Why obsess over homosexuality?

How many Christians who oppose homosexuality have had sec out of wedlock? How many have violated the seventh commandment? It seems god was rather worried about sex outside of marriage and mentioned it quite a bit far more many times than homosexuality in the Bible (Well, not really. People of the time realized that children were a great burden and carried a great expense, and children out of a stable familial situation would even be more so. It is common sense and has nothing to do with a deity... but...). Yet, I don't see protests against sex. I do see plenty of Christian guys who jump of the moral high horse of heterosexuality pursue women and have sex with women out of wedlock.

Sex out of wedlock/stable familial situations I would argue is a far greater burden and threat to a functioning society than homosexuality. Some 40% of all births in the US are out of wedlock. Highest in the black community at 70%+/-, Native Americans 66%, hispanics 53%, etc. These children are more likely to be participants in the welfare system. More likely to have issues at school. More likely to be involved in criminal activity. A stable family (it does not matter what genitals the parents have imo) is essential for the child's future.

Before some people pop in "ERMA GURD ME MUM RAZED ME BY HRSELFZ AND I TURNED OUT FINEZ!!!!1" (as I have already heard in person), there are exceptions to everything. Generalities are broad in nature, and I don't care about the exceptions. Some people can smoke all their lives and never develop cancer. Smoking is generally bad for your health. Some people drive drunk without incident. Driving while under the influence is generally a terrible idea. Some kids grow up just fine and not completely screwed up when raised by a single mother in an unstable household. Generally they grow up to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

(The Truth About Single Mothers: https://youtu.be/o1xf78EltKM )

So why obsess over homosexuality? Seems to me that procreating heterosexuals are causing more issues for society.

 

Not having a strong male role model is the problem - if a kid doesn't have a strong father figure or male role model then he's more likely to take after bad ones, such as gangster rappers.

What personal experience are you getting this from?

Most people would prefer a mom and dad sure, but if it's a choice between a kid growing up in an abusive home with 2 parents, versus growing up with a single competant parent I'd say the latter is more desirable.

Which is why using "wedlock" rates as the sole measure of familial quality is bad, since many people stay in bad relationships even when ending the relationship for the sake of the children would be the better option.

Of course this had to be a thin-ly veiled anti-women rant.

 

I certainly agree. This is probably why the thug culture is embrace and young males emulate said culture.

Like I said, there are exceptions to anything. Statistically, two parent homes are more stable, less likely to be impoverished, and more likely to rise children who will become productive adults. Statistically, single parent homes are less stable, more likely to be impoverished, and more likely to raise children who will draw from the welfare system and be involved in criminal activity.

People who take the time and effort to build a stable home are less likely to have issues later on (instead of getting married because of pregnancy instead of taking a trip to Planned Parenthood).

I was completely unaware that egalarianistic argument was by its very nature misogynistic, riding the feminist bus this morning?

I would definitely give the link a chance and listen to it.

 

If, maybe, you'd just say what you said to begin with and not turn it into an attack on single parenting it might have more impact.

Given the many, many hardships society manufactures for single parents I find it surprising that ANY of their kids turn out alright, but the fact is, most do.

Oh, and most female single parents are due to either the death or the abandonment of the male partner, not the irresponsibility of the Jezebel mother. You really need to get that misogynist bus up to speed

 

*shrugs

Facts are facts. Parents who are left to parent alone due to the death of a partner are not single parents, they are widowed. I imagine if I made a post about the evils of abusive men no one would cry misandry. LOL But if you state facts in a gynocentric society, the manginas and white knights cry misogyny. LOL

 

Are widowed parents left out of the stats?

I don't have to cry misogyny, you make it far too obvious for anyone to miss.

Our society also might be lot better off if we concentrated more on helping single parents and not persecuting women and their children who dare to have SEX for what we say are their "moral" failings.

 

Your argument then provides evidence that you agree that both scenarios do place a burden on functioning society. To a greater or lesser extent, but still a burden.

 

How so, and so what?

 

Sorry I guess I could be accused of trolling, but either this is the funniest spelling mistake on the forum this year, or sec is not telling us something!

 

Facts are facts. Facts are not racist or sexist.

Single mothers are already given a great deal of assistance through the welfare system. They are many welfare programs that are only available to women and children, and not men and children. There are thousands of shelters for only women, and very few in comparison for men. No one is persecuting women for "daring to have sex", in fact, money and resources is being thrown at the situation with little or no improvement to the nature of irresponsibility. What is being done is that maybe, just maybe, a stable family with good role models will create better children and more productive adults.

How the advocacy for a stable home environment is misogynistic is beyond me. It sounds like your are regurgitating feminist bull(*)(*)(*)(*) without actually using the critical thinking centers that are present in your brain. You can be a white knight if they tickles your fancy, however, that does not automatically mean you are accurate by any degree.

