Protest Against Gay Marriage:Huge Crowds Expected in Paris

[DrummondStreet]

You think only atheists should have the right of free speech. Drummond, you honesty is refreshing anyway.

Roy: that wasn't my point at all. Read the first part of the paragraph.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are not the same thing. The State does not impose its own marriage laws on the Church, and the Church should not be allowed to define marriage for the State.

France is secular, and its impending the gay marriage law applies only to civil marriages. Religion should not influence secular law and vice versa. The Church is still free to deny marriage to anyone it wants (and often does). The protesters seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage. I was disagreeing with the relevance of their argument and their attempt to weaken the separation of Church and State, not their right to express to their views.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is possible to be anti-gay marriage and not be homophobic.

That is a very good point, Jason.

Should say before starting that socially I'm a liberal and see absolutely no problem with gay marriage or gay anything.

But, I do agree that the issue isn't necessarily about homophobia, and may actually be one of tradition and institutions.

I value tradition and the institutions of a country must be held in high regard because the alternative is a complete break with the past, which can only possibly lead to chaos.

But, for me, when given a choice between tradition and equal opportunity/political freedom I would always come down on the side of equal opportunity/political freedom.

And, I can't stand marchers. Nothing interesting going on their lives so they trapse round the streets shouting about nothing. Some people just need a cause also known as making a nuisance of themselves.

[Cogidubnus]

And, I can't stand marchers...
...Some people just need a cause also known as making a nuisance of themselves.

Not a fan of the Grenadier Guards then?

All the best

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not a fan of the Grenadier Guards then?

All the best

Dave

No mate, I follow in the long tradition of Englishmen being suspicious of standing armies.

Although give 'em their due, they're orderly as opposed to a rabble screaming in the streets.

[Cogidubnus]

Fair enough Mac...so I suppose 1829 was a bad year too!



All the best

Dave

[Errata]

I am pro-gay marriage. However gay adoption I am against. At a time when adoption is closely regulated to ensure the family and child are well matched it is worrying that this matching is to be thrown out the window when gays adopt. A child with both a loving mother and father is still a far superior upbringing than any other. Anything else is just a social experiment.

Actually this isn't technically true. Well, to be precise it is not at all true, but certain cultures attach a kind of truth to it. Biologically, psychologically, physiologically, kids are okay in any environment that is not abusive. A child raised in a convent turns out just as well as a child raised in a wealthy two sexed parent home, who turn out just as well as kids raised in a communal home with many parents, and all of those turn out as well as a kid in a single parent home. Kids don't need both sexes of parent in the home in order to find healthy models of the other sex. What being raised in a two parent two sexed home does for a child is socialize them that the ideal relationship is between only two people of opposite sexes. It doesn't make their life easier, it just makes heterosexuality more normal. And since most kids come from heterosexual parents who themselves came from heterosexual parents in a monogamous marriage, any kid coming from something different tends to get made fun of on the playground. But no more so than the non Christian kids, kids from a different socioeconomic background, etc.

Now the culturally true part comes in here. No American kid grows up with two loving heterosexual parents and wishes they had grown up in a Catholic orphanage. However out there in the world, and in the past of our own cultures, things are different. There are cultures where children are never raised by their own parents. Or only ever raised by one parent. Or raised communally. Those kids turn out to be good members of their societies. It's abnormal to us, but not to them. One practice we used to have that I think we still should have is that of fostering our children out as a young teenager. Clearly parents are willing to put up with sociopathic behavior from their own children, but would have no problem with landing like a ton of bricks on someone else's kid. Switch kids for the teenage years, and we greatly improve the next generation.

And the idea that the adoption system is some sort of carefully planned matching system for optimal happiness is... a little absurd. Most kids put up for adoption stay in the foster system. Most adoptions are private, and very expensive. We essentially buy babies today. More foreign adoptions take place in the US than domestic public adoptions. By a lot. The truth is, no one wants black babies born as crack addicts. And a home that is not ideal in the number of sexes represented by the parents is far superior than the foster system. It's not like gay couple are taking babies out of the arms of straight couples. They are taking them out of an incredibly abusive foster care system. Or buying them like everybody else, in which case it's still not competing with heterosexual couples since there are plenty of knocked up teenagers to go around.

