[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

@ 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...?

This all is no excuse to hinder gay people to have families with kids.

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?

I guess any kid would accept any obscure mental disease in their later life in exchange for a loving and caring childhood.

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).

That's with the natural raised people similar.

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".

They can get it and the others can get it either.

No, they cannot. Obviously.

But your parents stay your parents. These two people of your family you have a special feeling for; either positive or negative.

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 a gay parented bonded child answer, questioned if it wants to have it's second daddy/mommy replaced by a 'natural' opposite sex?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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