Originally posted by Epinephrine
View Post
An Example, a very exact analogy: A moderate and an aggressive person make a decision (you can choose which of the two represents the gay one, it doesnt matter). One uses fists to solve the issue the other uses words. Is the same law/treatment to be applied to both?
It boggles my mind how you can so easily change your stance back and forth with no real consistency.
there's no real link between money and birth rate
The more money, the more kids.
But while this might be nice and fair, reducing tax money spent on gays and giving it to families will result in approximately one additional child in this country. My point is the nonsense of equalisation of social differences. Rivaling cultures are a great engine which by creating conformity is destroyed. Conformity is not necessary where you accept, respect and learn from differences. Why dont we create one law for the retired pair that needs themselves to scrub their back because the living partner has passed away, one for the gay couple that needs help to get trough the adoption process and one for marriage?
Comment