For now at least, adoption by gays in Italy is still banned.
Vox posted on how China has now banned adoption of Chinese children by foreigners. Something Russia had done back in 2012.
And the reason?
It is important to understand that “adoption” by gay “couples” is literally the definition of human trafficking. A baby is being sold to people to satisfy an unnatural urge.
Because let’s be clear, if you are a heterosexual man or woman that cannot have children due to some accident of life, the fact is that aside that unfortunate point, you have all the instinct of a normal man or woman that wants children, and as such, you’re likely going to care for an adopted child well.
On the other hand, let’s look at the homosexual version under each of their shifting goalpost theories:
The “I am born that way” theory.
I actually accept (based on a study I read some 30 years ago when science was still generally able to reproduce results from studies) that about 10% of what was then about 1% of the population that was homosexual does get born with that proclivity. So in general, about 0.1% of the population. I consider that to be an accident of nature, like for example a woman I met, who was a chimaera and had also Y chromosomes, presented as a woman in pretty much every respect, but had no uterus. It’s an unfortunate condition and her only option to have children would be adoption. Nevertheless, the sexual impetus of this chimeric woman was completely female. Her DNA got some crossed wires but not her brain. Being curious I asked her in depth questions about her life, which she did not mind as most people tended to avoid the issue. She had no attraction or desire for women, only men. In such a case, if she were in a stable relationship with a man, adoption would be acceptable all other factors being in order.
Let’s now look at the state of a man genuinely born with a sexual attraction to men only. Such a man is already in a precarious position because in the first place, if you are aware of the statistics on gay sexual practices, the chances of ever being in a stable homosexual relationship are minuscule. Secondly, even if such a thing did happen, the chances are about 9/10 (or more today) that the other partner is of the variety of homosexual that is not “born that way” but rather “made that way” either by sexual abuse or an overactive imagination that eventually went down a fetish that became a compulsion (this was essentially the gist of the article [in Scientific American I think] I read 30 years or so ago). This theory by the way is strongly evidenced as being correct also due to the large number of homosexuals that stop being homosexuals. Their voices are heavily censored and even violently so by homosexual radicals and activists, but a significant number of homosexuals do change and become heterosexuals. I personally knew at least one such man who had been a friend of relatives, and the event that had turned him completely was a sexual encounter with a woman. The point here is that even if the homosexual man that is genuinely born that way were in a stable relationship, about 9/10 times it would be with a person that is a homosexual because of either some tragedy in their childhood (sexual abuse) or some sexual fetish that is clearly unnatural and tends to be linked to the sexual abuse of children at about 11 TIMES the frequency of non-homosexuals. And that’s on the REPORTED cases. Which are always a fraction of the real number.
But even if two “born that way” homosexuals get together in a solid lifelong partnership we still have a major problem, because a child adopted by them would naturally become socially confused and would not be receiving the natural responses to his mirror neurones that a child with a make father and female mother would. Inevitably this would result in a complicating and confusing of his own sexuality which is bound to render an already difficult start (being an adopted child) even more so. And by the way, such a hypothetical pairing of two “natural” (born that way) homosexuals, is also extremely unlikely, because let’s be real, two such unfortunates have some aspect of their wiring twisted to present as what a female would have in respect of sexual attraction, and therefore BOTH would want to be the “bottom” to use gay parlance, which means it’s even less likely that such a pairing would occur in the first place.
So even in the “best” or most “natural” of homosexual situations (that is, “born that way” situation) it is still a clearly screwed up situation that no child should ever consciously be placed into.
The reality
As already explained above, most homosexual relationships will not include both partners as being “naturals” (born that way), and in fact will be the result of usually very temporary, or almost certainly non-exclusive “relationships” between two gay men. If you think my points here are based simply in “bigotry”, you really need to do some research on your own into the realities of homosexual lifestyles and the statistics connected to them which are absolutely solid and have been confirmed and reproduced by pretty much anyone that has done objective studies on this that are not financed by special interest groups from either side.
In such far more prevalent gay “relationships” the likelihood of children being sexually abused is AT A CONCLUDED MINIMUM 11 times higher than with any heterosexual couples and also far more likely to take place from infancy too.
