French march by tens of thousands against homo "marriages" and adoptation

[Skybird]

Wooot...? Has the world suddenly turned upside down over night?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20382699

Note: I tolerate child adoptation by homo couples only when the children in question is an offspring by one of the two adults, from an earlier mixed relation.

[Sailor Steve]

You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge? :O:

[BossMark]

No doubt they will "surrender" :haha:

[Tchocky]

"That's the way it is and we can't go against nature."

Agreed. I'd much prefer that loving couples looking to adopt should be denied because it's unnatural. Leave the kid in the natural orphanage until a natural couple comes along.

[Tribesman]

You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge?

The fundamentalist zealots.:rotfl2:
They was going to have an election but Sky doesn't believe in voting so he kindly volunteered himself to be their self appointed minister of intolerance as he wasn't sure they would make the right decision as they are not him so they don't really know truth like he does.
He is sure however that he is the correct choice as he once read an article for some months since that he agrees with. :03:

[Skybird]

You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge? :O:

Either you

- are actively for/in favour of something
- or you tolerate something (which is possible only from a superior position, never from an inferior position)
- or you take no interest in the matter and/or refuse to form an opinion or stand by yourself
- or you are against something.

I am in charge of my attitude and opinion and reasoning. There can be no doubt that I am. ;)

[u crank]

It's a no-brainer. If you allow same sex marriage, than you have to allow adoption. You can't have two classes of marriage. Besides, same sex couples can have children by other means than adoption. So what's the difference?

... I'd much prefer that loving couples looking to adopt should be denied because it's unnatural. Leave the kid in the natural orphanage until a natural couple comes along.

Exactly. I'm sure they don't mind waiting. :O:

[Skybird]

Agreed. I'd much prefer that loving couples looking to adopt should be denied because it's unnatural. Leave the kid in the natural orphanage until a natural couple comes along.
Let children be adopted by suitable (materially safe and stable social conditions) mixed couples so that their psychological developement is supported by a mother and a father. A homosexual man is no mother. A lesbian woman is no father. Normal sexual role models are important.

It'S bad stuff happening when couples get divorced, or one parent get killed. But such things happen. Nevertheless that they happen is no argument to declare these events the natural rule on which to base when defining child education in a family.

Where this happens on bigger scale, there is plenty of serious social distortions and psychological consequences in the children's developement, leading as far as school problems, higher probability for developing later personality changes, depressions from the age of 30 on, concentration deficits - the possible symptoms are diverse. Not everybody is effected to the same degree. But in the whole group you have a statistically significant rise of probability for psychic aberrations developing. And we talk of aberration in the meaning of: unhealthy, disease, clinical symptom. We do not talk of aberration in the meaning of: just biologic diversity.

Gender-centric but scientifically hopelessly unqualified "studies" who excel not in quality but in political correctness and political ideology, do not change this.

If human species was meant to raise children and mix genes by homosexual reproduction, according coupels would have been given the biological ability to do so. If sexual role models would have been meant to play no role in young human'S psychic and cognitive developement, our developement would reflect that. But it doesn't, but shows a higher probability for malfunctioning abberations in psychic and cognitive structures.

Reality means more than wanted political ideology. ;)

The genderism in Europe btw is not just ideologically motivated and pushed by feminism. There are also hardcore economic interest behind it. Women are not wanted to take care of children and stay infamilies at home for to long, because they are more wanted as a cheap labour force in the economy. Yesterday'S repeated demand by the German industry leader to cut maternity leave down to one year or even less, is to be seen in this light. It has nothing to do with equal rights and women quota. It is about having a greater worker pool to chose from, especially in the low wage sector.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah, we had mayors and governors state sideside that had major problems when sperate but equal for African Americans was struck down as well. The supporters of this type of apartheid will eventually fade away too.

[Catfish]

It is one thing to 'tolerate' a religious belief, but another to tolerate the Shariah. If one thing is not to be had without the other ...

But we know it has already worked, a lot of muslims have come to Europe to escape just of all that, and lived well and non-aggressive for years.

As usual it's the rabble-rousers - get rid of THEM by sending them back to their contries, and the rest will work out by itself.

[razark]

It is one thing to 'tolerate' a religious belief, but another to tolerate the Shariah.
What does Shariah have to do with this?

As usual it's the rabble-rousers - get rid of THEM by sending them back to their contries, and the rest will work out by itself.
The Vatican?
The head of the French Council of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, recently described gay marriage as "the ultimate deceit".

