Pro and cons of families

Originally posted by Aelfgifu But I am not sure whether you can say in all of these cases, that it was the seperation of the parents that caused the negative impact, or any other factor. It could be that the arguments and the negative athmosphere surrounding a divorce do the damage, and not the removal of a parent from the house. In that case, smoothing up the process and more help to both kids and parents dealing with the situation might help.

What evidence is there that parents who divorce create a more negative atmosphere and argue more, than parents of the same age and economic class who aren't married and split up?

And if it is lesser for unmarried couples (which I doubt), how much lesser? It would have to be quite alot, because the kids of serial monogamists in casual relationships are going to go through it time after time.

I would say that in quite a lot of cases, divorce is still the better option. Forbidding it is not going to make anything better for anyone...

Divorce is not forbidden in many places. Certainly not in any of the developed nations. And are we discussing the institution of marriage in the countries most of us live in, or railing against the perceived backwardness of a handful of Third World societies? They are two very different topics.

Edited by edgewaters - 27-Jun-2007 at 12:06

Originally posted by edgewaters Divorce is not forbidden in many places. Certainly not in any of the developed nations. And are we discussing the institution of marriage in the countries most of us live in, or railing against the perceived backwardness of a handful of Third World societies? They are two very different topics.

 

This is really blatant BS and you know it. Gays are only allowed to have a demonstration with permission, and there is not a chance in hell they will get such permission. On the other hand, radical nationalists and neo-nazis do get said permissions. Which, indeed, they have full right to, in a democracy. But if they have the right, so have homosexuals. Not giving homosexuals permission to have a demonstration is discrimination against a minority.

Really? So show me the permission then.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Really? So show me the permission then.

Edited by ataman - 27-Jun-2007 at 15:00

Originally posted by Spartakus I am pro-family, because the baby needs both�a father and a mother.

I agree 1000 %

Should a poll be taken on this subject to clear the air? I feel there are a lot of tension rising here, some of the remarks have led to warnings. I don't feel that is the fault of those who made them given the subject matter. We have fallen into discussing emotive opinions rather than events and what one says hurts another for one reason or another.  

Originally posted by Maharbbal Give me an example please. 2005 2004 The organizers of demostration didn't agree and marched the way they choose. Therefore it was illegal demonstration. I find your explanation fishy in a region where gay rights are so ill-treated.

i have to say that i agree with new user.  i have looked over this discussion and have to say i find it disgraceful that people can be so abusive about members of society that are not causing pain to others, and just trying to get on with their lives. 

Originally posted by Maharbbal That's my point the refusal of the municipal government to co-ordinate the march was illegal because made not on the ground of public order but morality. A demonstration took place anyway and as far as I know except a few eggs throwing that was the worst that happen. A country is supposed to make room for its minorities. If one year the security can't be guaranteed OK, sh*t happens, but two years in a raw I do see a problem.

As someone who has participated in the organization of demonstrations in the past, I have to be frank here and say that no, it is not.

Demonstrations are rarely banned altogether, and it doesn't appear that it was banned in this case. It was refused a marching license, for one year (it was granted one the year previous) because the organizers refused to agree to the route.

Considerations in route have little to do with "moral ground" and have everything to do with public order. If a protest is likely to be subject to attacks from counterdemonstrators, or to damage property or attack citizens, routes are chosen where attacks are less likely and where it is easier to provide security. This protects protestors, innocent bystanders, tenants, and property owners. In the case of Poznan specifically, the gay parade march of the previous year was granted a license, and the result was a riot between gays and far right counterdemonstrators in the downtown core. By granting a second license for a march along the same route, the municipality could have been liable for injuries and property damage which resulted.

The reason that there was no repeat of the violence the second year even though the march was along the same route, was that when the marchers staged an illegal demonstration, the local police detained them, probably overnight. If they had a license to march, this wouldn't have been possible until too late, when the riot was already started.

It does not indicate favouritism. The British, for instance, banned Protestant Loyalist marches through the Catholic Bogside district in Belfast, Northern Ireland, from 1970 to 1994 after the 1969 march resulted in a series of riots known as the Battle of the Bogside. The traditional march had to be rerouted through those years; a wall was even built to prevent marchers from taking a now-illegal route through the Bogside.

Protestors who are denied their chosen route always claim discrimination, regardless of the reasons and regardless of who they are (the Loyalist marchers claimed they had been 'abandoned' by the British), especially when they talk to the press. This is a standard tactic to attract media attention through controversy. The goal of the protestors is to attract attention, and if they are headed by radical organizers, will always choose a route likely to result in violence, even (sometimes especially) when they are likely to be the victims.

Municipalities are always in a no-win situation with demonstrations marked by violence. This is one of the main reason why radical demonstration has been so effective in achieving rights for gays and other groups; its such a headache for municipalities, even major metropolises, that it can become a national priority to see that such parades go smoothly with minimum need for security - and that involves reducing discrimination. In other words, radical demonstrations can make the interests of government and the demonstrators coincide.

The pope going in a country produces massive security issues, he has never been prevented from coming to Warsaw yet.

A gay pride march which is refused a route in a specific municipality is not the same thing as a papal visitation. Turkey bans demonstrations all the time, and it still shelled out for security for a papal visit, and it's not even Catholic. A papal visitation is a national event and a municipality will receive national resources including funding and police, possibly even military, to provide security. Municipalities must provide all the security for local marches. It's just not a comparable situation. Municipalities don't have unlimited resources, and have to cope with the fact that criminals and delinquents will be expecting the police to be too busy and will increase their activity at the same time.

Edited by edgewaters - 01-Jul-2007 at 06:50

[/QUOTE]