Marriage is better for children
After a century of working hard to destroy marriage and denying that a good family with married parents is good for children, the British Labour Party has admitted that marriage is better for children. That is no surprise to anyone with half a clue about the meaning and purpose of marriage which is to form a stable secure family to raise produce and raise the next generation of children. But for the femorrhoids and their mangina lackeys in government it's a big U turn.
For most of a century governments in all English speaking nations and many other countries have worked to change laws which discourage marriage, promote divorce, and pay for single momism. We have heard a generation of liberal feminazi politicians telling us that destroying a family is for “the best interest of the child.” Anyone with a lick of sense knows that has always been total government crap.
Perhaps because Mrs. PM, Sarah Brown, tells horror stories about her own parent's government promoted divorce, the UK government now is taking another look at its promotion of the end of marriage. Read a recent article in the London Daily Mail.
The bigger question, now that they have figured out the obvious, what will they do to promote and enable marriage? Will Labour bring an end to so-called “no fault” divorce? Will Labour stop paying young whores to whelp bastard children? Will Labour stop binding men into indentures servitude to pay females for destroying their marriage and family? Will Labour stop promoting nonsense like “gay marriage” that destroys the very concept of marriage? Bob remains optimistic, but realistically they have a very long way to go despite their recognition that marriage is good for children. Several generations of anti-marriage laws are in place, and Labour is not likely to incur the wrath of anti-marriage feminist hate mongers and faggots by revising laws to rescue the future of the UK. Don't hold your breath for Labour to make positive changes.
For most of a century governments in all English speaking nations and many other countries have worked to change laws which discourage marriage, promote divorce, and pay for single momism. We have heard a generation of liberal feminazi politicians telling us that destroying a family is for “the best interest of the child.” Anyone with a lick of sense knows that has always been total government crap.
Perhaps because Mrs. PM, Sarah Brown, tells horror stories about her own parent's government promoted divorce, the UK government now is taking another look at its promotion of the end of marriage. Read a recent article in the London Daily Mail.
The bigger question, now that they have figured out the obvious, what will they do to promote and enable marriage? Will Labour bring an end to so-called “no fault” divorce? Will Labour stop paying young whores to whelp bastard children? Will Labour stop binding men into indentures servitude to pay females for destroying their marriage and family? Will Labour stop promoting nonsense like “gay marriage” that destroys the very concept of marriage? Bob remains optimistic, but realistically they have a very long way to go despite their recognition that marriage is good for children. Several generations of anti-marriage laws are in place, and Labour is not likely to incur the wrath of anti-marriage feminist hate mongers and faggots by revising laws to rescue the future of the UK. Don't hold your breath for Labour to make positive changes.
Labels: age of marriage, marriage, Politics, UK
posted by Bob | Sunday, December 21, 2008
15 Comments:
"Will Labour bring an end to so-called “no fault” divorce? Will Labour stop paying young whores to whelp bastard children? Will Labour stop binding men into indentures servitude to pay females for destroying their marriage and family? Will Labour stop promoting nonsense like “gay marriage” that destroys the very concept of marriage?"
As well as young whores being paid to produce bastards, they also get priority for housing from the state. There are teenage women, usually bastards themselves, who deliberately become pregnant so that they can claim free housing. Another bit of nonsense that needs to end.
Yes, marriage is better for children and they must get married.
Girl's father allows her to die of hypothermia; he faces charges:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/father-charged.html?csp=34
Note to anonymous:
When children accidentally die, they blame and attack the nearest available man. The case is another sexist injustice.
No the media didn't pin blame for the girl's death on a man for no reason. There was a GOOD, SOUND REASON!!! That father actually DID the stupid thing that caused the girl's death.
Whom should the media have blamed? The child herself? The Tooth Fairy?
Note to anonymous:
Any "reason" is sufficient when the goal is to destroy another man. Evil misandrist hate dominates the media and the American Injustice System (AIS).
Sometimes accidents happen to good people. The child died from the storm because the vehicle failed.
Destroying the fatter will only harm the other children. Yet you hate mongering sows demand to destroy men no matter how many children will be hurt.
The father did a dumb thing. He allowed the kids to walk in snowdrifts 10 miles. Had he no cell phone? Didn't it occur to him to prepare better for the possibility of breakdown in some isolated, snow covered region? That father was a careless man, a danger to the children in his care.
Note to anonymous:
Winter storms are dangerous to everyone. Its easy to second guess and blame the nearest available man when you are a hate filled sow.
If a woman's children had died she would be getting a ton of sympathy for her emotional distress over the loss of her child. A man gets blamed and arrested. The evil of your misandry permeates our society.
Wrong. Both men and women get blamed for childrens' deaths due to parental carelessness.
The sow shit is really flowing tonight.
Only in the twisted mind of a misandrist old cunt does the world not favor females at the expense of men. Sick.
