- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
There's a certain demographic of militant gays who have no desire to assimilate. They see themselves as a separate culture that deserve to be preserved, like they're oppressed Native Americans or some shit. I'm sure some of those gays would already have struck out on their own if they had jobs.
That does happen sometimes. A gay couple who want babies and a lesbian couple who want babies get together and swap seeds, then take turns raising the kid. A better objection is that not all the kids they raised would turn out gay, but they could just deport those ones off of Gay Island for treason.
They could've changed their name. But they didn't, because beyond the simple termage of the group, there is an essential component to the Boy Scouts' values of training boys to be men. Exclusion of homosexualites is no different: it is a result of the spirit in which the group was founded, and to bully the Scouts into sacrificing their philosophy in the name of "equality" is abhorrent.
They don't receive federal funding, as far as I'm aware, but they do receive preferential treatment in making reservations of public property, and are allowed to hold assemblies on army bases and such where regular citizens aren't. I consider it more a matter of trust than discrimination. Like foreign relations, heh.
Hyperbole is a very bad argument.
I didn't mention any 'tard-o conspiracy by which the reptillians seek to control us through the illusion of choice or whatever. I'm talking about the particular policies and general principles each party invokes in the name of their legislation, whatever it may be; one can be certain it's bad for the economy, and worse for individual liberties.
"Have that kid goddamn it, so we can starve him to death!"
Man, I hate these jokes. As long as you're maintaining there's any difference of value between them, if one party's policies are contradictory, you can be certain that those of the opposing party are too.
Uh, yeah. He also created the EPA. In fact, not much of anything he did as president was particularly conservative, and if you search "Nixon RINO" I assure you the results won't be scarce. I thought everybody considered Nixon a RINO. He's only disliked as a Republican because of Watergate and 'cause he called so many people faggots, but in nearly every respect, he was at least very moderate.
I won't lie, most Republicans these days fall into that camp too. I'm always confused by claims that the Republican party has gone fringey, too; they're practically identical to the Democrats.
Don't be misled: Mittens is a RINO through and through.
Obama originally opposed the mandate, now that he started to support it, guess what the gop doesn't like? obama.
Is the implication supposed to be that both parties aren't equally petty and fractious in nature?