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?

[BossMark]

No doubt they will "surrender"

[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.

[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?

Originally Posted by Tchocky

... 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.

[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.

[Skybird]

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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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.

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.

[Cybermat47]

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.

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.

You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge?

The fundamentalist zealots.
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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You "tolerate"? Who put you in charge?

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

[Red Brow]

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.