[Rilder]

Agreed. I'd much prefer that loving couples looking to adopt should be denied because it's unnatural. Leave the kid in the natural orphanage until a natural couple comes along.

No no no, that's not natural enough for these people, if a kid loses their parents they should clearly just be left to fend for themselves. Can't let a couple raise kids that aren't their own after all, that would be unnatural.

[Tribesman]

What does Shariah have to do with this?

Its gotta be the moooosleeems see.:03:

I am in charge of my attitude and opinion and reasoning. There can be no doubt that I am.
Unfortunately that is not the case.
Your opinions are often self contradictory so clearly no one is in charge there, and your reasoning is often non existanrt so there is nothing to be in charge of on that count.

[Armistead]

Let children be adopted by suitable (materially safe and stable social conditions) mixed couples so that their psychological developement is supported by a mother and a father. A homosexual man is no mother. A lesbian woman is no father. Normal sexual role models are important.

It'S bad stuff happening when couples get divorced, or one parent get killed. But such things happen. Nevertheless that they happen is no argument to declare these events the natural rule on which to base when defining child education in a family.

Where this happens on bigger scale, there is plenty of serious social distortions and psychological consequences in the children's developement, leading as far as school problems, higher probability for developing later personality changes, depressions from the age of 30 on, concentration deficits - the possible symptoms are diverse. Not everybody is effected to the same degree. But in the whole group you have a statistically significant rise of probability for psychic aberrations developing. And we talk of aberration in the meaning of: unhealthy, disease, clinical symptom. We do not talk of aberration in the meaning of: just biologic diversity.

Gender-centric but scientifically hopelessly unqualified "studies" who excel not in quality but in political correctness and political ideology, do not change this.

If human species was meant to raise children and mix genes by homosexual reproduction, according coupels would have been given the biological ability to do so. If sexual role models would have been meant to play no role in young human'S psychic and cognitive developement, our developement would reflect that. But it doesn't, but shows a higher probability for malfunctioning abberations in psychic and cognitive structures.

Reality means more than wanted political ideology. ;)

The genderism in Europe btw is not just ideologically motivated and pushed by feminism. There are also hardcore economic interest behind it. Women are not wanted to take care of children and stay infamilies at home for to long, because they are more wanted as a cheap labour force in the economy. Yesterday'S repeated demand by the German industry leader to cut maternity leave down to one year or even less, is to be seen in this light. It has nothing to do with equal rights and women quota. It is about having a greater worker pool to chose from, especially in the low wage sector.

Geesh, what 70's report or radical religious site did you get that crap from?


The only truth to this is the reason children of homo parents deal with some problems is more due to a bigoted racist culture that bullies, makes fun, etc., of the children, not the homo parents. Why I agree a mother/father may offer more benefit, I wouldn't call it more normal or that homo marriage or adoption doesn't offer benefit. The world isn't perfect. We certainly can't say that hetero marriage is perfect either, it's clear a 70% divorce rate causes more emotional issues than homo marriage. Not to mention it was a man and woman, Adam and Eve, that screwed the world up for the rest of us.

I say this, if your against gay marriage, don't marry a gay, other than that, mind your own F'n business.

[Sailor Steve]

I am in charge of my attitude and opinion and reasoning. There can be no doubt that I am. ;)

Tol·er·ate
1. To allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. To endure without repugnace; put up with.

I assume you meant the second. From the way you said it, it sounded like you meant the first. Hence my question.

Let children be adopted by suitable (materially safe and stable social conditions) mixed couples so that their psychological developement is supported by a mother and a father. A homosexual man is no mother. A lesbian woman is no father. Normal sexual role models are important.
Again, it sounds like you believe you should be in charge of making that decision. Do you have any idea how frightening that sounds to most people?

[u crank]

The only truth to this is the reason children of homo parents deal with some problems is more due to a bigoted racist culture that bullies, makes fun, etc., of the children, not the homo parents. Why I agree a mother/father may offer more benefit, I wouldn't call it more normal or that homo marriage or adoption doesn't offer benefit. The world isn't perfect. We certainly can't say that hetero marriage is perfect either, it's clear a 70% divorce rate causes more emotional issues than homo marriage.

Putting aside any personal views I may have on homosexuality and same sex marriage, I have to say that any couple who wish to adopt a child have put some thought into it. In most cases I doubt if it's done on a careless whim and for gay couples even more so. It isn't an accident like some child births to hetro couples. You are right, it isn't a perfect world. A home with loving and committed parents is better than no home or an orphanage.


