Should marriage be preserved?
- Thread starter civver_764
- Start date
- Status
civver_764
Deity
Is there a preference given to straight couples?
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Are you under the mistaken impression that the adoption system has a surplus of childless parents and a deficit in parentless children?
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Well, that depends. For babies, it's actually rather hard to "get one" in Germany, and there is preferential treatment for younger want-to-be parents as it is assumed that the smaller age difference is a positive thing, and if the age difference is bigger than 40 years, you're not allowed to adopt that child at all. The problem is mostly with older children, kids that had to be taken away from their parents, kids whose parents died and there was nobody in the family who could care for them, etc. - those usually have it very hard to find a new family, especially as they grow older, as most people who are trying to adopt a child want a baby, or at least a very young child that they can rear without the "baggage" of the life they lived before the adoption.
Of course because same-sex couple are to be treated equally before the law, no such discrimination is allowed officially - and why would it be? Studies find that the only downside children that are reared by homosexual couples, are those of people who have homophobic views and discriminate against them on that basis. But I'm sure there will be some workers who will find ways to game the system to be in the way of homosexual couples who want to adopt, and children also have the right to choose not to be adopted by couples they don't like, even if it's just because "I don't want to have two mothers".
I think they have to divorce each other before getting into a same sex marriage.
civver_764
Deity
Adoption should be about the best interests of the child, not the "equal rights" of the adoptive parents. Kids should ideally be raised in a normal environment.
BTW I've seen studies that suggest the opposite. This study says:
What I would be interested in is a comparison of single parent households to same-sex parent households.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Well, if you want my opinion, all children should share a fate with Ramsay Bolton's half-brother. Would solve so many problems.
...does not actually have a separate category for adoption by same-sex couples, and instead shows that children growing up in same-sex households experience more negative things. Which is to be expected, as any child in a same-sex relationship that has not ended up there by adoption has gone through at least one divorce/break-up, and has likely experienced an unknown situation with their parents' new partner who is not of the sex as the old partner.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm taking precisely the opposition position. "Race-realists" regard race as prior to conflict, I regard conflict as prior to race. They see race as a material reality, a naturally-occurring division between human populations, and "race conflict" as the inevitable result of large-scale interaction between "racial" groups. I see race as a way of articulating, rationalising and ultimately organising social hierarchies, of orgnaising the conflicts latent within those hierarchies.
"Race-realists" believe you overcome conflict by getting rid of the other races; I believe you get rid of race by getting rid of the conflict.
but yeah no lol horsehoes or whatever.
Because dogs have been deliberately bred by humans to fulfill different roles. The Grey Wolf is itself a fairly homogenous species; some variation in build and colouration depending on environment, but nothing like the difference between a Great Dane and a Highland Terrier. Dogs are a genetic freakshow, the result of centuries of human experimentation, and one largely enabled by the unusual plasticity of the dog; there's nothing like that degree of variety among cats, for instance, and so the distinctions between breeds are mostly obscure to the general population.
As if these people live outside of the history created by white supremacy? They're responding to the world that has been presented to them and, yes, reproducing it on at least conceptual level, but they didn't make it.
They are, for the most point, responding quite rationally to a world not of their own making, and to the extent that they aren't- I'll admit that the bourgeois wing of BLM absolute fits the definition of "Not Helping"- it's precisely because they are invested in the structures of white supremacy that keep their "communities" isolated and distinct, and which allow them to fulfill positions of "leadership". You ever notice that the point white liberal start losing interest in Martin Luther King is the point at which he stops speaking for "the community" and starts speaking for the working class?
I'm not arguing that race is a uniquely white concept. I'm only arguing that it was created by, and is mostly sustained by, the social, economic and political structures of white supremacy. Remove that, the rest becomes irrelevant.
It's not a conspiracy. I've been quite clear about that. It's not secret, for a start, it's right out in the open, anyonebody with an ounce of brain to rattle around in their skull can see it for what it is, and always has. It's about establishing vertical relationships between people, of exerting both downward force and upwards attachment, hierarchical structures that cut across and diminish horizontal divisions that would more naturally place poor people of whatever complexion in opposoition to the wealthy- again, of whatever complexion.
