Anyone else think the MSM coverage of the DoD press conference for the removal of troops in the desert was hilarious?

They are so scared now

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/family/2020/11/build-tolerance-after-the-election-start-with-kids/

Lol since when is National Geographic CNN

End the democrat party

Teach kids to be tolerant:
Step one: Teach them that Antifa are commie fascists and not to side with them

Lol I dont think that the indoctrination of children is a great idea. They should not be told to accept or reject political ideologies

with that logic, I guess I shouldn't tell my kids not be to Nazi's 🤷‍♂️

No the kids should learn about Nazim and of course they will reject it as its fundementally flawed. Kids should also learn about communism but shouldnt be told if they are allowed to belive it or not

Well yes

I do think lgbt are entitled to same rights as everyone else and I agree with the stuff he said about lgbt people however him saying that their is no vote fraud and everything was legit put me off completely from his channel

You cant just have school tell kids what they are and are not alowed to think. We just have to give them the tools to make their own descisions

@LoneWanderer101 🇺🇸 wait, Doyle been doing what? Haven't been on his channel in awhile

@Joe Davey, makes sense, thank you.

Was actually talking about Hunter Avallone

Oh oh oh okay

From Instagram account ‘Now this is politics’.... this is why I deleted my Instagram and will be deleting it again. But it’s post like these that make me lose hope, that Trump possibly did lose because Instagram’s goal is for you to hate trump. 40,000 likes... They probably got thousands of ‘pranks’ after posting this

Some quality bonding time between Fredo and his boyfriend

If Biden is inaugurated, prank call him and see how NowThis likes it.

"I do think lgbt are entitled to same rights as everyone else"
This is ultimately a red herring because the issue is not whether lgbtq people have the same civil rights as us, but whether the foundations of marriage should be understood under a framework where it's uniquely and exclusively a male-female complementary unit. It's a philosophical understanding of what it means to be married and what it entails. This isn't something you get to oversimplify it under "I have a right to X" rhetoric.

Lol the only thing that’s getting frustrated at trump not conceding is cnn cuz they know if his legal battles pass the electoral voting day he will win

Is it the government's duty to regulate marriage?

What do you mean by "regulate"?

Determine who you can and cannot marry.

Well, that's a philosophical issue that is determined by how the sanctity of marriage is to be defined and whether the government has it in its best interest to protect it to stabilize society.

But when did we priorize stability over freedom?

When the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that "gay marriage" was okay and legal, that to me is not only a violation of the government's duty to protect traditional, one man-one woman marriage, it's an unconstitutional ruling that had no appropriate philosophical basis to do so.

What in the Constitution prohibits gay marriage?

Are we truly free in a society where we allow degeneracy to rule the spirit of the masses? Think about that.

Where in the constitution "prohibits" gay marriage is answered by reading that in the constitution it acknowledges that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That's an acknowledgement of natural law itself that marriage is best served between one man and one woman.

Constitutional interpretation is a mess...

Are you an originalist or a loose constructionist?

Originalist gang.

To interpret any document, especially ancient, as faithful as possible, the originalist outlook is the most parsimonious and respects rules of proper hermeneutics.

And if Constitution interpretation is such a mess, you would need to extend this "mess" to how we even interpret the 1st and second amendment and I take it that's not a route you are willing to consider, so I advice to be consistent and stick to the originalist approach.

How can one be textual about natural law?

Natural law is the simply the law-like nature of biological organisms of how their bodily functions have an appropriate teleology of what constitutes proper fit and function. This is less a matter of grammar and more a matter of astute observation. The founding fathers penned this fact of life in matters of marriage and other roles regarding social cohesion in the Constitution.

I'd say the "unchanging moral principles" definition is more applicable.