". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
It’s a mental disorder:
An active member of the Norwegian Socialist Left Party (SV) who described himself as an ardent “feminist and anti-racist” explained the difficulty he experienced accepting that he had been anally raped by a male migrant. He said he didn’t blame the man for the attack, and regretted the fact he had been sent back to Somalia.
I can’t tell if this is stating the obvious or not:
The ancients could kill you in a million different ways and give you a million different reasons why it needed to be done. In much of the pre-modern world, ritual sacrifice was framed as necessary for the good of the society at large — the only way to guarantee, say, a plentiful harvest or success in war.
But the priests and rulers who sanctioned such killings may have had another motive, a new study suggests. An analysis of more than seven dozen Austronesian cultures revealed that the practice of human sacrifices tended to make societies increasingly less egalitarian and eventually gave rise to strict, inherited class systems. In other words, ritual killings helped keep the powerful in power and everyone else in check.
That finding might seem intuitive — societies in which some members are habitually killed probably value certain lives over others — but it has broader implications, the researchers said in the journal Nature. It suggests a “darker link between religion and the evolution of modern hierarchical societies,” they write, in which “ritual killings helped humans transition from the small egalitarian groups of our ancestors and the large, stratified societies we live in today.”
A major argument of the homosexual lobby is that same-sex attraction is genetically determined—that people are born homosexual. Because that is the case, the argument follows, then if you say homosexuality is wrong, you are as hateful and bigoted as if you were condemning someone for their skin color.
Homosexual activists decry any effort to change someone’s sexual orientation as morally reprehensible (reprehensible, that is, if it is a change toward heterosexuality—I have never heard them argue that it would be wrong to persuade a heterosexual to become homosexual). After all, how can you try to change someone from his genetic destiny? They believe that the morally right thing is a full, unrestricted expression of that supposed inborn tendency.
Well, if genetics do determine morality, that notion has some serious implications.
Today’s homosexual special interest juggernaut started as a small movement. Now, there is another small movement that is growing stronger—a movement that wants to extend this same kind of morality-is-genetic argument to a new group of people: pedophiles. People who are sexually attracted to children.
www.thetrumpet.com/article/13207.2.0.0/get-ready-people-are-trying-to-normalize-pedophilia