European (generally Western) civilization stands morally (by education) on the basis of the Christian-Jewish tradition. In many ways it has taken Western civilization further, but in many it is this one tradition can brake. Let's look at some of the traditional brakes of European, or better Western, civilization.
Man with man or woman with woman. Christianity and Judaism see love between two people of the same sex (homosexuality) as something bad, monstrous, abnormal and immoral. To this day we have this tradition it binds hands and thinking to many aspects of decision making in our lives. To this day, the burial of this tradition binds our thinking in our thinking.
To this day, some argue that homosexuality is a disease. That it is something disgusting, and it has been many years since the WHO itself removed homosexuality from the list of diseases. Let's be honest - homosexuality is natural and it's nothing against nature - nature itself "invented" it.
We each have a piece of gay in us. Thanks to this, we are able to compare ourselves with people of the same sex and determine if it is nice or pretty. Gentlemen, admit it, you just know the groomed guy. You need it.
How else would you know who is the greater opponent in the "hunt" of the opposite sex?
Adoption of children by homosexuals
"Hi, I'm Marek. I grew up in an orphanage until I was six. But then they adopted me and since then I have two aunts / two uncles. "
Yes, even so I can imagine that a classmate of my branch will introduce himself. Better two dads than one aunt. Our society has a problem - we have a lot of children in orphanages. But for a large number of children, we have few educators. It is therefore not de facto possible for educators to take care of the development of all children individually. Children are not brought up, they are not led to an independent orderly life, they have nowhere to ask what, how and why.
And yet it is so extremely important. After reaching the age of majority, an individual comes out of the home who actually knows nothing and for whom it is several times more difficult to assert himself and settle down. Don't you like all those "fetishes", "thieves" and other street elements? They can be eliminated - if we reduce the number of children growing up in children's homes.
How do we reduce this number? A few steps:
- we will simplify the process of adopting children - there must be no delays in adopting children for several years. There must be as few bureaucratic and other obstacles as possible in the child's journey from home to family. After all, the state itself wants children from their homes to get into their families, so why "throw the sticks under your feet"?
- We will enable the adoption of children by homosexual couples. Even today, homosexuals can "register", which is a kind of classic marriage. I don't see a problem with homosexuals, they also want to raise them children. Morally, I don't see an obstacle - gay registered couples have been together on average as long as regular couples. These are usually mature individuals. Subsequently, the case needs to be examined individually, as it is for mixed couples. All other often stated reasons against adoption by homosexuals (disgrace of a child in front of other children, possible "spread" of homosexuality among future generations) is based only on our restrictions (shame - simply say "Pepíček, it's normal that someone has two dads") , or from our ignorance (sexual orientation is determined already in the prenatal period of development, ie "in the abdomen").
Absolute rating = best rating. Most people assume that an absolute rating is the best. Be it stamps, salary, ranking and more. Unfortunately, this is often not the case.
Evaluating someone is a very difficult thing. Therefore, a five-level assessment can never tell about a student's level of knowledge and intelligence. I recently read some kind of "exaggerated" idea somewhere - why not evaluate students in the form of "1,57"?
That too could be the solution. The range of evaluations would eventually be de facto infinite, and thus would certainly better capture the knowledge and intelligence of the student. Another better solution is a percentage scale - evaluate only percentages. "He passed the test at 60%," "the test was 83%." Why not, if someone clings to something "comparable", scalable, fast and simple.
The best solution - but also the most demanding - would be a verbal assessment. However, this would be so difficult to compare and so time consuming that it is really only possible music of the distant future, when the classes will be smaller and the teachers more. I can only imagine it in private schools.
Our culture is certainly noble and certainly most acceptable to us. This does not mean, however, that we should insult, liquidate and directly oppose other, "foreign" cultures and religions.
Traditions, dogmas and prejudices should be based on law. The right to equal for all. This right should not be detrimental to any ethnic group, culture or religion. Likewise, it should not oppress anyone, make members of certain ethnic groups or religious groups second-class citizens.
Foreign culture we should not try to displace and destroy them, but on the contrary - to tolerate them in their territory and to tolerate them in our "territory", to accept what we consider to be right of their culture and to leave the rest to the enforcement of law and legality.