I say this, if your against gay marriage, don't marry a gay, other than that, mind your own F'n business.

:yep:

[em2nought]

Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that people think that these "folks" must secretly be pedophiles? And everybody knows that sex is bad, France must be getting americanized. :hmmm:

[Betonov]

Probably old fat farts that couldn't get laid because the women were either lesbians or pretendet to be lesbians

[Tribesman]

Its a wierd thing, gay marriage/adoption are really a pretty much "so what" topic, yet the more you see of the arguements against it the more logical the arguements for it become.

[Betonov]

There are no arguments for it. There's no need for arguments for it.
If adoption is a human right it's extended to homosexuals. Anything else is bigotry

[Red Brow]

"You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge?"

[CaptainMattJ.]

Because having 1 parent is completely fine, having abusive parents is fine, but having 2 homosexuals parenting is terrible? I have yet to find an unbiased study "proving" homosexual parents have lacking parental skills. Most studies conducted fail to recognize whether said child had gone through a divorce, or a family crisis, or something traumatizing, no, they simply took a random group of kids who have at one point seen their parents in a homosexual relationship and failed to inquire about what their experiences were, if their parents had affairs, money troubles, divorces, turmoil, anything of the sort, and some they improperly grouped people.

They need to conduct a controlled study with children in stable environments. Take children in relatively stable environments and compare them with children in a stable environment.

[Cybermat47]

Agreed. I'd much prefer that loving couples looking to adopt should be denied because it's unnatural. Leave the kid in the natural orphanage until a natural couple comes along.

Yes. That is true.

Gay's aren't natural. That is true. It is also true that Hitler got a sex change and is now the Queen of England.

[Skybird]

Again, it sounds like you believe you should be in charge of making that decision. Do you have any idea how frightening that sounds to most people?
"You" and "most people" are two different things. And no, by the quote of my words that you give I completely fail to see what is frightening about them. It partially already is law. Children, according to such laws, should only be allowed to be adopted by suitable couples/families who are assessed and seen as forming socially stable entities, and who are in the material/financial position to support the raising and educations of the adopted child. It is not frightening when I repeat that, but it is common sense. That mother and father serve as different sexual/gender role models, and that a lesbian is no man and a gay is no woman, again is no frightening statement, but common sense, and in accordance with experience and feedback from children psychology and school biographies.

That some kids get raised by alcoholic parents or junkeys, would lead nobody to now demand that alcoholics and junkeys should be allowed to adopt children. Homosexual people may not be junkeys or alcoholics, but the social setting their relation represents is such that the sexual role modelling factors are different from that a child experiences with a mother and a father. A gay man or or a lesbian woman cannot replace a mother or a father, like a single parents cannot replace the missing counterpart in case of divorce or death of one parent. That'S why in most countries singles cannot adopt children, as far as I know, except they are the biological parents. And that is the one exception where I accept adoptation by homosexual couples as well: if it is indeed the biological child of one pf the adults, from an earlier mixed relationship.

Note: I said relationship, implying their is a contact and state of familiarity between both. In case of a child resulting from a brief affair or a one-night-stand, it already becomes complicated again. If I rate the interest iof the child as the highest good, I would treat that constellation the same like foreigners wanting to adopt a foreign child.

Very fri-hi-hightening all, that, eh? Beware tayranney! Beware the Fuhuhurer! Beware the dicidicitatorship! A rule has been spotted somewhere? Oh you poor freedom - duck and cover, they are really going after ya!

Nonsense. It is old-fashioned common sense, nothing more. And of course, it is politically incorrect and makes gender-engineers shiver indeed. I would feel I said something wrong if they would agree with me, for all what modern genderism stands for imo is totally and completely wrong, and a crime against human nature and against socially responsible culture.

For readers fluid in German language, i again refer to the site cuncti.net where they have most of their essays on issues of genderism, feminism, anti-male discrimination (which already starts in schools, btw), education and occasionally on same-sex marriages - and on the psychological, cultural and financial costs of these social experiments.

Heck, genderism is not even a real science, it is pure ideology only,but iot gets treated with all the respect and benefits of a science, science has repeatedly proven it wrong on all accounts. This of course does not stop the propaganda claiming different. The deconstruction of families and the denial of differences in psychological structure and it'S development in boys and girls, resulting for example in different interests, is a huge disaster, and is something that is payed for by the psychological health and "life-happiness" of our children.

