http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/lack_of_intellectualism_is_los.html

care to compare the way an abatoir and a average person feels in a slaugher house?

the fact that this has been normalized (stalin term) for you, doesnt make it a social good.

thats why this takes 40 years. to get you to normalize behaviors that in the agregate destroy society in a way tht they are undefended and cant respond.

which is why the women have led us to war.

its a done deal now… no way to avoid it

and out of this will be a one world govt with no women at all…. (sharia has lots of women right? which is why thats the religion for the masses!)

we out think ourselfs to death

actually not

but if you have adopted a dialectic without knowing it, because you internalized the process to automation, then what?

how do you think that male bad message in media works? (you obviously dont dislike men!)

i noticed that when people see others employ a tactic even if they dont realize it, they start to adapt it. especially this stuff that has some group backing…

take the parts apart, ignore the messae, and see how its being constructed.

it does say something as to how we go about things. and the way i was commenting on, is a super common thing amoung the militant feminists as to pretending to discuss, and in reality be playing with negative indices.

we are great mimics and we mimic who we admire, and you do seem to admire how they have accomplished stuff. but, even a child can beat up their parents to get what they want, when the opposiiton isnt opposed.

hard to live in a world where discourse and permited social intercourse are medated by harridens and you not normalize what they want you to…

its why what they do works..
not because we are blank slates, but becuse we adapt, get in lne with the social order, care about others, dont want to be abnormal, and we copy what seems to work.

they did a study on women and men in terms of babies. turns ot that out of the 28 items on the list, women liked seceral and were indiffernet to most, and men hated most and only liked a couple.

now, is it still proper to force someone who genetically doenst have the endorphin reinforcement to take care of kids, and do things that put his social alarms off nad makes him ill tempered?

of course it is… because women want to be men, and they want the men to be women.

the leaders just want gay workers who will be much less fecund, will raise their children, and they can insure teir genes dominate.

but casted into social behavior, they just get you to align using the fact that they take over a system that was never designed to see anything unreal ever!

they never tell you what they actually want, they know you dont want it.

i guess you have yet to read moses harmon, and lillian harmon

the FIRST step to a free love sexual utopia is to break marraige, and all gender barriers.

THEN and only then will the ones who are like bonobos will then have their sexual utopia

bet you didnt know that a huge part of your life and desires was a set up to move the whole of the population as they know you cant do both. so you not being an elite in the big families, self exterminates your familial line.

and in case you didnt notice, the more capable she is, the less likely her kids will threaten theres in this game

its a META game above your life. where making you think that what your doing personally is ok. and we ignore the agregate demographic… they dont, thats their point as they know you as a demographic to change, not a person. so they dont care about those dreams and things you do. but they know you do, and so this is HOW you mold a mass..

what a tiny entity in a mass things is superflous, as long as what its thinking enables the behaviors to the mass!!!

and all this stuffs outcome to the leaders who have control over what the mass experiences, is what they want. while all the stuff tht gets generated to get you to act or think something normal, is what is being done to reorganize the whole mass and change its makup.

they want dumb breeders
the smart they want homosexual so they do the high work but dont breed to threaten their children
and their children are above it all with a boot on the neck forever.

but if your a person in this mix, you will have to want the good of the whole, over your personal selfish end.

and that is exactly what gays in the passt and others did who were responsible.

but today, a womans right to have waht she wants and change the future demographic in ignorance (never knowing that they are the resevior of intelligence and other things by not working).

same with every one of these groups in which the facts are not facts.

so what you get is the africans chase out whites. anyone want to read the articles by africans who lament that the whole place ha fallen apart, economy is gone. televisions broadcast audio on different channels than shows. no electric off and on . desease is high, poverty has rcketed, as has inflation

now what?

well, lets throw obama money on it.

but you cant pick any of these groups, including women, as a controlled group.

men are never a controlled group which is why they did politics. the idea of getting those to gether with separate goals who wont get together to preserce the freedom and families.

women in feminism have changed the demographical and educational make up

if you just focus on one key aspect that fits their goals, and ignore everything else as breking a few eggs.

the jewish race is dying due to these actions.

what hitler couldnt do overtly
the progressives with their useful idiot selfish vain soldiers, ahve done it covertly.

50 million people in the US alone…

we adopt what wins. which is why relationshnips degrade now. those things that were forbidden, like using love as your lever to get what you want. are now in play as a liberated way of being.

the result, the male copies her to be faire and the whole thing falls apart. they split the children have no father, the girls get early puberty, and more precociousness… which is great if your a leader and you want to have free whores who do more than real whores do, as your common pool of victims your over.

take a look at the view from their plateau with their goals all working…

you will be horrified..
[more so when you realize what part of what you thought was so good, was so bad in the big picture]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/looking_for_love_in_all_the_wr.html

>>If you ignore the healthy society arguments, and if you deem nothing to be immoral (funny to me that I of all people am arguing THAT point…lol) – then frankly there is no argument left against same sex marriage, or hell – marrying a goat for that matter!>>

Absolutely. There was a very good article somewhere that I read the other day, on the fact that _all_ laws had _some_ sort of morality behind them. You don’t make laws just because you don’t _like_ something. You make the law because for whatever reason, you think something is right or something is wrong. That means that there is a moral – of some kind – standard being applied.

I’ll try to find the link…but I’ve read a lot of blogs, on two different machines since then, and I think this was itself a link from another blog. I should have saved it – it was a very good article.

Well, there goes that morality thing out the window I guess….

I think a strong case has been made that it’s in society’s best interest to encourage a certain amount of marriage for the children that kind of union generates.

It’s simply healthy for society.

A case can be argued as well on religious grounds regarding inappropriateness of same sex marriage, but not everyone is a strict adherent to religion (I fall into that category).

If you ignore the healthy society arguments, and if you deem nothing to be immoral (funny to me that I of all people am arguing THAT point…lol) – then frankly there is no argument left against same sex marriage, or hell – marrying a goat for that matter!

Ahh, I’m just not convinced it’s going to turn out the way some people, who have decided it doesn’t affect them and therefore should be allowed, think it will in the long run.

Society is the way it is for very good reasons that have been worked out over millenia. Society may have to re-learn certain lessons all over again…

Personally, I agree…but if society has already established that children are not the primary purpose of marriage, and if one or both of the partners is sterile – why not? If the possibility of children is a factor, why is it not a factor in other situations? Besides…with National Health Care in the offing – who cares what problems will ensue – the State will care for any deficient or disabled offspring…

Person/animal – consent factor.

I didn’t have time for much more than a quick peruse of the link you provided so I may have missed some explanatory text that would resolve the issue I’m concerned over.

However, I did pick up on a couple of important discussion points that were covered in the document you referenced.

The first is, the author of the document points out that there was specific language indicating in that state law that the marriage wouldn’t be valid in states that prohibited same sex marriages if the participants were not from that state wherein it was legal.

What happens when a state does not have a specific prohibition against it, or if another state passes similar same sex marriage arrangements without these specific exclusions?

The second thing I noticed is that the author seems confident that other states can simply choose not to recognize same sex marriage.

I’m unconvinced this is correct.

Specifically, I’m referring to Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution.

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

So by the simple reading of the US Constitution, if California decides to redefine marriage as between two adults rather than a male and female adult, then the other states are obliged to recognize that marriage even if it were not possible in a state other than California.