[quote]orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
a sexually promiscuous culture is the norm for a non-christian-influenced culture. So those who are happy about the trend towards that becoming the norm for American culture - be happy. The moral restraint brought by the affect of true practicing Christians in this culture is greatly subsided and soon will be completely dissipated as fewer and fewer true believers remain. Allow those of us who remain in that shrinking group the privilege of continuing to speak out against that which is wrong and harmful to the souls of men and nations as we are slowly ostracized by the deafening roar of the onslaught of your morally unrestrained depravity . . . .
Here is an idea for you:
Monogamy is sexual socialism.
so polygamy is sexual conservatism? WTF?
Only if you think that consevatism is the opposite of socialism which it is not.
No, it is the opposite of a sexual free market.
[/quote]
wait - free market conservatives are not sexual free market conservatives - - it would seem that socialism would be sexual polygamy with everyone sharing the same sexual experience when it is available . . . or some such - are you really an maroon - or just trying really hard today?
[quote]jawara wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.
Let’s totally have kids we can’t afford.
I argee with you on that, I don’t think people should have kids they can’t afford. I also think you have to look at the word “afford”. I do a pretty decent job supporting my family on buck sergeant’s pay.Hell, we were doin ok when I was an E-4. However their are some so are barely making it. I think it because they buy a bunch of bullshit they don’t need like car mods, cell phones that do everything, and prepack foods that cost more. We shop for value not a name brand. Many of the other soldiers don’t.So if I wanted alot bling no I couldnt afford a wife and 2 kids. Since I’m simple, I can.
[/quote]
You put the needs of your family over the material possessions other people want, but do not need.
There isn’t much I can say other than you are a good person. I have nothing but respect for you because for that.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.
Let’s totally have kids we can’t afford.
I argee with you on that, I don’t think people should have kids they can’t afford. I also think you have to look at the word “afford”. I do a pretty decent job supporting my family on buck sergeant’s pay.Hell, we were doin ok when I was an E-4. However their are some so are barely making it. I think it because they buy a bunch of bullshit they don’t need like car mods, cell phones that do everything, and prepack foods that cost more. We shop for value not a name brand. Many of the other soldiers don’t.So if I wanted alot bling no I couldnt afford a wife and 2 kids. Since I’m simple, I can.
You put the needs of your family over the material possessions other people want, but do not need.
There isn’t much I can say other than you are a good person. I have nothing but respect for you because for that.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure knocking up a chick is something he wanted (if that - could have been just looking to get laid), but did not need.
And if you don’t classify kids as material possessions (i.e: an urge to replicate DNA), then what are they? Spiritual losses?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.
Let’s totally have kids we can’t afford.
I argee with you on that, I don’t think people should have kids they can’t afford. I also think you have to look at the word “afford”. I do a pretty decent job supporting my family on buck sergeant’s pay.Hell, we were doin ok when I was an E-4. However their are some so are barely making it. I think it because they buy a bunch of bullshit they don’t need like car mods, cell phones that do everything, and prepack foods that cost more. We shop for value not a name brand. Many of the other soldiers don’t.So if I wanted alot bling no I couldnt afford a wife and 2 kids. Since I’m simple, I can.
You put the needs of your family over the material possessions other people want, but do not need.
There isn’t much I can say other than you are a good person. I have nothing but respect for you because for that.
I’m pretty sure knocking up a chick is something he wanted (if that - could have been just looking to get laid), but did not need.
And if you don’t classify kids as material possessions (i.e: an urge to replicate DNA), then what are they? Spiritual losses?[/quote]
What the fuck is your problem?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
orion wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
a sexually promiscuous culture is the norm for a non-christian-influenced culture. So those who are happy about the trend towards that becoming the norm for American culture - be happy. The moral restraint brought by the affect of true practicing Christians in this culture is greatly subsided and soon will be completely dissipated as fewer and fewer true believers remain. Allow those of us who remain in that shrinking group the privilege of continuing to speak out against that which is wrong and harmful to the souls of men and nations as we are slowly ostracized by the deafening roar of the onslaught of your morally unrestrained depravity . . . .