Again, this is not popular to say out loud because the globohomo narrative is nowadays being pushed along also with the threat of imprisonment if you dare tell the truth about it, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Even if that was the ONLY factor, it should be enough for any sensible person to immediately ban adoption by homosexuals. And it is far from the only factor. The incidence of domestic violence is highest of all in lesbian couples, as is the incidence of physical abuse or murder of children. The incidence of later drug use, alcoholism, suicide, and criminality is all higher for those “raised” by homosexual couples than normal man-woman ones. And that’s just some of the issues. There are subtler ones that I will not bother to identify since I am not aware of large data sets of statistics on them, but you can probably imagine a few of them.
Conclusion
Regardless of your personal sexual preference, or mine, it should not be rocket science, to understand that the best possible situation for an adopted child, is to be placed with as close to what might be his natural family as possible. This AUTOMATICALLY AND INVARIABLY means a couple composed of a man and woman that are seriously committed to one another (i.e. married) with a reasonable expectation that only death would dissolve that union. You of course can also add other factors, like trying to ensure the child is given to a couple of the same general ethnicity and cultural background whenever possible, if all other factors are equal.
Again, none of this is difficult to understand, unreasonable or illogical. The only “barrier” to understanding all of the above is an artificial one inserted by a false and degenerate ideology that is demonstrably destructive to any civilisation, which has been demonstrated throughout history, and that is pushed by people who deliberately want to destroy, the most humanly successful cultures the world of men has ever produced.
It is therefore absolutely a good thing when nations better protect their children by ensuring as best they can that any adoptees are placed with traditional couples best suited to their care.
The Lost Art of Arguing
Original Philosophy, which was simply the study of the natural world to try and discover its rules, laws and truths, use to be the literal arguing between friends.
The very word philosophy is a combination of the words Philos (friend) which funnily enough is my own surname, and Sophia (story or history).
But arguing was not then the chicken-squawking most done today, and most exemplified by women, who will just shout out insults or their idiotic opinion without the substantiation of any kind of objective fact, logical observation, or even tenuous link to reality whatsoever. Even the “better” versions are mere rhetorical shots straw-manning a false argument.
The procedure for correct arguing by intellectually honest men (women have largely a biological incapacity for intellectual honesty, which is why no female philosophers of any note have ever really existed) is as follows:
1. Present your axioms and agree them in principle as being valid, even if only for the purposes of the hypothetical argument being presented.
2. Present your premises, and again, have them accepted, even if only temporarily, for the sake of the argument, unless the opponent can conclusively dismiss a premise by appeal to facts in evidence to both sides that prove the premise is flawed or erroneous to begin with.
3. Logically work through the axioms and premises to make your hypothesis.
4. Check your logic and thinking with your opponent, inviting valid criticism of the thought process used to come to the hypothesis, based on the agreed upon axioms and premises.
5. Modify the hypothesis on the basis of your joined thought experiment of creating a hypothesis using the agreed upon axioms and premises that work at least in theory.
6. State the hypothesis clearly.
7. Check the real world and/or run experiments to see if the hypothesis is plausible.
8. Use the hypothesis to predict how reality will look based on it.
9. Check if the predictions are correct. And not the frequency. If always correct, then the hypothesis is assumed to be valid at least until a set of results that fits the axioms and premises produces an unexpected result. At that point the theory needs revising/adjusting/correcting until it once again is useful for the prediction of events that fit the criteria.
The arguing part, between honest men, has zero ego in it. Arguing is not about who is “right” winning. Arguing has always intended to be a way to discover the truth. It is certainly the case that a more intelligent person van usually see things more clearly and therefore more often come to correct conclusions and thus better theories of how reality works. I have personally only ever felt euphoria at someone better able than I at, not only managing to see or work out some aspect of reality, but helping me see it too!
But the chickenheads (and women, because they are wired to believe everything is about them specifically) get upset instead of happy if anyone other than them proves a point. Because all they care about is appearance and ego, and not at all about truth.
The biological nature of a woman means that any time anything that is perceived by her as a critique of anything she thinks or does, her emotions flare up. This is because (as per Caveman Theory) the main survival pressure for women has been other women, so anything that can appear to be a criticism of her or her ways, lowers her perceived value in the group of women (and therefore, in turn, by social dynamics, among the men who are available to them). And because women primarily use such tactics to overcome other women and place themselves in a better position vis a vis securing the best available man, the emotions immediately run to the sensation of having to ward off an attack.
