Wait, what?! The statement that there are trees in the forest should not be older than the statement that a god put them there, because the claim that a god out them there could not be disproven? What was first: the perception and realisation that there are trees, or the question why they are there? ;) Only one of the two optional answers is correct. ;)

Haplo, is this another of your queer attempts to put belief on same and equal status eye to eye with reason and knowing? Man, I really wish you would leave believing as what it is : just believing something. Nothing more it is.

Claims on deities having been the cause of something, are something that is being added to the existing world that already has been there before there was an organism as advanced enough to wonder why there is a world - the question why it is there cannot appear before somebody found that a world exists for sure. The one we live in, that is. Before you can ask questions on the existence of something - you must have taken note of its existence.

Natural drive to reproduce, and desire in humans (all this clever trickery of natrure that brings us together with another being to contribute to the survival of the species :) ), without any doubt is much older than any claim, idea, concept on monotheistic and before: polytheistic deities, theories on solar sunspot activity, and the invention of book printing. That we can say with great certainty for a simple reasopn: we can give relatively precise dates for when polytheistic theologies first developed, and when the first monotheistic concepts appeared, and when the later started to seriously push back the first. And yes, before monotheism there was polytheism. And there was a time with humans living that did not even know any form of theism at all. ;)

For me it is enough to understand the concept and it's advantage.

At the beginning of reason mankind realized the relation between cause and effect. You drop a stone at my foot and I feel pain. I sleep instead of feeding the fire, now it's out and we suffer. People's actions were responsible for certein effects. All the effects impossible to understand - rain, thunder, fertility, death etc. - were transfered to some invisible and mighty people. These gods were a mirror of the peoples perception on earth. No one single person was responsible for everything in their clans. There were more dominant members with more experience and power, older and younger family members with different tasks and manners. The people imagined a celestial family - even a dynasty - to be resposible for all these wonders and mysterious effects they could not explain.
All ancient civilisations are not monotheistic but pray to different gods - to families and dynasties of gods.

But a monotheistic religion is way easier to manage and the superior holy priest is only one person who decides what games to play, what songs to sing and what rules to follow.
The secular rulers preferred to deal with this one guy instead of several dissent priests for every god with different points of view.
The monotheistic religion was adapted by the people, because the one and only god was way more mightier than all the old gods together. This one and only true god was the source of all life, master of all effects, the glorious father of the own childhood in relation to the former gods and the only prophet of the truth. You know the kids at school talking about their cool fathers? Same situation. My daddy is the coolest of all...

The combo of worldly, secular power and religious, clerical power ruled the world for centuries. They kept the people poor and busy plus uneducated and fearsome. The mighty ones were educated and smart enough to maintain the system. Religion and god are tools to manipulate the people, to make them obey and to accept their fate.
Those who define good and evil, friends and foes, good and bad behaviour control the world until today.

The people don't learn the truth about this god and his function. The social community expects you to believe. It is a tradition and it feels good to have a mighty father that cares for your soul.
The people like the concept, because they know it from their own childhood. Those were the days when life was easy and you were not responsible for everything. Just behave well and your father is happy with you and at the end of the trip you get an icecream.

I cut it short becasue we have been there bfore, in past discussions, and I do not want to endlessly repeat in detail what I already said there. It's a bit more complex than you paint things as. Development psychology (I once studied that) and mother-child attachement and the concept of so
-called Bonding (Bowlby) plays a role in my thinking, since these have very strong scientific backing and it is almost crooinal to ignore them. And some more. But I was about that in greater detail already in past threads on homosexuality. Other factors that must be taken into account are genbder role modelling, and the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious differences an male and female values, and male and female ways of approaching and teaching children. I know that modern ultra-feminists, under the label of genderism now, claim that there are no gender differences between boys and girls and that it all can be socially engineered. It's just that endless repeating of already since years and decades scientifically proven wrong claims and misinformations does not make such wrong claims any less wrong.

Hell, what inane times I live in!? Children need a male father and a female mother. That should be obvious and natural so that any discussion about even this should be seen as completely needless. Can children grow without one of the two! Heck, yes, obviously they can. The quresiton is what this means for their inner development. What does it tell you that there is a significant correlation between a raise in probabilities for developing a personality disorder or a severe nueorosis - in them main: depression beyond the age of 30 when you have grown up with just one parent, and the other missing? One example. Or the correlation between the growing likelihood of showing conspicious behavior (aggression, lack of concentration, extreme introversion or extroversion, boycotting behavior within the social environment or school) and the absence of one parent in the household?

