Message from @zaley rose
Discord ID: 785969352310390854
but I think he meant more along the lines about what Christians believe, their morals, and what the bible s ays
thats why they need to be rready to adopt.
lollllll i was going through John Ward's old video and stumbled upon a gem where a mother was telling her followers not to have babies anymore and encourage abortion......with her daughter sitting right next to her
fuck I think ive seen that one before, or a similar one.... its actually even more sad that theres enough to get them mixed up.......
the two ladies that look high af, right 😂
There is still a biological factor to want to raise the next generation. Eventually many of these people will discover what is missing in their life but by that point biology may say it's to late. However with our longer life spans, adoption is still viable because if you treat your body well you can still have a number of good years left.
what leftist isnt high on something? if its not drugs, its a horse. (get it, high horse?)
Well Christians get rejected by the system a lot so I'm just saying that the people that have been rejected are going to prepare
that was a bad pun but i approve
>:D
I think the Christian point is also to contrast Islam where Muhammad outlawed adoption. However, I don't intend to side track this conversation down that.
that's fair. although consumerism will tell you, you need to buy more stuffs and need more "cheat days", not adopt kids and find a purpose in life
what the fuck? really? I did not know that, wtf??
Hmmm interesting
well, it also depends on the cultural context. in asia/asians, we place a lot of values on lineage or the concept of bloodlines/family blood is thicker than blood, so adoption usually get you a lot of frowns
It's because Muhammad married his adopted sons wife who he divorced after Muhammad lusted after her. however, even in that culture, people thought that was wrong and Muhammad then got word that adoption was no longer a thing so it was ok to do.
So you want people without children to subsidize the personal choices of other people??? If you need someone else to subsidize your personal choices, you aren't ready for those choices.
I'm not saying require it, but have it as an optional benefit that a company can offer similar to how maternity benefits are not required but a benefit many companies offer to full time employees. You already have some companies that do this like Netflix, Hilton, Snap Inc., and Bank of America.
If Maternity leave is a thing, than I think its more than acceptable and more than reasonable to have something similar for a family adopting a child.
Not the same, not at all, but something.
We are all David-stan in this house
lmao
I'm honestly starting to really like you xD@isoboto
thank you, thank you. I like me, too
That is very true. We adopted six children out the of the CPS system. Imagine the DPS, the post office and buying a house everyday for 18 months... times six
Some businesses do offer it along with their standard maternity leave. It is still someone subsidizes a personal choice. That cost comes from somewhere, nothing is free.
it was worth it in the end (although obviously, not having to go through the tediousness of bureaucracy is the preferred process)
Actually it's from your labor, instead of the money going to your pay check, it's put into your benefits.
More than worth it, or we wouldn't have done it six times.
No its from EVERYONE's labor, even employees without children.
So do you belief maternity leave and company health insurance is also wrong. Some people use more benefits then others and pull more out of the pool while other use less of the benefits.
The idea is that eventually everyone will get about equal use out of their benefits if they stay long enough. However it is still a product of your labor because it's a part of your pay for working at said company.
I'm an employer who does not offer maternity leave for anyone, because the cost is borne by others. Only PART of the cost is borne by you, the rest is borne by others. Insurance is different because the cost is LESS to the employee due to the group aspect.
Only those who have children during their employment can ever see the benefit. Nearly half of my employees already have their children and won't have more. It is unfair to make them bear the cost of someone else's personal choices.
And many employees pass through here in less than a few years, reaping a benefit and then leaving.
I have no problem with you as an employer doing that. I know many people who are young would prefer that because they would want more pay now rather then more benefits. I wouldn't want to require things like that because companies and individuals have different priorities. However because we live in a simi capitalist society, someone else may go elsewhere where they have less take home pay but the benefit package includes more paid vacation, better insurance options, or maternity/paternity leave.
The problem arises as some voluntarily offer the benefit, many more believe it should be mandatory, just listen to the SJW crowd about nearly anything. I'm still working into my 70's because I have a team of people currently depending on my businesses for their livelihood. When I leave the businesses are done, unless those employees want to purchase the assets and keep it going. I have in the last decade been forced to do a great many things that I'd just as soon not, but laws have changed forcing the actions. I'm now at a point where I'll close it all up and sell off the assets before I'm forced into another compromise, putting over 400 families out of work. That's sad, but I'm at the end of the string anyway, its going to happen soon anyway.
Hey all could you guys get me links of Biden saying hes going to take away guns
Trying to prove a family member wrong
