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.
This is why
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.
You might be interested in the following posts:
This entry was posted in Brain-Mind Functionality, Clown World, Fighting SJWs, Freemasons, Increasing Happiness, Medical Science, Relationships, Relationships, Russia and GAE, Social Commentary, The Enemy Within, The Jews. RSS 2.0 feed.