European Court to France: Give Children to Homosexuals
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Tue, 2008-01-22 19:26
A quote from Agence France Press, 22 January 2008
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that France had discriminated against a lesbian nursery school teacher by refusing to allow her to adopt a child. […] In 1998, her adoption application was turned down by authorities on the grounds the child would suffer from the absence of a paternal figure and that the role of her partner was unclear. [...]
The court ruled that she had suffered discrimination as well as a violation of her right to a private life, under the European Convention of Human Rights, awarding her 10,000 euros ($14,500) in moral damages.
The decision obliges France to take steps to prevent such discrimination in future, and could have consequences for other single homosexuals, or homosexual couples, in Europe who want to adopt.
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2008-01-25 00:50.
I hate the EU more that I hate former commies. The latter were not fagot-lovers at least! This continent is nut, at least couple of dictators would be necessary to show fagots and their leftist friends where is their place!
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-01-24 13:44.
So,for starters (in your opinion) ?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-01-24 12:10.
You wrote,"There's a lot of homophobia in the comments" and " it is arbitrary to establish 'boundaries',that would be (in my opinion) homophobic".
(In your opinion) is "homophobia" a good thing or a bad thing?
(In your opinion) are societies showing greater tolerance towards homosexuals more enlightened or less enlightened than societies showing less tolerance or no tolerance to homosexuals?
(In your opinion) would it be acceptable or even desirable for enlightened individuals (the likes of yourself) to openly criticize societies and individuals living in those less enlightened societies for their lack of tolerance?
In Reply to Various Commentators
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2008-01-23 21:58.
MarkE: Surely this is something that should be left to the individual countries (or to an even more local level)? If there is a high degree of prejudice against homosexuality in France (or in any other country) then a child adopted by a gay couple will suffer as a result of that prejudice. You and I may say such prejudice is wrong, but that does not and should not permit us to force them to obey us.
I understand your point. There was a strong prejudice against non-Whites in the American South which was reflected in the laws and institutions of the states in question. Do you believe that the federal government was correct to impose de-segregation and integration on them? One of the tenets of representative democracy is that the so-called representatives are more expert in political issues than their constituents, and are therefore to a degree technocrats.
Paganini: ...most of them [homosexuals] suffer from heavy pathological behavior. Most of them suffer from depressions (quite normal if you suck off dicks and have to look in the mirror afterwards)...
And here I thought my wife's clinical depression was brought on by the passing of her mother! Time to smash the mirrors in the house.
Paganini: They can do what they want, it's not our problem, nobody has the right to interfere in the private sphere, nobody owns our sexuality.
And no one is attempting to own your sexuality.
Steiner: Regarding homosexuality being a result of a biochemical/brain disfunction...This is probably it.
Not only is the jury still out on the true nature of homosexuality, but that jury is compromised by non-scientific and often religiously-motivated prejudices.
Armor: In the past, some people have engaged in same-sex sex...
So that was you in that 'dark room' at the club in Berlin in '99! Give me your e-mail again, I wrote it down wrong...
*Clearly I am just kidding.
kappert: Some people really think that 'man' is better than 'woman' and that 'mankind' is superior to nature. I think that's blasphemy.
Agreed. We should probably euthanise you in order to reduce your carbon footprint and in order that polar bear does not lose its ice flow.
Paganini: Once again, I don't see the problem, because homosexuals can act as they please, they can live as promiscuous as they want, dress up, use bizarre objects to put in their assholes, and so on...
So can 17 year-old girls. What of it?
Armor: If you do not rule out adoption by same-sex couples, why should you rule out adoption by same-sex trios or by multi-sex 10-people groups?
Imagine the volume of presents under the Christmas tree.
Since I cut and paste, I
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-23 19:57.
Since I cut and paste, I could not emphasize the relevant point of the essay to this thread, which is that it is gravely immoral to place a dependent child with homosexual parent(s) as it violates laws of nature, society, and religion, and deprives the child of natural growth and development as a social and moral being.
Lastly, anyone who thinks that expedience trumps the well being of a child is morally bankrupt and a shallow "thinker". Children DESERVE two parents: a mother and a father - and this paradigm is undisputed in every major society in the history of mankind. Even the State must recognize the importance of the traditional family - for it cannot survive without that foundation.
Invoking the problems and issues regarding divorce, poor parenting, etc... does not in any way lessen the necessity of heterosexual parents in a family. Indeed, if society were not under attack from moral relativism and moral bankruptcy those problems would not exist so prevalently as they do now.
Lesson II on Marriage and Family
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-23 19:39.
ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2008-01-23 18:00.
If you do not rule out adoption by same-sex couples, why should you rule out adoption by same-sex trios or by multi-sex 10-people groups? after all, the more adoptive parents, the merrier. And we don't want to encourage trio-phobia.