[DrummondStreet]

One practice we used to have that I think we still should have is that of fostering our children out as a young teenager. Clearly parents are willing to put up with sociopathic behavior from their own children, but would have no problem with landing like a ton of bricks on someone else's kid. Switch kids for the teenage years, and we greatly improve the next generation.

Interesting idea. Unless you are are referring to boarding school, I admit that I have never heard of this practice.

Biologically, psychologically, physiologically, kids are okay in any environment that is not abusive. A child raised in a convent turns out just as well as a child raised in a wealthy two sexed parent home, who turn out just as well as kids raised in a communal home with many parents, and all of those turn out as well as a kid in a single parent home.

I would like to add that no family or childhood is "perfect," yet most kids manage to develop into well adjusted adults. A loving, stable, and mutually supportive environment is the healthiest of all.

And the idea that the adoption system is some sort of carefully planned matching system for optimal happiness is... a little absurd. Most kids put up for adoption stay in the foster system.

Completely agree. A number of friends have adopted or are trying to adopt and the whole system is a bit ...screwy.

[Cogidubnus]

I think Errata's post above (taken with Drummond's reply) is one of the most temperate and balanced on the subject I've come across in a long time

All the best

Dave

[Robert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tdG0Ivz5uI

[Cogidubnus]

Wyngard

That's a seriously weird link Robert!

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Interesting idea. Unless you are are referring to boarding school, I admit that I have never heard of this practice.

It was a big thing in the dark ages and Medieval times. It doesn't pop up often because typically the people we know from those times, like Royalty, weren't fostered. The Royal heir was never fostered out, but his siblings sometimes were. But the two examples I can think of off of the top of my head were Alys of France raised in Henry II's court, and Anne Boleyn raised in Francis I's court. Now both of those were due to marriage arrangements, but essentially any woman who was sent to court to serve a queen as a Lady in Waiting or whatever was technically sent to the queen in order for them to learn courtly manners, make marriage arrangements, and learn the art of power brokering. Apprenticeship also came out of fostering children. It's essentially how the lower classes accomplished the same thing. Clearly the point in apprenticeship was to learn a trade, but it also relieved parents of an extra mouth to feed. In the dark ages was really where it was in it's prime. A lord would send his son to serve another lord at an appropriate age. It's a little like a friendly hostage swap. But aside from that, it was also the mark of when boys became men, or girls became women. And the assumption was in fact that a parent could not or should not usher their own child through that period unless it was necessary. Vikings were fond of it.

Oh, another example is Mary Boleyn's child with Henry VIII. Anne Boleyn took the child to be raised in court, an "adopted" her.(Not the same process as we have today) It was considered a selfless move on Anne Boleyn's part, but it also had the added incentive of keeping a potential heir close at hand.

[jason_c]

Actually this isn't technically true. Well, to be precise it is not at all true, but certain cultures attach a kind of truth to it. Biologically, psychologically, physiologically, kids are okay in any environment that is not abusive. A child raised in a convent turns out just as well as a child raised in a wealthy two sexed parent home, who turn out just as well as kids raised in a communal home with many parents, and all of those turn out as well as a kid in a single parent home. Kids don't need both sexes of parent in the home in order to find healthy models of the other sex. What being raised in a two parent two sexed home does for a child is socialize them that the ideal relationship is between only two people of opposite sexes. It doesn't make their life easier, it just makes heterosexuality more normal. And since most kids come from heterosexual parents who themselves came from heterosexual parents in a monogamous marriage, any kid coming from something different tends to get made fun of on the playground. But no more so than the non Christian kids, kids from a different socioeconomic background, etc.

