Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
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.