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.

It also applies to the bodily design of proper functions.

There's a moral principle implied in the complementary design of the human body that is best to be respected so that a community of said organisms flourish.

Here is an example of natural law applied in matters of sexuality.

So what part does government or individual intervention have to play in preventing perverted actions?

Well if you watched John Doyle's videos you would know about that.

We should criminalize degeneracy for instance.

Be incarcerated for promoting it in public eye.

If children were involved, extended incarceration should be employed.

Ban Gay Pride parades as they are literally a recipe of public degeneracy and have even made a bad reputation to gays who don't even like those parades.

As for individual; stop indulging in these degeneracies. Stop consuming porn and work on your self-confidence. Work on building a family or a self-sufficient life.

Get a job and exercise.

Go to Church or attend a community of charity.

https://twitter.com/russiancosmist/status/1329195649322020867?s=20

Bwahahahahahahahahah
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/biden-sanders-warren-student-debt-climate-b1729934.html

What I say about gay marriage is that they should be allowed to have a “civil marriage” but the state cannot force anyone like a priest to marry them in church or a caterer cater their reception

I have a Kindle book by James Patrick Holding that talked about that solution to the problem; however even he recognizes that it is still a problem, and for two main reasons: one, it doesn't solve the philosophical issue that is at stake on the definition of marriage. It merely pushes the problem to the "civil" sphere, moreover it gives "Caesar" the say on what can be "marriage" without a religious context, which marriage has always been about. That's the point; marriage is primarily a familial union ritual that always had a religious context to it, whether Christian or from the Greco-Roman polytheistic culture. Marriage as a ritual was never devoid of a religious context. To have the State secularize it is itself a problem, especially for a union that is not even legitimate, since marriage has always been understood and defined between a man and a woman.
The other problem is that even some radical LGBT people recognize the inherent inequality between the State "sanctioning" a civil union that the Church is free to delegitimize in its own circles and rhetoric, that's why some gays are so up front in pressuring Churches to recognize gay marriage as marriage itself. Even so, civil union, as philosophically fallacious as I see it, is the best we got to circumvent the problem the SCOTUS introduced at 2015.