[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

@ skybird

Your arguments against gay families are not persuasive to me. All this 'behavioural abnormality' you describe is not only with gay people but with most of the people considered to be normal.

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.

Parents who have been violently abused by their parents tend to do the same to their childeren sooner or later.

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.

My personal experience with homosexuals is, they are nonviolent and very social, creative and funny. They rarely take extreme positions and are very open minded. They are nice, cultivated couples and unimportunate individuals.
I think they are at least as ideal to raise kids as any other parents. They live an example of diversity, proving that 'difference' is no reason for social exclusion. A good lesson to learn for all of us, including their kids.

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.

I know enough heterosexual couples and singles way more absurd and socially incompetent to be justifiable parents. No one would ever hinder them to marry or breed children.

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?

Our society should grant the freedom for both sexual orientations to express their personality and to found a family.

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...?

And for the sake of the children these families should be cared for by the law as usual.

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.

A special treatment for gay families is only necessary right now, because we make them special. Let them live as every other couple and let them have kids to care for.

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.

We will learn there is no difference before long. I guess we may even learn the gay parents may be more caring. Who knows?

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.

And accidents happen. That's normal. Diversity is normal, mutation is normal, individuality is normal...
That's life.

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.

Edit:
Even you and me could be 'accidents'. A little hole in our fathers rubber sock you know...
Our whole existence may be based on an accident, not just our sexual orientation. Should we be treated special in that case?

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