There is a recent theory
Submitted by Mimi on Wed, 2008-01-23 17:23.
There is a recent theory that homosexuality is caused by a virus.
Submitted by Paganini on Wed, 2008-01-23 17:14.
Kappert, I don't understand the problem, and see no reason to use the pseudo-clinical term 'Homophobia': it's so easy to use that whenever you disagree with someone.
And if you want to compare humans to animals: some locust eats the partner after mating, some reptiles eat their own children: what does that say about us in biological and moral sense (IF we act like them) ? Nothing ofcourse.
Once again, I don't see the problem, because homosexuals can act as they please, they can live as promiscuous as they want, dress up, use bizarre objects to put in their assholes, and so on... Nobody cares, it's not our problem and certainly not the problem of the state, as long as it socially acceptable. But they can't cross the bondaries of their behavior: they can't marry or raise children.
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-01-23 17:39.
"But they can't cross the bondaries of their behavior: they can't marry or raise children."
The question then is: if man/woman marry, why are there so many divorces and so much domestic violence/submission.
And raising children is an issue for competence; there are incompetent hetero-couples, but also competent homo-couples. In human behaviour nothing is 'absolute', so it is arbitrary to establish 'boundaries', that would be (in my opinion) homophobic.
Lesson I on Marriage and Family
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-23 19:32.
From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
...Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)
Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Wed, 2008-01-23 16:09.
Looks like the EU really *is* bent on controlling every aspect of our lives...
a lot of homophobia
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-01-23 15:34.
There's a lot of homophobia in the comments. About 10% of mankind are homosexual, many animals show homosexual behaviour, why should man be an exception of nature. Some people really think that 'man' is better than 'woman' and that 'mankind' is superior to nature. I think that's blasphemy.
Is Leftism in the Genes ?
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2008-01-23 14:03.
Homosexuality is most of all a (leftist) posture. In the past, some people have engaged in same-sex sex, but usually not as part of a loony political ideology. They probably did not call themselves gay or homosexual. They did not write books about it. I think the media and government propaganda for homosexuality is not really about sex.
MarkE: " Why is the EU so careful not to impose its values on others when talking about the fundemental beliefs that make us European, yet it is so very willing to force its subject states to conform to its own left/liberal views?"
The ECHR belongs to the Council of Europe, not to the EU.
By the way, Turkey is a member of the Council of "Europe".
I hope the ECHR is actively promoting same sex marriage in Turkey.
Submitted by Paganini on Wed, 2008-01-23 12:31.
Homosexuality is clearly a paraphilia. Some homosexuals are able to live a quite normal life, most of them suffer from heavy pathological behavior. Most of them suffer from depressions (quite normal if you suck off dicks and have to look in the mirror afterwards), many of them die of hepatitis, AIDS, and anal cancer.
They can do what they want, it's not our problem, nobody has the right to interfere in the private sphere, nobody owns our sexuality.
But allowing them to 'marry' and raise children is insane. It would go against the "common antropological heritage of mankind" (Ratzinger).
Submitted by MarkE on Wed, 2008-01-23 11:25.
Surely this is something that should be left to the individual countries (or to an even more local level)? If there is a high degree of prejudice against homosexuality in France (or in any other country) then a child adopted by a gay couple will suffer as a result of that prejudice. You and I may say such prejudice is wrong, but that does not and should not permit us to force them to obey us.
Why is the EU so careful not to impose its values on others when talking about the fundemental beliefs that make us European, yet it is so very willing to force its subject states to conform to its own left/liberal views?
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2008-01-23 04:40.
I have to differ with the Brussels Journal here, and agree with the ECHR. Given the number of children in France and other EU member states with single parents, no parents and abusive and/or neglectful parents, I see no problem in permitting homosexual individuals or couples to adopt children.
Opposition would only be reasonable if: (a) homosexuality was a deliberate, voluntary choice, as opposed to genetic or bio-chemical; and (b) homosexual parents would knowingly or unknowingly "convert" their children into homosexuals. Of course, the only reasonable opposition to homosexuality (outside of religious conviction) would be if homosexuality adversely affects fertility rates.
@KA ...regarding the brain, the trodden paths & anorexics...
Submitted by Steiner on Wed, 2008-01-23 13:43.
Regarding homosexuality being genetic...
This can be studied by looking at identical twins. Identical twins by definition have the same DNA. Yet, it will be found that while one of the twins may be a homosexual the other is not necessarily one also.
Regarding homosexuality being a result of a biochemical/brain disfunction -
This is probably it. Drug addictions are able to affect the way the brain functions at the basic level.
Yet this isnt limited to drugs, but it applies to anything that we become sensitized to, dependent and attached to for a long period of time...
In a sense, this creates a path which our brain cannot do without. A path, much like a railway track to a train, or a road to a car...where our brain has an extremely difficult time leaving it once it is built.