Reductionists and materialists - and feminists and lefties are both of that, both feminism and socialism are extremely reductionistic schools of utmost materialism, like capitalism also is - have big troubles to understand and to see this. They lack the terms and structure to see it.

If you want to feel frightened by something, then maybe you better should be frightened by them. ;)

[Red Brow]

My children just submit to the Globalist cause. Stop whining about details that you don't seem to know anything about. I want you to take the anti-Brevik oath. That you never traded emails with Brevik prior to his arrest. Some of the stuff here is almost National Socialist.

Just submit! Like I say to people who grumble about governments, "Just lie back and enjoy it!" Or if not a submission to Globalist ideals, then come join me in unrepentant Zionism. You'll enjoy the movies and TV more. And you won't be fired from your silly job.

Think what your Uncle Obama would want you to do. Think what the collective leaders of the G-8 or 20 or what ever would want. They're going to win anyway, why not hop on the bandwagon before it runs you over?

[AVGWarhawk]

I like puppies.

[Sailor Steve]

Very fri-hi-hightening all, that, eh? Beware tayranney! Beware the Fuhuhurer! Beware the dicidicitatorship! A rule has been spotted somewhere? Oh you poor freedom - duck and cover, they are really going after ya!
You can belittle and demean all you want. It's not "a rule" that's the problem. It's people who are convinced they know what's best for everybody else.

Nonsense. It is old-fashioned common sense, nothing more. And of course, it is politically incorrect and makes gender-engineers shiver indeed. I would feel I said something wrong if they would agree with me, for all what modern genderism stands for imo is totally and completely wrong, and a crime against human nature and against socially responsible culture.
Anybody can spout their opinion and call it "common sense". You have yet to prove any of your opinions on this, so once again you fall back on telling everyone else what's good for us.

Can you prove any of the crap you just spouted? Your "science" is no better than the "science" you condemn. It's all your opinion, but you keep acting like you know what's best for everybody.

[Cybermat47]

Is it just me, or do the anti-gay guys look miserable, while the gay supporters look really happy?

[Hottentot]

I like puppies.

Me too. But this puppy doesn't like homos. He had some seriously stern views on the matters of purity even when he was less than 8 weeks old. Also, he was very keen on claiming living space from other puppies...

http://i.imgur.com/Z634v.jpg

[Tribesman]

Is it just me, or do the anti-gay guys look miserable, while the gay supporters look really happy?
Perhaps the anti poofs have personal issues :03:


Very fri-hi-hightening all, that, eh? Beware tayranney! Beware the Fuhuhurer! Beware the dicidicitatorship! A rule has been spotted somewhere? Oh you poor freedom - duck and cover, they are really going after ya!

That actually sounds like a typical Skybull rant about fictional legislation he has chosen to warn the world about.
Does that imply that his rather lame attempt just illustrates his lack of common sense and backfires

[joea]

Well, I don't care if gays want to get married, but am not sure I like the idea of homosexuals adopting children. So am I PC or not?? :-?

[Betonov]

So am I PC or not?? :-?

Depends if you can replace your spleen for a newer, more powerfull version.

Damn it, I've been suporting gay rights for so long now, I aquired a taste for Lady Gaga :dead:

[Skybird]

Well, I don't care if gays want to get married, but am not sure I like the idea of homosexuals adopting children. So am I PC or not?? :-?
It's called schizophrenia. :O:

Serious, the basic idea behind marriage has been an economic partnership serving as the fundament for raising children. In other words: family founding. Yes, there are kings marrying princesses, and poltrical marriages and all that - but that is not the everday purpose that marriages have served for for 99% of the ordinary people. And yes, there are bad marriages, and families better never have come to existence, and children suffering from alcoholics and tyrants, and wifes being beaten from their thugs of a husband. And still: the general idea why a man and a women came togather and decided to spend their lives togather, roginally was about sharing the workload of a shared place (farm), and ordanizing the educaiton adn caretaking of thechiuldren. Both mother and father to their best and individual (-gender-related) advantages).

It makes little sense to principally try to separate "marriage" from "family/child raising". That many couples do not have children, does not chnage the principle behind the historic roots of the institution.