They didn't think of these difference as fundamental and inherent. Racial identity was surprisingly fluid until the nineteenth century: assimilation into a different cultural had racial overtones, so that, for example, Indians brought into European society were thought, in a sense, to "become white", and Europeans assimilated into Indian society were by the same token imagined to "become Indians". It's only in the nineteenth century that these categories start to be imagined as fundamental divisions of humanity, rather than just ways of describing the fact that the indigenous population of one place will differ from that of another. A category like "Hispanic" would have been both familiar and baffling to people of this era: familiar, because it describes the culture, religion and manners of a people as much as their physical appearance, but baffling, because this is being presented as one of the fundamental divisions of the entire human race, and not just an historical contingent grouping found in a certain place at a certain time.
As if state institutions are a more "normal" environment than a same-sex household?
Even if you want to argue that heterosexuality and picket fences are the Platonic ideal of family life, you have to measure the rest in terms of their proximity to that ideal. What you're saying is that it's better to throw kids in the trash than place them in a home that falls short of whatever arbitrary cut-off point you've drawn for "normality".
Last edited:
civver_764
Deity
What you don't seem to get is that you are actively creating this conflict. You make posts all the time about how people "hate brown people" (but brown people don't exist lol) or how "white people were mean to the natives" (but white people don't exist lol). You say race isn't real but you constantly identify people by their race.
If race isn't real, then why does it matter that "white people" (who apparently don't exist) are over-represented in politics, or as property owners? Since there's no difference between white people and black people, why do we need affirmative action specifically for black people? How is racial oppression a thing if there are no races?
There are people that genuinely try to "not see color". These are usually center-right people who say things like "all identity politics are stupid". You are not one of these people. Almost everything you talk about is dripping in racial-overtones. Just in this thread you have made several negative blanket statements about "white people" (but white people don't exist lol).
But it's not. People like you sustain it when they talk about "people of color", or "white privilege", or "white flight", or "white devils", or "white allies".
I'm not a person of color, right? So what am I, Traitorfish? You're telling me there's these "groupless" people who have PALE skin and come from EUROPE and have this mystical "privilege", but SOMEHOW they're not a group? How does this make any sense to you?
Do you seriously imagine that you can keep shaming this group (which doesn't exist lol) called "white people" and then act surprised when they identify as "white people"?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It doesn't. I'm a communist. If you take that into account, you might be able to appreciate where I'm coming from, because it isn't about Beyoncé winning more Grammies.
These things exist as long as we pretend they exist. Like money, or laws. That they are acts of collective make-believe does not lessen their power over us, it only tells us the source and nature of that power. "White people" exist because we act like they do, and the process of acting like "white people" exist is called "white supremacy". Take away "white supremacy", and "white" become nothing more than an imprecise shorthand for people with pale skin.
civver_764
Deity
Every concept we talk about is "make believe" at some level. What's the difference between a wooden chair and a wooden table? It's just different shapes of wood isn't it? Everything is just matter and energy isn't it? All of language is technically a "social construct" if you want to really get down to it.
Why don't you then lead by example and stop talking about white people? Stop mentioning "people of color". We're all the same right? So why the divisive language?
"PALE SUPREMACY!"
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Do you imagine that if I stop talking about "white people" and "black people", the rest of the world will stop acting like these are distinct categories of person? Would you?
If was that easier, I would have stopped talking about "private property" years ago, and we'd all be living in fully automated luxury communism.
Nobody says that stop talking a nonsense is going to get you far but it surely is for this issue a good start.
civver_764
Deity
It would be a step in the right direction, and you would give people an example to emulate. You are actively working in the opposite direction. There are many discussions on this board where you just accuse people of "hating brown people" out of left field where no discussion on race existed previously. This is you actively creating racial divisions.
Of course I don't think you actually want an end to racial conflict. I think you clearly want it and actively work to agitate it, whether consciously or subconsciously.
Yeah well that's for another discussion...
Celibating diversity is a fedoral offense.
That may be a good point. If he is a commie than I suspect that any form of desintegrating or weakening present society may serve his purpose of bringing about global communism. Its one of the reasons why some of the elements on the left are allying with radical Islam.
civver_764
Deity
Yeah, that's basically the idea of cultural Marxism isn't it? Instead of pitting workers against bosses, they pit women against men, blacks against whites, etc. In the end the result is the same - the total breakdown of society.
The problem is you are mixing up two quite different things. Supremacy is exclusively a mental/psychological concept which can be rooted out through proper education but not through ideological control and supression as you are imagining.
While privite property is also a physical concept and to some extent can be dealt with on purely physical level. Or at least it makes more sense.
What you are trying to accomplish is to change the physical reality first through mental supression and prohibition (PC as a mean of control) instead of investing your resources in properly educating people. And that way you are putting cart before the horse so you are bound to fail.
- Status
Similar threads
