French march by tens of thousands against homo "marriages" and adoptation

[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.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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.

Putting aside any personal views I may have on homosexuality and same sex marriage, I have to say that any couple who wish to adopt a child have put some thought into it. In most cases I doubt if it's done on a careless whim and for gay couples even more so. It isn't an accident like some child births to hetro couples. You are right, it isn't a perfect world. A home with loving and committed parents is better than no home or an orphanage.

I say this, if your against gay marriage, don't marry a gay, other than that, mind your own F'n business.

[em2nought]

Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that people think that these "folks" must secretly be pedophiles? And everybody knows that sex is bad, France must be getting americanized.

[Betonov]

Probably old fat farts that couldn't get laid because the women were either lesbians or pretendet to be lesbians

Its a wierd thing, gay marriage/adoption are really a pretty much "so what" topic, yet the more you see of the arguements against it the more logical the arguements for it become.

[Betonov]

There are no arguments for it. There's no need for arguments for it.
If adoption is a human right it's extended to homosexuals. Anything else is bigotry

[CaptainMattJ.]

Because having 1 parent is completely fine, having abusive parents is fine, but having 2 homosexuals parenting is terrible? I have yet to find an unbiased study "proving" homosexual parents have lacking parental skills. Most studies conducted fail to recognize whether said child had gone through a divorce, or a family crisis, or something traumatizing, no, they simply took a random group of kids who have at one point seen their parents in a homosexual relationship and failed to inquire about what their experiences were, if their parents had affairs, money troubles, divorces, turmoil, anything of the sort, and some they improperly grouped people.

They need to conduct a controlled study with children in stable environments. Take children in relatively stable environments and compare them with children in a stable environment.

[joea]

Well, I don't care if gays want to get married, but am not sure I like the idea of homosexuals adopting children. So am I PC or not??

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by joea

So am I PC or not??

Depends if you can replace your spleen for a newer, more powerfull version.

Damn it, I've been suporting gay rights for so long now, I aquired a taste for Lady Gaga

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joea

Well, I don't care if gays want to get married, but am not sure I like the idea of homosexuals adopting children. So am I PC or not??

It's called schizophrenia.

Serious, the basic idea behind marriage has been an economic partnership serving as the fundament for raising children. In other words: family founding. Yes, there are kings marrying princesses, and poltrical marriages and all that - but that is not the everday purpose that marriages have served for for 99% of the ordinary people. And yes, there are bad marriages, and families better never have come to existence, and children suffering from alcoholics and tyrants, and wifes being beaten from their thugs of a husband. And still: the general idea why a man and a women came togather and decided to spend their lives togather, roginally was about sharing the workload of a shared place (farm), and ordanizing the educaiton adn caretaking of thechiuldren. Both mother and father to their best and individual (-gender-related) advantages).

It makes little sense to principally try to separate "marriage" from "family/child raising". That many couples do not have children, does not chnage the principle behind the historic roots of the institution.

We have immense dmeograpohic problems in Wetsern societies, too few children. The family gets decosuntructed by modern, left-leanijng and materialistic conceptions, who often also aim at simply egoist motives of the actors: avoiding the responsibility that comes with family, putting job and career, sexual adventuring and freedom to "discover oneself" and such before responsibility. It seems, from a sociological perspective as well as a culture-historic perspective, it does not work too good. Nor has it made people more happy, self-fulfilled, and reasonable. We try to destroy families today. Put children into anonymous institutions at the age of 1 year so that their mothers - a term nor declared to be sexual discriminating - should both enter the workforce pool agfain and should also prove feminist ideology right by makiong career in high posts of the economy where they should at best gain 50% parity with male actors - not caqrting oine mooent for the question whether that really is what women in genersal want. That there are fewerr women in certain fields, and fewer men in other fields, may be owed to the simply fact that men and women have different interests, and set different priorities. But feminists, every woman has to be a female soldiers for the sake of gender ideolgy whiczh says that there are no diffeercnes between girls and boys buit that such diferences in interests and role-finding are totally artifical and transported by culturer and education only. Which has been so often found to be wrong. But when the wrong thing gets repeated often and loud enough, it nevertheless gets mistake for the truth, eventually.

Genderism, destroying the family institution, homo marriage, feminism - it all comes form the same basic mindset, the same ideologic direction. Add to this poltiicians attempts to lure people into submitting themselves into dependency from social nanny-nursing by the state that pays for everything and takes away all responsibility form them to make these well-nursed crowds depend on the parties and vote for them, securing them in power, and you have successfully outlined the basic scheme that explains why things are being pushed over the edge. It is no accident. It is wanted.

Another reason why I have serious doubts about democracy. See the German book recommendation ("Prolokratier") I just gave in the "Notes from Germany" thread. "Notes in German" would now be a better title, maybe, but the thread changed slightly in idea since it began.

[Armistead]

Skybird,

What you're saying let's stay in the dark ages and not progress with culture. The problem with the American family has nothing to do with sexuality. Marriage and relationships have evolved. Still, why not promote marriage for all people? I honestly don't care who loves who.

I realize you would probably like to go back to the day of no civil or equal rights, but it ain't gonna happen,

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Another reason why I have serious doubts about democracy.

Oh stop the drama Skybird, just because you cant get it your way.