We have immense dmeograpohic problems in Wetsern societies, too few children. The family gets decosuntructed by modern, left-leanijng and materialistic conceptions, who often also aim at simply egoist motives of the actors: avoiding the responsibility that comes with family, putting job and career, sexual adventuring and freedom to "discover oneself" and such before responsibility. It seems, from a sociological perspective as well as a culture-historic perspective, it does not work too good. Nor has it made people more happy, self-fulfilled, and reasonable. We try to destroy families today. Put children into anonymous institutions at the age of 1 year so that their mothers - a term nor declared to be sexual discriminating - should both enter the workforce pool agfain and should also prove feminist ideology right by makiong career in high posts of the economy where they should at best gain 50% parity with male actors - not caqrting oine mooent for the question whether that really is what women in genersal want. That there are fewerr women in certain fields, and fewer men in other fields, may be owed to the simply fact that men and women have different interests, and set different priorities. But feminists, every woman has to be a female soldiers for the sake of gender ideolgy whiczh says that there are no diffeercnes between girls and boys buit that such diferences in interests and role-finding are totally artifical and transported by culturer and education only. Which has been so often found to be wrong. But when the wrong thing gets repeated often and loud enough, it nevertheless gets mistake for the truth, eventually.

Genderism, destroying the family institution, homo marriage, feminism - it all comes form the same basic mindset, the same ideologic direction. Add to this poltiicians attempts to lure people into submitting themselves into dependency from social nanny-nursing by the state that pays for everything and takes away all responsibility form them to make these well-nursed crowds depend on the parties and vote for them, securing them in power, and you have successfully outlined the basic scheme that explains why things are being pushed over the edge. It is no accident. It is wanted.

Another reason why I have serious doubts about democracy. See the German book recommendation ("Prolokratier") I just gave in the "Notes from Germany" thread. "Notes in German" would now be a better title, maybe, but the thread changed slightly in idea since it began.

[Armistead]

Skybird,

What you're saying let's stay in the dark ages and not progress with culture. The problem with the American family has nothing to do with sexuality. Marriage and relationships have evolved. Still, why not promote marriage for all people? I honestly don't care who loves who.

I realize you would probably like to go back to the day of no civil or equal rights, but it ain't gonna happen,

[geetrue]

You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge? :O:


Give the guy a break ... he means in his mind he tolerates this union.

You must have a language problem not a spelling problem :woot:

[Morts]

Another reason why I have serious doubts about democracy.
Oh stop the drama Skybird, just because you cant get it your way.

[Sailor Steve]

Give the guy a break ... he means in his mind he tolerates this union.

You must have a language problem not a spelling problem :woot:
Neither. I have a problem with people who "know" that they're right and insist that if we don't listen to them we'll destroy civilization as we know it.

That said, I don't know that he's wrong. I try to listen to all sides of every argument. I just wish we could have a rational discussion rather than a diatribe or lecture.

[geetrue]

Hey! Hottentot ... that's one cute puppy.

The TSA (Homeland Security) wants to train your puppy to smell out homosexual men and gay women for further examinations in the back room.

Is he available for this training?


Me too. But this puppy doesn't like homos. Hehad some seriously stern views on the matters of purity even when he was less than 8 weeks old. Also, he was very keen on claiming living space from other puppies...

http://i.imgur.com/Z634v.jpg

[geetrue]

Neither. I have a problem with people who "know" that they're right and insist that if we don't listen to them we'll destroy civilization as we know it.

That said, I don't know that he's wrong. I try to listen to all sides of every argument. I just wish we could have a rational discussion rather than a diatribe or lecture.

Your really saying you don't like the way skybryd's mindgate works and you would prefer for his mindgate to operate more along the same principles as yours do.

In other words you just want to continue long standing arguements in lew of a true debate, correct?

[Sailor Steve]

In other words you just want to continue long standing arguements in lew of a true debate, correct?
Not really. I love a good debate. I just don't see one here.

[Hottentot]

Hey! Hottentot ... that's one cute puppy.

The TSA (Homeland Security) wants to train your puppy to smell out homosexual men and gay women for further examinations in the back room.

Is he available for this training?

If I'm not completely mistaken, he already has an occupation. One involving reins and a person with a white cane. :03:

[Skybird]

Skybird,

What you're saying let's stay in the dark ages and not progress with culture. The problem with the American family has nothing to do with sexuality. Marriage and relationships have evolved. Still, why not promote marriage for all people? I honestly don't care who loves who.

I realize you would probably like to go back to the day of no civil or equal rights, but it ain't gonna happen,
That is your propaganda, not mine.