Here is an idea for you:
Monogamy is sexual socialism.
so polygamy is sexual conservatism? WTF?
Only if you think that consevatism is the opposite of socialism which it is not.
No, it is the opposite of a sexual free market.
wait - free market conservatives are not sexual free market conservatives - - it would seem that socialism would be sexual polygamy with everyone sharing the same sexual experience when it is available . . . or some such - are you really an maroon - or just trying really hard today?
[/quote]
its pretty obvious what hes getting at
sexual free choice= free market
only one choice of sex= command market, you can choose any sexual partner you want, as long as its your girlfriend/wife.
a better situation you could have come up with would be: you get to have sex with hookers that other people pay for.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
Makavali wrote:
jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.
Let’s totally have kids we can’t afford.
I argee with you on that, I don’t think people should have kids they can’t afford. I also think you have to look at the word “afford”. I do a pretty decent job supporting my family on buck sergeant’s pay.Hell, we were doin ok when I was an E-4. However their are some so are barely making it. I think it because they buy a bunch of bullshit they don’t need like car mods, cell phones that do everything, and prepack foods that cost more. We shop for value not a name brand. Many of the other soldiers don’t.So if I wanted alot bling no I couldnt afford a wife and 2 kids. Since I’m simple, I can.
You put the needs of your family over the material possessions other people want, but do not need.
There isn’t much I can say other than you are a good person. I have nothing but respect for you because for that.
I’m pretty sure knocking up a chick is something he wanted (if that - could have been just looking to get laid), but did not need.
And if you don’t classify kids as material possessions (i.e: an urge to replicate DNA), then what are they? Spiritual losses?[/quote]
[quote]jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.[/quote]
What? You might want to think about this again.
Are you talking worldwide? Africans, Middle-easterners, and South Americans… Do these regions equate with “conservative” in your mind?
Are you talking about in the US? Hispanics and Blacks… do these races equate with “conservative” in your mind?
Birth rates are generally a function of economic development. As GDP or GDP/person increases, birthrates drop. If you’re talking about immigration (developing → developed, there is generally a generation (sometimes two) until you’ll start to see the rates drop. What makes you think that birth rates have to do with “race”? or that “race” is connected with “conservative”?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jawara wrote:
I find it interesting that the people/races that tend to be more conservitive are reproducing. The liberals arent.
What? You might want to think about this again.
Are you talking worldwide? Africans, Middle-easterners, and South Americans… Do these regions equate with “conservative” in your mind?
Are you talking about in the US? Hispanics and Blacks… do these races equate with “conservative” in your mind?
Birth rates are generally a function of economic development. As GDP or GDP/person increases, birthrates drop. If you’re talking about immigration (developing → developed, there is generally a generation (sometimes two) until you’ll start to see the rates drop. What makes you think that birth rates have to do with “race”? or that “race” is connected with “conservative”? [/quote]
Yes I’m taling worldwide.
I would say that the Middle East, South America, and Africa are more conservitive the their western counterparts. If you ever get a chance to go to the Middle East count the mosques, look at their tv and other media. I doubt you’ll see any shows like “Desparate Houswives”. Do I need to go on??
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
So now sluttiness among heteros is being blamed on the evil gays too? Lol.
Nope, but the whole idea of anonymous and promiscuous sex is a dominant feature of the homosexual lifestyle (read the studies, never experienced). Promoting this has led to higher divorce rates as sex becomes similar to the gay sex described above.
Maybe all gays should be forced to marry one another.
[/quote]
or maybe not. whats wrong with straight couples not getting married?.
or maybe not. whats wrong with straight couples not getting married?.
[/quote]
Are your parents married?? Mine weren’t and I wish I could say that they were. You should look into the stats on what happens to kids from single mother homes.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
That’s kind of insulting man. Are you trying to imply that his kids were mistakes?
Just pointed out the flaw in your reasoning.
My bad, I’ll chastise him for raising his kids next time.[/quote]
Actaually raising your kids these days tough. Most parents just give their kids some money and a cell phone and thats about it. In other words since I stay on my kids asses and dont let them run amuck I’m an asshole.