Which is why a woman will tend to degrade to personal insults, past errors or flaws (real or imagined) and completely separate issues that have nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. Specific and detailed excuses that are supposedly the reason X or Y was not done, or done badly, will persist for YEARS even when the thing not being achieved is the same one.
For example, my wife is constitutionally incapable of ever being on time. And in every one of the probably thousands of times I brought this issue up, she inevitably had 47 different unique reasons why she was late that specific time. And a whole different and unique 47 reasons for each of the other 2,100 times it happened in the last 7 years. I used to inevitably mention that she must be the unluckiest human being on Earth, and even that is not an excuse, because after a few decades on Earth of you KNOWING that by nefarious magic, every year, after year, day after day, event after event, you ALWAYS manage to have all these wildly unexpected things happen to make you late, well, a normal person would set off 2 hours early on average and thus arrive on time!
This would make her most upset at how unfair and evil I was for blaming her for the obviously unpredictable nature of having to consider things like getting dressed. Or putting shoes on. Or selecting which dress. You know what I mean, wild, wild, unexpected stuff that only happens once in a blue moon when you decide to go somewhere.
Now, in case you are wondering, no, everything is fine between my wife and I and I have grudgingly accepted that there are many other theories this immutable law of her tardiness could be related to. For example:
* Charitably, God could be trying to teach me patience, mercy, and compassion.
* Less charitably, I am burning off some of the many years in purgatory I will have before me if I manage to get in.
* Secularly, Time flows differently in her aura of local space-time and my more powerful aura of local space-time overwhelms hers and thus the perceived locus of interference results in a minor disruption of our combined local space-time. This is most likely the best theory, since we both experience a definite sense of irritation and general wrongness of the other person’s invasive and disruptive space-time aura. I’m sure all you physicists agree with me. There is also further evidence of this because with all other conditions being equal, a trip to the supermarket by me can invariably never take as much as an hour, regardless of how busy the place is, while by her can never take less than one hour, and often closer to two, even if all tills are open and free of any other people shopping. Clearly evidence of time flowing differently. But wait! There is more! Regardless of how much free shelf/table/counter spaces I make available to her, they will ALWAYS become overfilled. Left to my own devices, I on the other hand have endless open horizons of counter tops. Clearly physical space operates differently for each of us.
Also, it is a certain fact that she will be unlikely to take my explanation of the above phenomena as the charitable and loving attempt it is to help her better understand the complexity of local space-time topology and how we each affect it uniquely, and is more likely to unfairly accuse me of maligning her in some public shaming event.
Yet, due to my calm and loving nature, I will accept the inevitable texts she will send me regarding this post in a spirit of saintly charity and patience. Which I am sure she will appreciate and return in kind.
Anyway, putting aside local space-time warping, the point I am making is that the art (and science) of proper arguing, is almost entirely lost.
Even most men have devolved to tantrum throwing little girls who just want their flying unicorn, and ice cream too. It really doesn’t even rise to the level of amusing rhetoric, or, you know, very plausible new theories on personal space-time aura interference.
Even supposedly professional “debates” have become mere spectacle and cheap entertainment, none of them rising to the level of being educational. The only partial exception that comes to mind are the debates of William Lane Craig, but even then it is at best 50%. Craig is capable of arguing correctly, but I have yet to see any one of his opponents being able to do so.
The fact that Craig is a Protestant is quite astonishing to me, and in fact, I am now toying with the idea of writing to him to see if he would debate me on Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
He is certainly far more prepared than I am in things like knowing Bible verses (albeit probably from the wrong versions of the Bible), but that in itself is not an issue, because the point is the logical truth of Catholicism vs Protestantism. Not “winning”. That is, I have absolutely zero fear or anxiety about such a debate, if it were to take place, because my concern is not my ego or my need to “win”, but rather, simply to advance my (or his, or the observers’) understanding of the Universe and the God who created it.
Of course, against intentional deceiver and liars like Jay Dyer, then I do not deny that there is a level of pleasure I take in squashing their ego with the equivalent of a steam roller. But that is still merely secondary to the position of increasing the level of understanding of reality.
Anyway, that is my rant for today done.
No related posts.
By G | 10 September 2024 | Posted in Humour, Social Commentary