Nonsense, and I honstely don'T care for who has which friends, what kind of colleagues, what people to live together in a community. I just say that the insttiotuion of the family is spoecial, and important, and of vital interest, and while i8t is indeed under attack already and destroyed in the name of left idoelogy and better availabiulty of the "human resource" on the labour market so that poeople sopend more time in jobs instead with their children and families, well, while I realsie that this takes place, this doe snot atumotaically means itr is somethign good that happens. It is not, I see, becasue the degenration of moral and socialstandards, the desintegration of self-inhibitory limits regarding egoism, exhibitionism, violence and overstepping moral limits, does not just fall from the sky but is caused by soemthing, and a major part from that is the modenr chnages ine ducatiuon - or lack of education that it often is. The family should be a legally protected and materially priviliged institutions indeed. Gay or lesbian couples mean nothing for a soceity,. they are totally irrelevant for society - like I am irrelevant to society as well in the meaning that this single that I am does fulfills no contributiing function by just being a single. Fpor society, gay couples mean nothing, and I fail to see anything being accopmplished by two men or two women living together. They are free to do so already. Why giving them the ssame respoect that I claim should be reserved for family? They just do not earn it, like I also do not earn any special respect for being a single, or for meeting a friend and watching a movie with him/her/them together. It is of no interest for society whether we do that.

Hell, some idiots even go as far as demanding that schools should encourage young children to expolore homsoexcual experiences as well in order to undersatand them better and not to "discriminate" them. Hell, am I the only one thinkling that this is just plainout SICK?

It is not discmri8nating atr all to tell gay or lesbian couples they are nothign special. A family is somethign special, and it gioves a contriobtuion to the fututree of a society that friendship or colleagues alone cannot come up with. And here is the problem of the whole gay debate: that it is called discrimination if interst groups and activists are not given special respect for - essentially for nothing, they did nothing that justfies the special inetesr and restct that cinstanbtly claim. Gays are just gays. Singles are just singles. Friends are just friends. Fine. More they are not. No contribution. No acchievement. Nothing special and wonderfl in their nature. The most absurd propaganda ohrase in all this is this stupid word of "gay pride". Pardon, but when by your genes you are gay, or transsexual, or crosssexual - what is there that justifies a feeling of "pride" Should I be proud of my hair colour now, or what? My hair is what it is, and pride has nothing to do with it. My sexual orientation and preferences are what they are, and again pride has nothing to do with it. If somebody would have talked of "white pride", he alraedy wpuld have been crucified by political correctness, and would be randmarked as a racist. But "gay pride" is acceptable a term? Well, to me it just ilustzrates how stupid and upblown ther whole "debate" is. If somebody is proud for being gay, he really has lost his marbles, I would say. He is what he is - and full stop right there. Leave him that way, but special rewspoct payed, pride atributed, equal status like for couples that indeed contribute to the social interest of society by aising children, hopefully - no, not with me.

And once again I ask why gay and lesbian couples deserve so much more respect, than singles like me. What makes the gay couple so much more valuable and special and precious that it should be given legal privileges that singles do not have, even beneficial tax status maybe, that again singles do not enjoy? Sorry, that is dicrimination of singles.

that one must explain modern Westerners why family and a protected framework for the raising of children is important and of vital inerest for the social health of a society, tells me how sick and really degenerated our sense of sociality already is. We crucify and destroy ourselves over our pedantic micro-balancing of political correctness. But all you need to do is visit a hectic kindergarden with 2 and 3 year old that have been taken away from their parents and mothers, and compare that to the situation of children playing in the framework of a home with mother or father around, and no hectic and constant nervousness around. There is a reason why chikldren if being forced into Kindergarden and early schooling too young develope a weak immune system, and have a very much higher risk of developeing concentration deficits, behaviour aberration, psychological problems, and in the adulthood after shcool also run a highe rsk for psychological symptoms like depressions, suicides tendencies, and personality changes. The roots for who we become, get polanted in our very youngest chidhood already, and if society messes around with that phase of a human's biography, than this makes itself felt sooner or later.

Many of you guys just donb'T see that. You take opportnistically isolated glimpses at this or that, and refuse to see that they are all linked and connected in one higher order of framework. Like somebody seeing a tree, and look, there is another tree, and a third tree, why is there even a fourth tree! and look, there is another one, where did it come from, and the sixth tree over there, why is it there? If you get consummed by always self-isolated details always, and never open the eyes to see greater contexts, then you just miss that you are not dealing with just individual trees, but witzh the higher context that his ecosystem called "forest" is, and that forms its own relaities and runs its own rules - that you cannot conclude on when always just looking at one tree at a time.


