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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Catfish]

It is one thing to 'tolerate' a religious belief, but another to tolerate the Shariah. If one thing is not to be had without the other ...

But we know it has already worked, a lot of muslims have come to Europe to escape just of all that, and lived well and non-aggressive for years.

As usual it's the rabble-rousers - get rid of THEM by sending them back to their contries, and the rest will work out by itself.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Catfish

It is one thing to 'tolerate' a religious belief, but another to tolerate the Shariah.

What does Shariah have to do with this?

Originally Posted by Catfish

As usual it's the rabble-rousers - get rid of THEM by sending them back to their contries, and the rest will work out by itself.

The Vatican?

The head of the French Council of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, recently described gay marriage as "the ultimate deceit".

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.

What does Shariah have to do with this?

Its gotta be the moooosleeems see.

I am in charge of my attitude and opinion and reasoning. There can be no doubt that I am.

Unfortunately that is not the case.
Your opinions are often self contradictory so clearly no one is in charge there, and your reasoning is often non existanrt so there is nothing to be in charge of on that count.

[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.

[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?