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

[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.

[Red Brow]

My children just submit to the Globalist cause. Stop whining about details that you don't seem to know anything about. I want you to take the anti-Brevik oath. That you never traded emails with Brevik prior to his arrest. Some of the stuff here is almost National Socialist.

Just submit! Like I say to people who grumble about governments, "Just lie back and enjoy it!" Or if not a submission to Globalist ideals, then come join me in unrepentant Zionism. You'll enjoy the movies and TV more. And you won't be fired from your silly job.

Think what your Uncle Obama would want you to do. Think what the collective leaders of the G-8 or 20 or what ever would want. They're going to win anyway, why not hop on the bandwagon before it runs you over?

[AVGWarhawk]

I like puppies.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I like puppies.

Me too. But this puppy doesn't like homos. He had some seriously stern views on the matters of purity even when he was less than 8 weeks old. Also, he was very keen on claiming living space from other puppies...

Is it just me, or do the anti-gay guys look miserable, while the gay supporters look really happy?

Perhaps the anti poofs have personal issues

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!

That actually sounds like a typical Skybull rant about fictional legislation he has chosen to warn the world about.
Does that imply that his rather lame attempt just illustrates his lack of common sense and backfires

[geetrue]

Hey! Hottentot ... that's one cute puppy.

The TSA (Homeland Security) wants to train your puppy to smell out homosexual men and gay women for further examinations in the back room.

Is he available for this training?

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Me too. But this puppy doesn't like homos. Hehad some seriously stern views on the matters of purity even when he was less than 8 weeks old. Also, he was very keen on claiming living space from other puppies...

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Hey! Hottentot ... that's one cute puppy.

The TSA (Homeland Security) wants to train your puppy to smell out homosexual men and gay women for further examinations in the back room.

Is he available for this training?

If I'm not completely mistaken, he already has an occupation. One involving reins and a person with a white cane.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!

You can belittle and demean all you want. It's not "a rule" that's the problem. It's people who are convinced they know what's best for everybody else.

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.

Anybody can spout their opinion and call it "common sense". You have yet to prove any of your opinions on this, so once again you fall back on telling everyone else what's good for us.

Can you prove any of the crap you just spouted? Your "science" is no better than the "science" you condemn. It's all your opinion, but you keep acting like you know what's best for everybody.