We are a heterosexual species, biologically and psychologically evolutionary processes has made us and many other species to run like this. Aberrations take place, from gay people and cross-sexual people (wrong sexual identity locked in a wrong biologic body) to albinos. But albinos are no norm, nor are bleeders or carriers of other defective genes causing serious diseases. Homosexuality is no disease maybe, but it is an aberration from the way our species is meant to run the survival process. One should not deny this, and that is why I say that while e should not discriminate albinos or gays/lesbians, there also is no reason to give the equal respect and priviliges protective status like social institution that - different to gay couples or singles or albinos - indeed play a vital role for the society. Being gay or lesbian, does not make you anything special, it only makes you different. You have nothing gained by being that that deserves special respect and tribute being payed to you. There is no reason to be proud of being gay, like there is no reason to be proud of being a white, a red-.haired, or having eyes with blue iris.

So lets stop this daily attention-craving. Let'S worry more about the pitiful state that the family-institution is in. Different to singles living single or gays marrying or not, that IS an important and decisive issue for a change. And as I have indicated, it is embedded in a much greater context.

Not everything that is sold as "progress of culture", in modern present times indeed is a progress. All too often now it is just the rejection and destruction of culture, and declaring dilletantism a virtue and chaos resulting from the lack of substance the glory of the new world order.

[Tribesman]

I think I see the problem, Skybull really wishes Elton John was his mum so he could have got bedtime stories like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo6lKA20FIw

[Tchocky]

The most absurd propaganda ohrase in all this is this stupid word of "gay pride". Pardon, but when by your genes you are gay, or transsexual, or crosssexual - what is there that justifies a feeling of "pride" Should I be proud of my hair colour now, or what? My hair is what it is, and pride has nothing to do with it. My sexual orientation and preferences are what they are, and again pride has nothing to do with it. If somebody would have talked of "white pride", he alraedy wpuld have been crucified by political correctness, and would be randmarked as a racist. But "gay pride" is acceptable a term? Well, to me it just ilustzrates how stupid and upblown ther whole "debate" is. If somebody is proud for being gay, he really has lost his marbles, I would say. He is what he is - and full stop right there. Leave him that way, but special rewspoct payed, pride atributed, equal status like for couples that indeed contribute to the social interest of society by aising children, hopefully - no, not with me.
......

Being gay or lesbian, does not make you anything special, it only makes you different. You have nothing gained by being that that deserves special respect and tribute being payed to you. There is no reason to be proud of being gay, like there is no reason to be proud of being a white, a red-.haired, or having eyes with blue iris.

So lets stop this daily attention-craving.

It's very simple.

Gay pride exists because gay shame exists. It's a simple reaction. Because it's still a difficult thing to admit for young people, because gays and lesbians still get treated like subhumans around the world. They're still publicly executed for it, countries are even today trying to pass laws that makes homosexuality a capital offence. This alone is a reason for pride in being gay, open, and free. Because a lot of people are not. They live their lives in secret and in fear.

For example, in my home country it was still illegal to be a homosexual less than twenty years ago. The Supreme Court said that keeping homosexuality illegal kept the population healthy and ensures no threat to traditional marriage.

This alone is a reason for pride. If you see it only as attention-seeking, then I don't know how to explain it clearer.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.



As to your larger point, that recognising that LGBT couples should be able to get married legitimises aberrations that don't produce children and reverse the Western decline of birthrates due to genderfascism and feminism and forced KinderGarten-gay-sex-play-time and not seeing the forest for all the albinotrees something something new world order....

I'm sorry, I really tried. I don't get it.

Gay or lesbian couples mean nothing for a soceity,. they are totally irrelevant for society - like I am irrelevant to society as well in the meaning that this single that I am does fulfills no contributiing function by just being a singleIt is possible to be a contributing member of society while not lying flat on one's back either producing or conceiving children. You could adopt an orphaned child with your partner, for example. Bring a little love into a life that needs it.


Not everything that is sold as "progress of culture", in modern present times indeed is a progress.

I'd call the recognition of equal rights for homosexuals a mark of good progress towards our "Treating Each Other Like People" merit badge.

[Takeda Shingen]

That is your propaganda, not mine.

Clearly. You've got propaganda all of your own.

Nonsense, and I honstely don'T care for who has which friends, what kind of colleagues, what people to live together in a community.

Just so long as they aren't able to enjoy the same rights as you.