 

lol

That is a good one. The c key is suspiciously close to the x key.

 

Because his argument presents the scenario where one is greater than the other. In relevant part "is a far greater burden and threat to a functioning society,," So, to that functioning society it would be a matter of choosing either the greater or lesser of "two evils" (if there is an 'evil' involved according to the perspective of that functioning society). Also, there is presented the question of 'what is a functioning society' if procreation is eliminated as a result of it being deemed to be too great of a burden?

 

Let's see your proof for this claim. Women initiate most of the divorces that take place in society. Between that and the millions of women who got knocked up out of wedlock, I highly doubt your claim.

 

If it were true, then somewhere around 21% of the 40% out of wedlock births are due to the death of a partner. lol

 

...and what do you propose to do about it?

Therin lies the point. The facts and the Youtube video aren't what's anti-women, but people don't state facts without any reason or proposed solution.

Based on most of the topics you've posted on the subject I'll venture that your conclusion is to just "blame women" or some "feminist" conspiracy versus the actual dynamics at play here.

Realistically though other than maybe some minority of radical feminists there's no "vast conspiracy" to intentionally raise children without a father.

Your presumption is that if a relationship ends its automatically because of "irresponsibility" (namely the woman's).

...and HS who sleep together without protection and get pregnant aren't young or mature enough to be married, so the result of a folly of youth is single motherhood.

So again... what do propose to do about the problem? Outlaw divorce? Outlaw sex outside of marriage? Return to the pre-suffrage era? Create a Saudi-style government? lol

Your constant harping about the problem but unwillingess to reveal what you propose to do about it is what reveals the misogyny here.

You imagine wrong.

I'm pretty sure it's you not me who's admitted to "buying stuff" for women and "doing favors" just hoping to get laid, and claimed you had friends who've stooped to donating $1000s of dollars to women they'd only met over the internet, who turned out to be scams.

So who's the "white knight" and mangina? Sounds like you're just reflecting your own insecurities back on others.

I don't see any Navy SEALs, MMA fighters, CEOs, ot James Bond actors complaining that they live in a "gynocracy" and are helpless to the "wicked wiles" of women- it's always a certain demographic of males I see complaining about how "controlled" by women they are on a day-to-day basis, and I doubt it's a coincidence. lol

 

Fact it's it a complicated social problem.

Part of it is inevitable to a degree, because in industrialized societies there's less immediate "need" for a father to financially support the child, while back in the days before welfare or women working the child was directly dependent on the father for survival. I believe that segregating classrooms based on sex, as well as teaching strong male values in public schools (such as survival skills and physical fitness) would help to solve the problem.

And yeah, irresponsibility is a problem as well, but it's on a widespread scale. For every skank who sleeps with every guy at the club and doesn't bother to take the pill, there's a loser frat boy who spends all his freetime playing Call of Duty and sleeping with drunk sluts. For every single woman on welfare, there's a dad who's spending his weekends drinking cheap beer and watching reruns of Family Guy and not participating in the kid's life.

People like the OP though want to claim it's just the fault of "wicked wimmins" and never propose any solution to the problem, not to mention they'll never offer a solution which involves encouraging a lot of modern men to act like men instead of boobish sitcom characters and "Marvin Milquetoasts", because that would be too much trouble. Truth is I see this all the time - some people put more time and effort into beating the latest Xbox game than they do into planning their own lives and learning effective relationship skills - I have no sympathy for people who do this then blame the entirety of the other sex for "not appreciating how nice they are" when a relationship doesn't work out, lol

 

Not to mention, "single parent" doesn't automatically mean "absent mother/father". It simply means the father or father figure isn't living in the same house. Plenty of divorced or separated couples still both remain involved in the child's lives. I gave this topic too much credit assuming it was only talking about "absent parents" until I realized this gaffe.

Realistically relationships end for irreconcilable issues, and "staying in" a dysfunctional relationship just because the couple "has a kid" is worse for the kid, but doesn't mean that the father has abandoned the child.

So being completely against "single parenting" only makes sense if one believes a couple should never split up for any reason, which likewise only makes sense in a quasi-theocratic society where marriage is simple property ownership rather than an actual relationship dynamic (and likewise makes you wonder if this is the type of society some of these people actually fantasize about, considering the griping about "single parenting" without any proposed solution).

 

So taking the position that people are responsible for their actions is automatically misogynist? Are you sure, and I mean dig deep inside before answering, that you are not a feminist?

