http://stanislaw-minin.livejournal.com/140655.html
stanislaw_minin ![[info]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tG9Y9dYnjKQPPz5WQCG4fscK5NabZBDQnCPwM92ef-rcOQ5MgR7qeLLA5rxkt-5xTOPCNepvVFmD40S5VmzzsytjAoHtvI2yRCTeqIOP7GgBcU-Q=s0-d)
"translated the text by Jan Hartman, Philosophy and Bioethics of the Jagiellonian University. (Poland), published in the journal Przekrój. Almost all of us brought up in a culture of aversion. Only the most free among us can feel an aversion to dirt only - others suffer from different cultural obverse. One of them is the acquisition of an aversion to homosexuality. It was purchased because it is an aversion feature of our culture, echoes an archaic system, "sins", designed to maintain public harmony desert tribes, conveyed to us their religious and moral ideas. Disgust - a common sense, so it's easy to deceive, stating that in relation to homosexuals to his experiences each while she homosexuality "contrary to nature." It does not matter that it was "contrary to nature" is found everywhere, and only some of the culture of his condemn. It does not matter that this phenomenon is widespread in the animal world - proponents of "natural law", which in their interpretation inevitably turns a set of stereotypes and prejudices purely particularistic and wearing only a cultural nature, the truth is never interested. Yes, and what can be However, when the nation needs to be protected from the poison of liberalism, atheism and pederasty?
Most of us are in some stage of recovery, exemption from the acquired in childhood homophobia. As if we already recovering, but every time is not until the end. We would never have supported discrimination against homosexuals but we really do not like parades equality. We are arguing this way: "do not publicly declare their sexuality, regardless of orientation. " At the same time we want to seem dumber than we really are, because we are well aware that this political event, and gave rise behavior - no more than a test of how seriously our respect for the principle of equal rights for gays and lesbians.
In the next stage of ethical rehabilitation, to overcome the hideous blemish homophobia are those who would permit same-sex couples to officially register the marriage, but God forbid, without the right to educate their children. Let them do whatever you want in bed, let inherit each other's property and so on, but do not let them spoil the child! I, too, thought so, but I had to change my point of view. Better late than never.
assume that the whole child is much better to have a mom and dad than two moms or two dads. Does this mean that the presence of, for example, in an orphanage for children is preferable to family upbringing of gays or lesbians? Does is that any homosexual couple, for example, a pair of cute and clever people would be worse for the child's family, rather than a pair of drunks or thugs? Perhaps, this thesis no one would defend. And, since it is likely that the homosexual couple adopting a child may be the best option for the child, rather than stay in an orphanage, then why this probability should not be considered at the legislative level? Surely in this case, the government cares about the interests of child? Of course not. So what is it governed? Aversion to homosexuality. And nothing else. Circle. For those who have not yet recovered to the end, I have an excellent suggestion. Think of all of their homosexual feelings and experiences since childhood and adolescence. Try to love this experience. Fearing gays or lesbians, we are afraid of gay or lesbian in themselves. When we made peace with his own homosexuality, the treatment can be considered complete.
"translated the text by Jan Hartman, Philosophy and Bioethics of the Jagiellonian University. (Poland), published in the journal Przekrój. Almost all of us brought up in a culture of aversion. Only the most free among us can feel an aversion to dirt only - others suffer from different cultural obverse. One of them is the acquisition of an aversion to homosexuality. It was purchased because it is an aversion feature of our culture, echoes an archaic system, "sins", designed to maintain public harmony desert tribes, conveyed to us their religious and moral ideas. Disgust - a common sense, so it's easy to deceive, stating that in relation to homosexuals to his experiences each while she homosexuality "contrary to nature." It does not matter that it was "contrary to nature" is found everywhere, and only some of the culture of his condemn. It does not matter that this phenomenon is widespread in the animal world - proponents of "natural law", which in their interpretation inevitably turns a set of stereotypes and prejudices purely particularistic and wearing only a cultural nature, the truth is never interested. Yes, and what can be However, when the nation needs to be protected from the poison of liberalism, atheism and pederasty? Most of us are in some stage of recovery, exemption from the acquired in childhood homophobia. As if we already recovering, but every time is not until the end. We would never have supported discrimination against homosexuals but we really do not like parades equality. We are arguing this way: "do not publicly declare their sexuality, regardless of orientation. " At the same time we want to seem dumber than we really are, because we are well aware that this political event, and gave rise behavior - no more than a test of how seriously our respect for the principle of equal rights for gays and lesbians.
In the next stage of ethical rehabilitation, to overcome the hideous blemish homophobia are those who would permit same-sex couples to officially register the marriage, but God forbid, without the right to educate their children. Let them do whatever you want in bed, let inherit each other's property and so on, but do not let them spoil the child! I, too, thought so, but I had to change my point of view. Better late than never.
assume that the whole child is much better to have a mom and dad than two moms or two dads. Does this mean that the presence of, for example, in an orphanage for children is preferable to family upbringing of gays or lesbians? Does is that any homosexual couple, for example, a pair of cute and clever people would be worse for the child's family, rather than a pair of drunks or thugs? Perhaps, this thesis no one would defend. And, since it is likely that the homosexual couple adopting a child may be the best option for the child, rather than stay in an orphanage, then why this probability should not be considered at the legislative level? Surely in this case, the government cares about the interests of child? Of course not. So what is it governed? Aversion to homosexuality. And nothing else. Circle. For those who have not yet recovered to the end, I have an excellent suggestion. Think of all of their homosexual feelings and experiences since childhood and adolescence. Try to love this experience. Fearing gays or lesbians, we are afraid of gay or lesbian in themselves. When we made peace with his own homosexuality, the treatment can be considered complete.
0 comments:
Post a Comment