How else then shall we explain bisexuality, or paedophilia, or numerous other behaviours?
The mind has been trained through repetitive and continued use of that path to the point where it cannot do anything else but travel on that road.
How else can we explain drive? the drive of a millionaire to become a billionaire, unable to stop...but to keep on piling up more and more.
Or the collector of rubbish who keeps on collecting more and more rubbish till the house and the yard and everything owned is totally filled with it, but wont stop bringing more in..
Or with anorexics...can we show that it is genetic? again, using the idea of identical twins, you will find that just because one is anorexic, the other does not necessarily follow...
And with anorexics there is a particularity that should be noted. We see that although they are in every respect truly thin...they completely see themselves as fat...undermining every reality that is flung their way...(I just wonder how anorexics talk to each other about their weights?!...or how a homosexual in a heated argument tries to convince by insulting an adamant anorexic about their weight!?...and the response of an incensed anorexic to such an attack..)
Homosexuals are the same. Although their sexual parts are there and they can bear children on their own without any problems...they have gotten themselves in a predicament where they will not admit to their gender, or their ability to have children...
They will not choose to have children the normal way, although there is nothing that would stop them in our free societies.
But like the anorexics they are under a complete illusion as to the reality of things....
And on top of that they run to the state to force others by law to believe their self created illusions.
Sounding a lot like those that run to the state to protect their religion from blasphemy...
I rather that they have their own children the natural way than give them adoption rights. The reason is simple. It is more likely that they will abuse adopted children.
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2008-01-23 01:34.
AFP quote: " Considering that French law allows single people to adopt, the judges of the court's Grand Chamber ruled by 10 votes to seven that she received different treatment because of her sexual orientation. "
That kind of decision should not be made by judges. It is a matter of civilization. How come the "Grand Chamber" had never said previously that same sex couples should be able to adopt children? It shows that the lefties are tightening their grip on European institutions.
The reason French law does not explicitly excludes single people from adopting children is probably to allow some flexibility and allow each decision to be taken at the local level. The idea was not to let the European Court of Human Rights decide for everyone.
How we are being led to think and the seed of oikophobia
Submitted by Steiner on Wed, 2008-01-23 00:11.
Daily we are being brainwashed into believing that a father and mother are no different than 2 female parents or 2 male parents. We have absorbed these ideas w/o question, but ultimately to the detriment and the abasement of our societies.
There are differences between how a father and how a mother interacts, and we ought to care how our children are brought up.
The mothers perspective is molded from the fact that the child is a part of her. Since she gave birth to this being, she cannot deny that it is her child. Hence future interaction is one that is built on automatic acceptance. Love towards the child is unconditional.
A father does not birth the child, and therefore, he cannot know for sure that this is his child. Hence, a fathers love is conditional. It is conditioned on the basis of how the child interacts with the father.
A father begins to establish a means of interaction that is based on whether a child obeys or disobeys. Hence the child is conditioned to the father through the rules of the father as he tests obedience.
A child belongs to his/her father as the child grows up according to the expectations placed upon him by the father. The child shows his love for his father by following the fathers rules.
We can also draw a few more corollaries from this.
1. The Christian God calls himself Father and not mother, because it is only those that strive to obey God(as an act of love) that can be expected to be called His children, and receive His love.
2. In our European societies we used to refer to our lands as fatherlands for a reason.
Those who love their country will obey its rules. (Christian rules for a land that stem from God the Father.)
Those that do not obey the laws of their country cannot love their country or be considered its children.
Today we live in a Europe that acts in the fashion of a mother.
If you are born in Europe, no matter who you are and what you do, and whether you disobey the rules, you are considered a citizen...to the detriment of our countries and society.
This love is a lawless one, and ultimately conditions what has been deemed as oikophobia. The oikophobes of our day have the freedom to hate their own countries and to plan deceitfully against their own mother countries...yet they are still considered its children..
It is about time that we start calling our countries fatherlands once again. Where to be called a citizen, one has duties and obligations that have to be met, and not just be born there to receive all its benefits...
And it is about time that our societies recognize the intrinsic roles of a father and mother in a family. We cannot have two mothers or two fathers.
We need a father and a mother so that unconditional love can be balanced with the rule of law...which the father is indespensable.
And neither do we admit or will ever submit in the liberty of our human spirit to a god that does not have the virtue to call itself mother or father. Such a god is a monster...and our lands are not to be monsterlands...
Where humans are treated and act like monsters...in the virtue of their vile and monster god.
What love is this? When suicide and mass murder is worshiped as a virtue of a monster god?
Only a monster god cares nothing for the lives of its worshippers to call them to suicide and outright murder. Who would not pray?
God our Father...
or to sing:
This is my Fathers World
and to my listening ears
all nature sings and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Fathers World
I rest me in the thought
of rocks and trees, of skies and seas
His hands the wonders wrought....