And just for the record, a gay man is no female mother. A lesbian woman is no male man. The one cannot serve as a rolemodel of the parent that lacks. What makes PC people so cvertain that they can afford to declare that children do not need a mother and a father when nature has designed our dual-sexual species with the sexual traits we have, and that effect so muczh more than just our reproduction behavior, but also our emotions, thinking, interests, priorities, perception, cognition? I recommend to liosten to mother nature here. She said "one mother and one father", and that's it. It cannot be by random chance only that this is the by far most dominant social model of families since several thouand years. It probbaly is ike that becasue iot has paye doff and is a model whose value has been well-proven.

A drunken scumbag ruining a family is no argument against a functional family as an ideal. One could as well speak against marriage becasue some men trat their women badly (and statistically more women staret fights and become physically aggressive in relations towards their men than the other way around - a statistic fact that most people do not know and that is almost never included in public discussion, and is actively hidden by feminists.


The existence of dysfunctional families as you describe them is no argument against my defence of the need for functional families. In fact you only support my demand.

And my experience is that these are cliches if being generalised like you do here. Some gays I can immediately recongise, within seconds, it si the way they move, speak, their gesture, mimic, habitus, habits, way they dress- some of these factors, or all of them. And other gays surprised me when learning they were gay, they appeared to be completely "normal", were angry about hysteric gay activists giving them all a bad name with their public misbehavior and CSD exhibitionism. Gays can also be lazy, malicious and underhganded, crminanl, mentally paralysed - I'm sure they can, becawseue I do not idelise them anbd think they are a very mixed group like all mankind and thus have white sheep and black sheep as well. BTW, I knew two gays at university. And both shared my views and arguments on gay marriage and adoption. They were sharp critics of the political correctness frenzy that has led to the madness of today - and I knew them already in the early 90s! ;)

You realise why I tell you this, yes? Maybe it is no good idea to start arguing with "that guy living in the appartement down the floor who is a really friendly gyu and I happen to know him." Arguing like that, using cliches, does not get you that far.

One wrong does not make correct a different wrong. I said it above: you only support my demand for functional families., What you point at again is dysfunctional families. I also demand safe street traffic. You could deny that as well - by correctly pointing out that all car accidents include cars. But what woudl your argument be there? ;)

Homosexual activism and lobbying is far more omnipresent in emdia and oublic lkife, than you seem to have realsied. In most Wetsenr states peopk,e are freee to maintain friendhsips and rrelatiosn with whom they want. People are free to live as nymphomanic or abstinent as they want, there is no state regulation on sexuality accept that pedophiles are kept out of schools and kindergardens (and even that some crazy types want to change). I cannot think of any place or time in human history where people have been more free to express their precious personality by sexuality. I personally cannot communicate well with blenders and d!ckheads and I also fail to see a link between IQ or character, and the number of orgasms somebody can have within ten minutes. But nevertheless - everybody is free to live and fnck like he wants. How much more expression of personality by sexuality can you want...?

I agree. Just that a family is not a completely arbitreary thing in constellation. A very burgeoise thoguht of mine - that'S why especially the left hates it so much and Marx called for the destruction of "family". There can be no omnipresent left collectivism as long as the social core cell of society is the burgeoise family.

For the sake of children adoptions should only be allowed in constellations that give the child a mother, a father, social and material stability and protection. Nature never had it in mind that homosexuals found families. Maybe you have noted that homosexuals cannot create babies?! Want to come with the idea of factory babies now? Well, ask Mattel.

Normality is not achieved by special treatments. Yes, let them live as couples, but recognise that homosexual and heterosexual couples are different, like men and women are both humans, but different still. Adoptions by homosexuals I only will when the kid is the biological kid and has lived with of one of the two adults before. In fact, the adoption then is only the adoption by just one of the two adults.

For thew record it must be mentioned that having two gays or two lesbians as your parents, at school can make you object of massive mobbing and mean behavior. Children can be cruel. This may not appear as a desirable fact of life, nevertheless it is a fact of life.

Must we? According to the thought police, probably, they indeed force it down our neurons since long time now. Who knows, you ask Must we really speculate? Speculations are just that: speculation. I don't care for speculations. You give the impression that gays indeed are the better, the nobler, the kinder, the holier humans, and for the second time now. Well. I prefer to see them as humans, mostly similar, slightly different from the majority of people.