You left out the most important part of my blog -
http://eqwithdenise.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/game-over-whats-wrong-with-game-seduction-and-the-pick-up-artist-industry/
Denise
You left out the most important part of my blog -
http://XXX
Denise
Bob: I'm not spewing any hate speech - I'm calling out extremist
MRAs and PUAs on their hate speech.
Everything on my site is NOT misandry; it's about healthy human growth. see the following:
GAME OVER ~ What’s Wrong With “Game”, Seduction, and the Pick-Up Artist Industry
February 2, 2010 — Denise | Edit
By Denise A. Romano
Let’s clarify a few things since the blog wars are perpetuating lies about our position on this, shall we?
Lady Raine and I have done our best to answer your questions on her blog, but the same questions keep pouring in.
For those of you who are interested, here is a link to an excellent PBS program about Happiness: http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/series — This is what it says about relationships and their role in human happiness: http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/relationships
When we hear from more than 5 men who are PUAs or MRAs who denounce rape and all of the abusive Game techniques below, we’ll do a nice post all about them. And for those men, PUAs, and MRAs who denounce these methods, thank you for vocally doing so on various PUA and MRA blogs that enthusiastically incite rape and celebrate rape as a mens’ right. Until then, this is our message:
We’re NOT saying that ALL men or ALL PUAs are horrible; we know there are good ones out there. We’ve heard from a few whom we like very much.
We’re also NOT saying that ALL PUA “schools” are horrible, though we are saying that we believe MOST ARE negligent and misogynistic when it comes to recklessly failing to train men around CONSENT laws that relate to sexual assault and rape.
We’re also NOT saying men don’t have a right to want sex, to be attracted to women, to ask women out, to like sex, or to enjoy sex. However this does NOT mean men have the right to have sex with any woman they want. There’s a big difference between wanting and doing.
We’re also NOT misandrists, we don’t hate men at all, and we’re not bitter or hoping to put all PUAs or all men in jail.
We don’t want to “destroy” heterosexual dating and relating – we just want it to be ethical, safe and within legal bounds for both men and women.
This is also NOT about “thought crime”.
“Here’s how it works: The Pick-Up Artist devotee feels worthless. He is informed that self-worth may be secured by having sex with women agreed to be attractive by the Pick-Up Artist community. He is told that in order to have sex with these women, he must not “be himself”—remember, he is worthless. Instead, he must pay exorbitant amounts of money to learn the correct “tactics” not to gain self-worth—but to convince the women that it is they who are truly worthless. Only the Pick-Up Artist “master” wins here—he gets the cash regardless of the outcome of the sexual conquest, while feeling superior to his male devotees (who are, in turn, superior to all women).”
From: WHY PICK-UP GAME HURTS EVERYONE EXCEPT THE GUY SHILLING BOOKS
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/12/why-pick-up-game-hurts-everyone-except-the-guy-shilling-books/
Here is a description of one man’s experience in the Seduction Community: http://www.xamuel.com/seduction-community/
As for pscyhological help being needed - I suggest you and those who do spew hate on the MRA site you posted on - complete with avatars illustrating men kicking women in their "cunts".
Yes hate does hurt the hater in the long wrong. There is nothing hateful on my blog. My blog defines hate, defines undue influence, and points out what is hateful about the irresponsible PUA industry, which several men have agreed with us about here.
Otherwise, this blog is all about human beings improving their Emotional Intelligence, Communication skills, conflict resolution skills, relationship skills, and critical reasoning skills.
As for hating and needing help, I suggest you look in a mirror - or re-read the MRA site you posted on - in which you conveniently forgot to mention any of what I said about men that is good. Yes, you forgot that part, didn't you?
Why don't you post about that? Or do you prefer to be inaccurate, in violation of the "rules" for posting on that blog?
I do NOT say that all MRAs are terrible or that all MRA groups are terrible. Though, I will say that the blog on which you post wherein men are encouraged to kick women in their cunts is hateful, is hate speech, is immature, vile, and evident of gender psychosis.
I have legitimate and subtsantial criticisms of extremist MRA groups and of the PUA industry, and I've outlined exactly what those are while also making it clear that I do not hate men and do not believe all MRAs or all PUAs are bad.
You, however, have intentionally misquoted me, have mischaracterized what I'm saying, and have libeled me, so I suggest you correct that immediately.
I did not make up any of what I wrote about what I've found on MRA sites - I could not have made that up if I had wanted to. I found it all on MRA blogs on the web. And it is misogyny.
Feel free to comment here again IF you decide to be intellectually honest. If you insist on lying and making unsubstantiated comments - don't bother coming back.
Denise
Note to Denise:
Your femiNazi "rapt-hate" blog is nothing but total misandry. Sex is not a big crime, not even if the man makes a decision for once. Sex is usully a boon to the female, even when the man decides. Feminist rape-hate uses sex to push female domination and to spread hatred of men. Shame on you. Get some counseling for your hate.
Post a Comment
<< Home