Any proposal will have only limited effectiveness due to the undeniable fact that all people are irresponsible at some point in their lives. Many people make a habit of doing so. People who make a habit of doing so place themselves at higher risk. People who make a habit of doing so are going to continue a self-perpetrating cycle of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that will lead to a series of less than ideal situations in their lives. I see it nearly everyday. The only truly effective means of preventing that situation for yourself is to do things that mitigate your own risk. You are responsible for everything you do.

Claiming that the position of everyone is responsible for everything they do is misogynistic is stupid. However, the cry of misogyny seems to be the knee jerk reaction when the claim is made that even women possess moral agency and are responsible for everything they do.

Really? I don't see feminists crying misandry when a man's marriage, job, and life are destroyed over a fake rape accusation. Yet, they will cry patriarchy and misogyny if anyone suggests that maybe walking through a bad neighborhood late at night increases the probability of something terrible happening.

I don't see anyone crying misandry when nearly every husband on sitcom tv are portrayed as bumbling idiots who are barely able to care for themselves, yet Fallout Shelter is misogynist because male characters impregnate female characters.

Let's not pretend that the sexes are treated equally.

When you date a woman, you hope to get laid, and you are expected to pay for the date. I fail to see what you are getting at. And some of my friends are just flat out stupid. I fail to see the point here.

People do stupid things in hopes of getting laid, it is a basic instinct. Which is a huge pitfall when it results in an unwanted pregnancy.

 

lol

Are you incapable of avoiding strawmen? Where in the OP does it claim that it is all the fault of women? It actually claims such nowhere. You can continue obsessing over a strawman, and that is fine, but let's not pretend it is a valid point.

Men are just as responsible as women. Yet it appears that claiming women have any responsibility in a child's poor childhood is misogynistic. LOL

 

Everyone's at very least a "feminist" in the most basic sense unless they outright want legal discrimination.

The implication here is that "single parenting" or a relationship being terminated is automatically a "bad thing" - which it's not in the event that the relationship was dysfunctional, when in reality there's just as much a case for higher divorce and separation rates being due to it being more acceptable to terminate bad relationships today than it was 100 years ago.

And with the implication being that the woman specifically is presumed to be "at fault" by default if a relationship ends - that's the undertone which is misogynistic.

I'm sure "feminists" don't. I'm sure the... Black Panthers don't care when a white police officer gets shot... what's your point?

Plenty of women have no problem going dutch. In fact I believe that's the norm now.

If you only dated women who demanded that you paid for everything then that's part of the problem. If a woman's working she can pay her fair share - if she refuses then she's a golddigger with an entitlement complex who isn't worth anyone's time.

Plenty of them don't blame the entire sex because of their bad experiences without taking any personal responsibility in the matter

 

Implying that a relationship ending is automatically a "bad" thing, and that all divorces or separations are the fault of "feminism" or "wimmins" is what's misogynistic.

I'm not one to "idolize" single mothers like some on the left do, but the implication here is that it's solely the fault of "women".

 

I make the argument that if you have kids with someone who you shortly separate afterwards, maybe having kids with them in the first place was a terrible idea. Both parents are responsible for this.

The child will life a life of an increased chance of poverty in a less than ideal living situation.
The mother will live a life of an increased chance of poverty in a less than ideal living situation.
The man is more likely to life of an increased chance of poverty in a less than ideal living situation.

Such misogyny.

 

Feminism is a political philosophy that focuses solely on women's rights and completely ignores the needs and rights of men. Feminism is a position of outright social and legal discrimination against men.

If a political movement focuses only on men's rights, how can an argument be made that it cares about women's rights?
If a political movement focuses only on women's rights, how can the argument be made that it cares about men's rights?
If a political movement focuses only on white's rights, how can the argument be made that it cares about minority's rights?
Why not just adopt egalitarianism?

Generally it is, and not automatically, a bad thing. You can focus on specific cases all you like, but as I said in the OP, I don't care. Statistically children raised by single parents are more likely to have issues down the road compared to those raised in two parent households.

The woman has 100% of the say of whether or not the pregnancy continues. So there is a greater level of responsibility.

Women's rights are so misogynistic.

Now look at my example above. No re-read what you said. Groups of people who are only concerned with the rights and well being of their own group, and not of the member of the opposite sex or different race.

That much we agree on. And no one is laming the entire sex, but you can continue obsessing over windmills if you prefer to do so.

 

So what to you constitutes a "strong male role model"?

 

But who says that you need a penis to provide the type of guidance generally attributed to the "strong male role model"? Who says a woman can't demonstrate a strong work ethic, provide discipline, and perform all the other functions of the "father figure"?
Similarly, who says a man can't be a nurturing and attentive caregiver (ie: fit the psychological stereotype of a "maternal figure")?

If your parenting style is dependant on your genitals, you're doing it wrong (and should probably be in prison).