Woolworths SA refuses to back down from supporting Pride Month

You reckon? Are there really that many DINK's ?

And on the flipside I would argue it’s the people with kids who often push their income limits more for having more motivation to do so.

There’s a (large) difference between having more expendable income for a lack of children and having generational wealth because of children.
 
But surely also beautiful if successful, assuming the children will model a heterosexual, in-love mother and father who have integrity and care for earth and people.

Since beyond success, materialism and experience, the union of man and woman and deliverance of new souls into such homes would for many people due to evolution and human nature complete the meaning of life.
 
But surely also beautiful if successful, assuming the children will model a heterosexual, in-love mother and father who have integrity and care for earth and people.

Since beyond success, materialism and experience, the union of man and woman and deliverance of new souls into such homes would for many people due to evolution and human nature complete the meaning of life.

Such wisdom, much disappointment
 
But surely also beautiful if successful, assuming the children will model a heterosexual, in-love mother and father who have integrity and care for earth and people.

Since beyond success, materialism and experience, the union of man and woman and deliverance of new souls into such homes would for many people due to evolution and human nature complete the meaning of life.
i-just-took-81cb1e967c.jpg
 
Equating the core beliefs by design of the majority of humans with taking drugs? How telling.

As much as I don’t mind being on the receiving end of your slow day on Twitter, perhaps chat about it at your next trance party.
 
But surely also beautiful if successful, assuming the children will model a heterosexual, in-love mother and father who have integrity and care for earth and people.

Since beyond success, materialism and experience, the union of man and woman and deliverance of new souls into such homes would for many people due to evolution and human nature complete the meaning of life.
qa6ptkqrnzc41.jpg
 
But surely also beautiful if successful, assuming the children will model a heterosexual, in-love mother and father who have integrity and care for earth and people.

Since beyond success, materialism and experience, the union of man and woman and deliverance of new souls into such homes would for many people due to evolution and human nature complete the meaning of life.
or model and overbearing abusive farther and end up hating everyone including her/himself.
 
Equating the core beliefs by design of the majority of humans with taking drugs? How telling.

As much as I don’t mind being on the receiving end of your slow day on Twitter, perhaps chat about it at your next trance party.

You just said @rietrot has "integrity and care for earth and people.".

That's a clear sign of being on drugs.
 
or model and overbearing abusive farther and end up hating everyone including her/himself.
Absolutely, anything is possible. But we also have exceptions and norms. I believe your comment to be of the former, vastly so. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with a conservative approach in raising children 'properly' to 'avert homosexuality', and that it does not lead to happy, successful and caring people? Why would you choose this line of interpretation ("sad") when the prevalence of overbearing, abusive fathers and damaged children is so low, relatively speaking? Would the fathers not have had their children's best interests at heart? Or are you of the opinion that children should be brought into the world to be and allowed to model themselves entirely without direction, a sense of competitiveness, etc.?
 
Absolutely, anything is possible. But we also have exceptions and norms. I believe your comment to be of the former, vastly so. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with a conservative approach in raising children 'properly' to 'avert homosexuality', and that it does not lead to happy, successful and caring people? Why would you choose this line of interpretation ("sad") when the prevalence of overbearing, abusive fathers and damaged children is so low, relatively speaking? Would the fathers not have had their children's best interests at heart? Or are you of the opinion that children should be brought into the world to be and allowed to model themselves entirely without direction, a sense of competitiveness, etc.?

There is nothing wrong with the conservative approach, perhaps in trying to "avert" something that we have no say in may prove difficult however.

Your best interests may be to avert homosexuality, another father's best interests may be to avert race mixing.

We all model ourselves anyway, we choose who we want to be and simply use the tools given to us to make those decisions.
 
There is nothing wrong with the conservative approach, perhaps in trying to "avert" something that we have no say in may prove difficult however.

Your best interests may be to avert homosexuality, another father's best interests may be to avert race mixing.

We all model ourselves anyway, we choose who we want to be and simply use the tools given to us to make those decisions.

This gender-transitioning social contagion is feeding the Trans Surgery & Pharma Industrial Complex.
As well as creating a new lucrative psychiatry and mental health, endocrinology, speech therapy, gynecology and plastic surgery sub-specializations.

Queerness has been identified as a high-return and exploitable commodity.

Most youngsters with gender dysphoria aren't even aware that they are being coaxed by unethical and immoral corporates to cash in.


us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market.png
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, anything is possible. But we also have exceptions and norms. I believe your comment to be of the former, vastly so. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with a conservative approach in raising children 'properly' to 'avert homosexuality', and that it does not lead to happy, successful and caring people?
What definition of conservative are you using here ?
Every person has a tendency to lean towards either old or new values. Every generation learns from the past and seeks to improve on the last - that's why kids are treated better now than in Charles Dickens time.
You are more progressive than your parents and they are more progressive than their own, at the same time you are more cautious than your parents were. Kids with too much freedom end up rebelling by making their own structure, kids with not enough freedom rebel and make their own chaos.

There is no such thing as "raising children properly to avert homosexuality". You are born that way, it happens in every type of family across the world. The only variance is the reaction of the parents.

Why would you choose this line of interpretation ("sad") when the prevalence of overbearing, abusive fathers and damaged children is so low, relatively speaking?
What would you base that on. Its sad that a father would not try and understand the child and would rather force them in to their own narrow view of the world.

Would the fathers not have had their children's best interests at heart? Or are you of the opinion that children should be brought into the world to be and allowed to model themselves entirely without direction, a sense of competitiveness, etc.?
What if I told you that no gay kid was ever happy that their parents rejected them for being gay.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X