You have not gotten what I tried to explain on epigenes, if you still compare it to mutations and normal diversity. Homosexuality is no mutation, nor a genetic trait for diversity. It has no known genetic marker. If such a marker will ever be discovered, then this still has to happen. Until then - epigenes.

I remember quite clearly that I said quite that in an earlier reply, haven't I? ;) And I said that we do not know.

A German interview with a church critic that makes clear that the pope's statements are being hopelessly blown up and claimed as being sensational where they are very conservative indeed and do not even leave what already is written in the church catechism anyway. Time for some over-enthusiastic people to come back to their senses.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesel...-a-913893.html

Will set up a link again if they happen to translate it for the international edition tomorrow. Not certain they do, however.

Sky! Do over the night...so we have it tomorrow :up:

Rgr that.

I was making a joke about how atheists are acting more and more like the so called 'religous nutjobs' they oppose.

@ skybird

I do understand the whole theme is a very important one for you and you are very well informed about the biological or assumed mental background.
You want to care for a healthy kids development, because you think it is totally 'unnatural' to have two male or two female parents. You fear the kids will lack something male or female in their childhood, what pops up in their thirties as some kind of mental disease. You accept any problems for the kids in your natural family because they are natural. You wish there would be no problems, but they are at least natural.

Do you have any scientific proof for your asumption of later mental problems? And especially in comparison to 'natural' raised people? Do we even have enough material to make a statement?

My personal experience with homosexuals is not based on any cliches but on personal experience. I met more than a few in my life. A friend of my parents, a male assistant of the fairy type as an elder superior with a ridiculus hairpiece, several business partners and a former 'to be my sister in law'. I once had a very cultivated offer while waiting for a pizza. My wife runs her own business and I meet two of her gay customers now and again. I realize right now the female fraction is only one.
You are absolutly correct, there are criminals and dark minded amongst the gays too. It seems to me they are less dominant than in heterosexual orientated groups. Sorry, I can't change my personal impression.

This all is no excuse to hinder gay people to have families with kids. I guess any kid would accept any obscure mental disease in their later life in exchange for a loving and caring childhood. That's with the natural raised people similar. They can get it and the others can get it either. But your parents stay your parents. These two people of your family you have a special feeling for; either positive or negative.
What would a gay parented bonded child answer, questioned if it wants to have it's second daddy/mommy replaced by a 'natural' opposite sex?

If your fear is based on facts, would it be a solution to ensure the gay parented kids have other sex teachers and kindergardeners? Do grand parents count? Uncles and aunts? A family is more then two parents.

Until today the kids were/are dominantly raised by their mothers. The fathers were/are all day long at work. Did/Do the kids suffer from this dominant female parenting?
And how is this female dominance in kindergardens and basic schools to be interpreted? Is it natural or simply a matter of fact the kids have to deal with and have to adapt to?
Do you think many in their thirties suffer a mental desease, because the female factor in their youth was so dominant?

Mobbing is a problem for kids, true. Especially for foreign kids, black kids, yellow kids, too small or too huge kids, sleepy or too clever kids, shy or mommy kids, redheads or rednecks, uncool or poor kids, kids with old sneakers and outdated cell phones or fat mommys... - for kids in general as for adults who can't deal with it. Add the gay parents attribute and it shoots through the ceiling?

I accept your doubts and your natural approach, but I think your fears are unreasonably high.
Kids are very adaptive and open-minded gay parents will probably try to balance any dominant sex actively. Maybe more than regular parents just to prove the critics wrong.

Would we try to do the best for our children? Give them a chance to show their egality.


P.S. We don't have to go again. Give me a link to read your other arguments if possible.

Nonsense. You do not see the difference between individual cases and statistics (which always describe huge populations, nor do you seem to care for the difference between functional and dysfunctional families, exceptions and general normative rules.

Statistical data that repeatedly crossed my way since studying, sometimes due to studying, mostly when reading around in the past 20 years or so in media and such. I am no expert on these things, that does not hinder me to remember that I have read it. I also read more in present times on genderism ideologists - and how there claims that children are sexual tabula rasas that can be socially engineered to be boy og girl is being slammed and proven wrong time and again my medical and psychological research. Or better: has been slammed already. Since decades. I also got plenty of feedback from former colleagues and studying friends who - differently than me - have stick to the job field and became actively jobbing/working in the social field or psychology.