We are a heterosexual species, biologically and psychologically evolutionary processes has made us and many other species to run like this. Aberrations take place, from gay people and cross-sexual people (wrong sexual identity locked in a wrong biologic body) to albinos. But albinos are no norm, nor are bleeders or carriers of other defective genes causing serious diseases. Homosexuality is no disease maybe, but it is an aberration from the way our species is meant to run the survival process. One should not deny this, and that is why I say that while e should not discriminate albinos or gays/lesbians, there also is no reason to give the equal respect and priviliges protective status like social institution that - different to gay couples or singles or albinos - indeed play a vital role for the society. Being gay or lesbian, does not make you anything special, it only makes you different. You have nothing gained by being that that deserves special respect and tribute being payed to you. There is no reason to be proud of being gay, like there is no reason to be proud of being a white, a red-.haired, or having eyes with blue iris.

So homosexuality is a genetic defect that must be combated by preserving marriage for people that are heterosexually oriented only. Of course, homosexuals are also the product of heterosexual intercourse, so the only solution to the gay problem is to prohibit breeding entirely.

So lets stop this daily attention-craving. Let'S worry more about the pitiful state that the family-institution is in. Different to singles living single or gays marrying or not, that IS an important and decisive issue for a change. And as I have indicated, it is embedded in a much greater context.

I agree. I get so sick of heterosexual couples demanding that special status be reserved for them and them alone.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree. I get so sick of heterosexual couples demanding that special status be reserved for them and them alone.

Sometimes that status ain't so special. :shifty:

[Takeda Shingen]

Sometimes that status ain't so special. :shifty:

Speak for yourself. My marriage is pretty great.

[Betonov]

The pitfull state of fammilies today is ECONOMIC, not social.
Gays marying, having children, having the same rights is a drop into the ocean compared to unemployment, taxes, high costs of living and credits.

[Cybermat47]

If this was in Austtralia, I'd like to see the church leaders try to organize an anti-gay march; 70% of Australian Christians support gay marriage :up:

[darius359au]

If this was in Austtralia, I'd like to see the church leaders try to organize an anti-gay march; 70% of Australian Christians support gay marriage :up:

They tried to do it ,hardly anyone showed up - the numbers that have shown up for the pro gay marriage one's though Have reflected public opinion, but politicians still think they need to suck up to the churches instead of listening to the people!

[yubba]

Maybe be after we land at the bottom of the fiscal cliff we can worry about this have a twinky and relax. Why is it, there has to be some sex related topic, to distract us from the real issues, like terrorism, and the economy, you voted for santa claus you'll get all your sex toys so where's the jobs ????

[mookiemookie]

Oh look, it's this argument again.

[Oberon]

Oh look, it's this argument again.

http://zzzlist.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/obama-ohno.jpg?w=400

[Penguin]

Homosexuals are the cause of the economic problems, just think about what the queers are doing to our soil. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V6Ebey458Q)

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh look, it's this argument again.

Oh yes. Once we have put every American to work, elimintated homelessness, cured cancer and achieved world peace, then we will worry about people's rights. Until then, suck it up and stop complaining.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh yes. Once we have put every American to work, elimintated homelessness, cured cancer and achieved world peace, then we will worry about people's rights. Until then, suck it up and stop complaining.

I think the Canadians have the cure for cancer.

[Sailor Steve]

I think the Canadians have the cure for cancer.
Ah, but to have real world peace we first need to find the cure for boredom.

[Penguin]

I think the Canadians have the cure for cancer.

According to their packets of fags however it looks like they haven't found it yet. :know:

[yubba]

Oh look, it's this argument again.
Yep,,..You would have thought someone found the cure for AIDS...

[geetrue]

Yep,,..You would have thought someone found the cure for AIDS...

They did ... God!

[Buddahaid]

They did ... God!

God.....what?

[geetrue]

God.....what?

Don't get it started ... I back off :O:

[Cybermat47]

No, I get why the anti-gays look sadder than the gays!

Gay means Happy!

[Buddahaid]

Don't get it started ... I back off :O:

Chicken. :O:

[geetrue]

No, I get why the anti-gays look sadder than the gays!

Gay means Happy!

6 Tips on How to Stop Using the Word "Gay" Inappropriately (http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Using-the-Word-%22Gay%22-Inappropriately)

www.wikihow.com/Stop-Using-the-Word-"Gay"-Inappropriately
Nov 07, 2012 · On overhearing any inappropriate use of the word gay and attempting to correct them, you may well be right that they are using it inappropriately, ...

[yubba]

Happiness two screwed up women putting up with each others crap.