SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.
Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.
In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.
Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.
Source: Fox News
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday January 14 2017, @02:48AM
Heterosexuality isn't about children, either. Pretty much everybody I see on a daily basis has been divorced 2 or 3 times and has children from each relationship. The other thing is marriages that don't even intend to produce a child.
What I am hopeful of is that homosexual couples are as capable of raising a child as heterosexual couples. It would need to be proven out in the data. I admit I'm biased because in deep infiltration mode I'm basically a heterosexual woman.
Should marriage be held to a higher standard? Perhaps. I've been thinking that perhaps if marriage has any legal recognition at all, it has to be something that's much less flimsy than even pre-gay-marriage marriage. People shouldn't be able to just divorce at the drop of a hat. (I believe the Bible gives precedence for divorce in cases of domestic violence for example, so I'm not saying it needs to be final-final.)
I guess the problem then is what we do with all those heterosexuals who keep making babies outside of wedlock where baby has 3 dads because that's how many men mommie's made babies with.
Does my chain of thought make any sense here?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:09AM
"all those heterosexuals who keep making babies outside of wedlock"
Stop paying those women for having babies. If the parents can't support their babies, then take the babies, and feed them, clothe them, shelter them - and let the mother sleep on the streets. Our welfare system has come to be designed to encourage the kind of crap you describe. Each of those baby's daddies should be supporting the child, instead of hanging out with their fellow gang members.
A lot of different things have gone to undermine the institution of marriage, and the welfare scheme is just one of them.
But, marriage was and is all about children. It's not about the couple. No society has really stood to benefit from couples having sex and sharing a home - there was never a need to recognize or reward a married couple if you take children out of the equation. Society invented marriage because of the children. We need to get back to the basics - if you don't intend to commit to supporting children, then don't get married, don't have sex, don't pretend to be married - just don't. If marriage is little more than a piece of ass and a tax break, then you're not nearly ready to be married.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:34AM
Ah, I see where you're coming from, and I think we might have a lot of points of agreement. Some people who find they can't have kids for whatever reason adopt, and there's going to be a lot of kids to adopt. I'm assuming the case of an infertile heterosexual couple adopting isn't in question here, since that would seem to qualify as marriage, right?
Could two people of the same gender, by way of being infertile, also adopt and marry? That's what I'm wondering about. I think two parents is non-negotiable. Sounds like both of us believe that owning a uterus does not necessarily qualify one to rise children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:55AM
> Stop paying those women for having babies.
You are delusional.
Half the people on welfare are the working poor.
In even the most expensive areas welfare maxes out at $600/month no matter how many children you've got.
The reason mothers are having kids out of wedlock is not about the financial incentives to have children, its about the costs of getting married. People can't afford shotgun weddings anymore.
If you want people to stop having kids out of wedlock, then support planned parenthood. Their contraceptive programs prevent half a million unplanned pregnancies a year. No other group is anywhere near as effective. And do not give me any of your hypocritical god shit. Your church supported full abortion rights until at least 1976.