That are single cases you happen to meet, but you gave them as a ageneral rule. I tried to demosnrtate that when giving you my individual single cases of examples, but you seem to have not gotten the point. Who is the more typical gay, I ask you: the few ones you met or the few ones I happened to know?

Typical gay...?

It is, but it is my minor argument against gay adoptiuons anyway, and always has been in past discussions. My main argument is that I want the institution of family - mother, father, their children - being specially protected because the institution itself (not even the individuals personal fates) is of utmost vitla importance for the community, there can be no future without couples making babies, and why should they if it brings them into poverty only, ridicule and disadvantages? The ability to create babies is what needs to be pürotected and appreciated by society, and even when there are older people marrying and noit having babies anymore: legislation and social general schemes need to base on the general rules, not the esxceptions from the rules, else any legislation sooner or later drowns in a mess of eceptions, expetions from exceptions, added exceptions from exception frome xvcpeitons, and so on - the bureaqucratuc nightmare we have in the amdinstraiton and court system today. The fathers of Wetsern consttotuioopns seem to have understood that. The German one for example bases family still on the millenia-long proven understanding of it - one mother, one father, their children - and it explicitly puts families under the special protection by and thus into a priviliged status within society. At least that is what the Basic Law says. The rpatrci8ce looks differently, of course, the institution is under massive attack, political left ideologists want to destroy it, feminists want to destroy it, economy wants to destroy it, conservative help to destroy it for mere opportunism as well. Having family increases significantly the risk of sliding down the social ladder and into poverty later in your life. All that is devastating in effect, and leads not only to a collapsing psychohygienic climate, but I also remind of the desastrous economic costs of what we call now the overaging of the population, and the dramatic consequences it has for finances, communal adminstration and its costs, economy, and so on.

I accept no more damage done to families by rendering the term meaningless and destroying its status even more - by relativising it and giving others who do not contribute like families do , the same priviliges. I am single, and I do not want this status the constitution demands for families, nor do I want to benefit from any material advantages that - in theory - should go along with it.

And while I am it it, gay marriage last but not least is about tax reliefs as well. And that is a discrimination of single like me. Gay couples do nothing more for society, than I do, so why should they be set up any better than I am in tax laws? Or like any friendship between two people there are? Or collegues drinking a beer together after work? Are gay couples hindered to live together already? No. To do what they want? No. Separate, if they want? No. They are already free to do that. I am all for them being given rights regarding legacy questions (I am against legacy taxes in general and so demand people having the right to give and dow with their property like they decide without the state stealing so much of it). And that a close friend could be given the right to decide for oneself in case once becomes ill and cannot decide anymore. But in principle all that already is possible right now.

But the campaign runs that people should see gay couples married as something special. But I refuse to care for other people's private life, and I want everybody to keep his private things private (else it is not private). I refuse to be interested, and I explicitly refuse to pay special recognition and attention to it. I reject to need to take note of how wonderfully married somebody else. I just don't care. And I refuse to call them special. To me, the whole idea of gay marriage is just laughable, and a hilarious joke, if not a bitterly poisonous irony. And no, of course I do not see any special merits in being gay. The slogan "gay pride" is absurd to me, for being gay is no reason to be proud, like length of my haircut or skin colour is no reason to be proud for me.

All this special stuff is something that the two gay people I ealrier mentioned, hated like the plague. They realsied that it is hysteria, and that it gives them a bad name. They wanted to just live, without ever making a big deal about there orientation (like I and all people i know also do not make any big deal about their orientation). But in case of gays of lesbian activists - is that good enough, to be like any other? No. It must be in the media. headlines. Parades. Protests up and down the street. Every day. At the same time our schools are corroding, our social structures fall apart, social isolation of people is growing, state budgets collapsing, economic races with Asian markets get lost, financial fundaments erode, costs for living grow beyond our heads, and so much more - one would guess we should have plenty of much much more important stuff on our minds than just an extensive report of the last CSD and how it shut down the town. The point is - this whole activism is not about being given equal status and normality. It is about being lifted above normality, and being given not equal but special status.

And you say that "these things are obviously very important to me?". Do I read some derogative or marginalising basic attitude in that?