Now the culturally true part comes in here. No American kid grows up with two loving heterosexual parents and wishes they had grown up in a Catholic orphanage. However out there in the world, and in the past of our own cultures, things are different. There are cultures where children are never raised by their own parents. Or only ever raised by one parent. Or raised communally. Those kids turn out to be good members of their societies. It's abnormal to us, but not to them. One practice we used to have that I think we still should have is that of fostering our children out as a young teenager. Clearly parents are willing to put up with sociopathic behavior from their own children, but would have no problem with landing like a ton of bricks on someone else's kid. Switch kids for the teenage years, and we greatly improve the next generation.

And the idea that the adoption system is some sort of carefully planned matching system for optimal happiness is... a little absurd. Most kids put up for adoption stay in the foster system. Most adoptions are private, and very expensive. We essentially buy babies today. More foreign adoptions take place in the US than domestic public adoptions. By a lot. The truth is, no one wants black babies born as crack addicts. And a home that is not ideal in the number of sexes represented by the parents is far superior than the foster system. It's not like gay couple are taking babies out of the arms of straight couples. They are taking them out of an incredibly abusive foster care system. Or buying them like everybody else, in which case it's still not competing with heterosexual couples since there are plenty of knocked up teenagers to go around.

I rather doubt enough work has been done on how kids brought up in convents or communes turn out. Certainly how they turn out in relation to those of the same socio-economic background. In the above post I worry that you are espousing what you wish or hope to be correct rather than what has been proven to be correct.

I was talking of state controlled adoption(and fostering) here in the UK. It is very strictly controlled, there have been a number of headline making cases here which would confirm this. It is also of interest that you should describe the fostering system as abusive. Do you have any proof of this? I would imagine the foster system is a fairly mixed bag, with both success and horror stories.

[Errata]

I rather doubt enough work has been done on how kids brought up in convents or communes turn out. Certainly how they turn out in relation to those of the same socio-economic background. In the above post I worry that you are espousing what you wish or hope to be correct rather than what has been proven to be correct.

I was talking of state controlled adoption(and fostering) here in the UK. It is very strictly controlled, there have been a number of headline making cases here which would confirm this. It is also of interest that you should describe the fostering system as abusive. Do you have any proof of this? I would imagine the foster system is a fairly mixed bag, with both success and horror stories.

The US foster care system can best be described as neglectful. Not through any design by the states, but because there are in fact so many foster kids in the system. I'm sure there are kids out there who have had positive experiences in foster homes. It is by no means the norm. Most kids are not actively abused with any amount of consistency. But they are ignored, and they are neglected. Almost no foster parents only have one child. But siblings are almost always split up. Foster parents are paid for their services, and it has now come out that an official majority of foster kids are deliberately over medicated with psychoactive drugs. Foster parents use anti depressants as chemical restraints to limit the amount of care they need to give a child, and also as an appetite and activity suppressant. It allows them to spend less on a child while still receiving a check from the state.

Our system is terrible. And overburdened.

But in the end, kids are resilient creatures. They have to be. Remember that child abuse is in many ways one of the grey areas in life. What is completely unacceptable now was compulsory a century ago. Kids were whipped, beaten with sticks, given limited education, starved, exposed to the elements, etc. And some pretty great people came out of those times without all kinds of hang ups. Certainly they did not become the kind of person we expect from children exposed to the same treatment today. In the end, parental love is unnecessary. Its actually a fairly modern concept. Societal belonging is necessary. Anyone can instill that in a child, regardless of their relationship to them. You guys may have some sweet foster care system, thought I think at best it is merely adequate, but give a kid the choice between living as a gay couple's child or living as nobody's child shuffled between various homes and living with six other kids.... most choose the gay couple. It's a home. And nothing about a gay relationship precludes being a good parent. And nothing about good parenting requires an opposite sex monogamous pairing. Some of the most fundamentally moral kids I ever met all came from a conclave of unmarried polygamist hippies. They do not tolerate injustice, the do not tolerate ill treatment of their fellow man. And most of them are now married to just one person. But they were all raised as siblings, and it is a deeper bond than I have seen even in genuine siblings. They never doubted they were loved, but more to the point, they never doubted that they had a role to play in the world, and that they were needed.