Who are you to judge or assess that?! Who are you to decide that question on behalf of other people - those whom you hand over to suffering such a fate - and claiming yourself they would accept it? That is just your personal - and quite disputable - idea. Maybe because you do not know what can hide between that term , mental disease (I mentioned personality disorders and neurosis, btw).

So for example a probability for getting cancer of let'S say 2% and a probability of let'S say 10% are the same to you. That's a kind of math that I refuse to follow. I believe in well-done statistics, nothing beats well-done statistics. And when well-done statistics show that a certain risk grows by so and so much and the raise is being shown on a reasonably low error level to be "significant" (statistically that means it does not exist by by random chance or natural fluctuations only), then this is something that I take into account, instead of ignoring it and claiming "a raised probability and a lower previous probability for developing personality problems later on essentially means nothing".

No, they cannot. Obviously.

Not before you have given a child to them. But there is no excuse why one should want that if there is no need to and the alternative of having a woman and a man as mother and father. Gender role modelling one of the reasons I mentioned. Obviously,m there are more. You argue reverse in time, from the future you have created back to the past. By that you want to show that it all does not matter. But causality does matter - it makes stuff and effects moving. We must not want to start movements at the future you are pointing at.

What would it answer twenty years later after having run university, studied social and development psychology and got input on some examination a nnd research projects of the past 50 years and statistics that it cannot ignore? Honstely said, I have no clue, because I do not know these two hypothetical persons, not in the present and not in the future. But I know that hardly two persons ever say exactly the same.

Can school, Kindergarden, friends compensate for an absent mummy or daddy?

Sometimes fate strikes hard, an accident happens, a shooting wear goes on. That these things must set in to try to give some ease and compoensation. But they cannot do that in full. And so it is stuoid to inetntioanlly aim at a situation where a mummy or daddy are missing from beginning on. That counts regarding couples irresponsi8bly making a baby althioguh they know they will no9t stay together and a relation woudl not work. That is true also for adoption. There is no reason and no excuse to give a child to a foreign couple where the one parent, mummy or daddy, and all the needed rolemodelling that it also provides, is missing from all beginning on. And no human has a right to have another human submitted to his own interest for the mere reason that he exists and makes claims. To allow adoption for the argument of strengthening equality of gay marriages, is a juristic scan, and in principle says the child'S interest is to be seen as lower than that of a right activists. And that is a crime. Against humanity, I shall say.

In adoption decisions, not the adopting couples interest are the priority. The child's interests are the priority.

Look at the massive feminisation of educational policies over here, kindergarden and schools, and then we talk again. There is massive damage, but it comes not so much from the role model of "mother", but feminism, which are two totally different things. radical feminism is not about femnism, but is about a ugly carricature of feminine qualities.

Have you ever read D.H. Lawrence? The change in the old England that came from industrialisation, the men crammed into mines and factories, the families left behind?

Too much or too little of anything is always not good.

It is ideological acting. The kids have no choice, they get thrown into it, and then there they are. BTW, we have data, I read from doctors and researchers int he field, that show that too early kindergarten visits indeed damage the immune system due to stress, and that said stress levels have a negative influence on later school performance, and cognitive and intellectual development and personalities development. That the pharmaindustry invents many syndroms to sell new or old drugs as a remedy, turns an already alarming situation into a really confusing mess. I know many teachers, ba chance, even form my own family. Not pleasant what they have to report. Not at all.

I leave it here and stop in this thread, since I think we two will not get anywhere from here on anyway, and this matter I have discussed several times before, and I do not want to spend half the day typing again. And maybe its better to put on the breaks before things become nasty again, like they often did before.

Cheers,
Sky

No comment.:-?

Good comment.

As I understand we have no stressable data for or against gay parents.

Maybe we should allow to collect some?

:)

Everyone is a freak anyway so what does it matter in the grand scheme of things if a person is gay?:hmmm:

None really besides the fact that they enjoy the company of the same sex in sexual encounters.People put way to much thought into what other consenting adults do in their sexual lives
it has never made sense to me.

Do people really sit there and think "I wonder if Tom and Nancy perform sexual acts with each other that I would approve of" it seems so apparently humanity will always have busy bodies.

Okay, I have translated it now and sent it to the Spiegel's chief editor. He immediately accepted it and set it up for immediate release. Here it is: :smug:

LINK: Pope Francis' comments are bad for Catholic gays

:woot: