Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 5:33 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
#51
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
(May 28, 2014 at 11:03 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: [quote='Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬' pid='677385' dateline='1401288508']

All you have to say is "ew, gays are icky", which you justify by citing stereotypes of gay people so hilariously outdated that

a: you obviously have never met a single gay person in your life, or
b: you can only be using them because you're afraid of your secret obsession with crotch sausage.

Either way, you're very annoyingly verbose for someone with so little of valid substance to actually say about the subject.

Quote:No, is that all you have to say?
I'm not citing any stereotypes. These stereotypes are enforced by the gays themselves. Just look at their hilarious pride parades, their filthy subculture centered around kinks of every kind. These people are the ones you present to me as potential "parents".

Yeah, you know, I don't think that every gay person involves themselves in parades. In fact, I think the overwhelming majority don't. I also don't think gay people are into weird kinks any more than straight people are.

So, no, it's you applying a stereotype, loaded with your absolutely uneducated opinions, about a handful of people whose lifestyles you dislike for stupid and arbitrary reasons, to millions of people, most of whom live and act no differently from anybody else.

Quote:This is a new, fairly immoral tactic when it comes to debate. Simply frame the opposition of being gay when they oppose shit like gays adopting children.
Oh, if you don't agree, you're just a fag in denial.
Oh come on. You can do better.

You're just being a homophobic bigot with no basis anybody with experience or human empathy would consider rational. You really hate homosexuals to a degree beyond what anyone can consider healthy. All you're doing is throwing slurs and stereotypes around. That's a sort of behavior which is extremely common in certain kinds of closeted homosexuals.

It doesn't matter, though, because either way, you come across as hateful and excruciatingly ignorant. My favorite part is how you seem to know better than gay people do about how they live.

I am completely fine with homosexual parents raising adopted children. It's people like you that should be legally prohibited from doing so, because you're all too likely to raise a hate criminal.
Reply
#52
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
(May 28, 2014 at 7:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: There is no such thing as a childless family. You're making such things up.
A family is not a family unless there are children involved.
A family exists explicitely to provide a place for the next generation to grow up.
IF there is no child, there is no familiy.

Childless couples, then. Are you happy that you've delayed having to answer for the flaw in your reasoning for a whopping couple of hours? Does that make you proud? Rolleyes

Question still stands.

Quote:Well, I don't really taunt gays on the streets either. Hell, its actually dangerous to do that. Transvestites can pull a knife at you you know(and if I pull one back, someone is gonna die). I had a friend who was knifed and mugged by a bunch of them, and they killed a taxi driver last year. Well, I digresss.

Yes, you digress rather than answering the question: do you give the disabled the same shit, whether it's in public or just within your own head? Or is it just the gays that you dislike because they're "abnormal"?

Quote:I guess you admit as much as me that gays are not normal.

Would you cool it with the childish fucking gotcha questions? My position on homosexuality is unambiguously pro, and has been my entire posting history here. I was showing you the flaw in your own reasoning. What did you hope to gain by attempting to tar me with your bigoted brush? Did you really think I wouldn't correct you in my very next post?

Quote:To put the sperm where the egg is, you need sex. Of course, modern methods do allow us to use other instruments to put the sperm where the eggs are, which is the vagina, the incubation chamber.
Still, its pretty much the same concept.

And we live in a world where sex may lead to fertilization, but doesn't have to. The act has done something called "changed" as time moved on. Now, I know change might frighten you, but refusing to accept the current reality, that pregnancy isn't the inevitable outcome that it used to be, frightens you, but I'm not going to argue against the fantasy world you'd prefer to live in, over the one we do live in. Your junk is for sex, which may or may not be for procreation, and therefore isn't exclusively for procreation. That's how definitions work.

Quote:That function is there as to promote reproduction.

Gee, thanks for repeating yourself. Great argument. Dodgy

Quote:Did I claim such a thing? I merely pointed out that its primary means of existence is reproduction.
Sterile people have nothing to do with it. They were evolved in the womb to be either a male or a female, the two components that when combined, create a child, but an unfortunate circumstance has cost them their ability to create life.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the purpose of your junk.

Quote:What facts? He abandoned his family to start a completely new life based on getting it on with other men. What other deep meaning is behind this?

Maybe, just perhaps, why he moved on and left his family? Or what effect staying in an unhappy marriage would have on his then-wife and kids? You know, all the things your archaic view of the world has gotten so very, very wrong in the past, which are the same things that fossils like you fight so hard to keep fucking up for the future.

The kind of facts that put human beings and their happiness above mindless conformity to tradition.

Quote:No, it does, actually. It shows that gays never were a part of the familial structure as I have stated before.

No, actually it doesn't, because if nobody can find it, it doesn't mean it never happened, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that gays never wanted to adopt in the past.

Quote:Single people want to adopt children? I think that there are certain criteria that people consider when they give children to people that want to adopt them. "Being single" probably isn't in it.

Wow, it's almost as if you didn't bother knowing what you're talking about before you opened your mouth! Confusedhock:

Single people can adopt children, Mehmet. And even if they couldn't, you've just committed an argument from personal incredulity fallacy rather than answering the question: you said that if gay people wanted a family they could get into a heterosexual marriage and have them like others do. I pointed out that the same statement also applies to everyone that wants to adopt, making it meaningless.

Your response was a glib, "yeah right, as if single people want to adopt." Doesn't get anywhere near actually addressing the issue; why you running, Mehmet? I thought you were supposed to have a cogent position, here? Thinking

Quote:You base your arguments on irrelevant examples. They are in no way comparable, so I wonder how you managed to make a corrolation between the death of a parent, and the existence of two parents of the same ilk. To be honest, the loss of a parent is a loss, its a tragedy that forces the child to grow up without a mother or a father. On the other hand, we have gay adoption, which does the exact same thing, but this time, its called progress and tolerance.

Hey, you were the one tacking "it's hard to explain to kids, therefore they just shouldn't have kids!" onto your argument. If you're gonna do that, I'm going to bring up other things that are hard to explain to kids, to show you how absurd your reasoning is when it's applied consistently, and not just through the prism of your baseless bigotry.

Quote:Children probably understand death a lot better than how they came to be under the custody of two fathers when they learn that you need both a father and mother to actually come into the world, and that everyone else around them have a father and a mother, while they have two of either.

I think kids are smarter than you give them credit for. Well, maybe not right wing kids, which might explain your low opinion of them. Rolleyes

Quote:Though I must admit, I've been hearing other strange shit, that lesbian threesome couples wanting to adopt and shit. Things are getting strange-r with every passing year.

"Threesome couple"? It'd be more aptly called a trio, or a triad. And it sounds sweet to me.

Quote:Well, it is dishonorable from my point of view to abandon your responsbilities in pursuit of your carnal desires.

You also bring the same dishonor upon your family, the shame of your father falls upon you aswell.

Again you tip your hand, and lo and behold, you don't have a very strong suit. Dodgy

Quote:Sorry for clinging to outdated and fascistic concepts of manhood and relations between men and women. The only way I can think of is that these guys have some sexual kink about having their woman getting it on with some other people. Such things never happened in the past, but with the degenerate porn industry, people start to bring those kind of hardcore sick fantasies into the real world.

So, why do you think it's acceptable to know nothing about what you're talking about, and then to make up strawmen to make yourself feel better about your total ignorance? Why is that appealing to you? Thinking

Quote:About the issue, if you think that my arguments do not hold any credibility,
have a look at this:

Yeah, I don't think that referencing a guy who tosses the term "faggot" around like it's going out of style and misspells the word "sponge" is doing much for the credibility of your arguments, Mehmet.

"Look, assholes believe the same thing as me!" is the weirdest argument from popularity I've ever heard.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#53
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
Quote:Yeah, you know, I don't think that every gay person involves themselves in parades. In fact, I think the overwhelming majority don't. I also don't think gay people are into weird kinks any more than straight people are.

So, no, it's you applying a stereotype, loaded with your absolutely uneducated opinions, about a handful of people whose lifestyles you dislike for stupid and arbitrary reasons, to millions of people, most of whom live and act no differently from anybody else.
Well, it really matters little whatever stereotypes I have of them, I'm not here to actually discuss their antics, I'm here to discuss the fate of the children.
They can go and pass on AIDS to eachother in meth parties or whatever.
Quote:You're just being a homophobic bigot with no basis anybody with experience or human empathy would consider rational. You really hate homosexuals to a degree beyond what anyone can consider healthy. All you're doing is throwing slurs and stereotypes around. That's a sort of behavior which is extremely common in certain kinds of closeted homosexuals.
I don't hate anybody. But I hate one thing. The degeneration of socially key institutions like family and marriage, both of whom are the basis of society, are heavily influenced by good customs and traditions that are beneficial to society.

Quote:It doesn't matter, though, because either way, you come across as hateful and excruciatingly ignorant. My favorite part is how you seem to know better than gay people do about how they live.
As you have said, if I say that I want children to grow up with normal parents, I'm hateful and ignorant.
Really, it is in fact you who is hateful and ignorant. And well, thanks to the media, one can know all there is to know about them without even meeting them.
They publicize themselves to the degree of creating a reaction against them that will one day, pay off in a way that they themselves won't know what hit 'em.
Quote:I am completely fine with homosexual parents raising adopted children. It's people like you that should be legally prohibited from doing so, because you're all too likely to raise a hate criminal.
Of course. You're okay with children being the pawns of a socio-cultural battle for supermacy. I'm not. I will not have children play a part in the homosexual-liberal propaganda.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#54
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
(May 28, 2014 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:
(May 28, 2014 at 9:29 am)pocaracas Wrote: Giving them out to gypsies or keeping them in "the system" doesn't seem all that different, to me.
Why not just give them to the military, while we're at it?

My idea is that, if you can provide something better than "the system", then you should do that.
Your view is that only the optimum will do... and that just keeps kids in "the system" and would-be parents childless.

Wow, never thought of that. A special ops team, trained to be ruthless killers, not bound by social ties such as family...Their lot to serve their superiors and their nation. The elite of the elite...I heard that before. The Ghulam and Janissaries!
They didn't work out too well.
I knew you'd like that idea.... and I knew it would be impractical, but some can make it work... at least, in fiction.

(May 28, 2014 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: So no, I think the kids are better off in families that fit the description of the norm, where they will be raised with expectations of grandchildren and marriage.
I think so too, but the reality is that there are more kids than parents wanting to adopt.
This is the issue.

(May 28, 2014 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: This is important for the propagation of society, my friend.
Society is taken care of by the large majority which you call normal.
These fringe cases we're discussing are not required for the propagation of society. In olden times, they may have ended up dead very quickly... nowadays, they go to orphanages of foster care, until a suitable family comes along or they reach majority, whichever comes first.
If there is a way to decrease the amount of people who reach the age of majority "in the system", while making their lives overall better, then why not take it?

(May 28, 2014 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: They will not be raised in a subculture of a sub-society, but will be full fledged members of contemporary society that are expected for propagate the family institution. This is what I'm saying.
Had you watched the videos I posted earlier, you'd have realized that those children do tend to become such members of society.

(May 28, 2014 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: On the other hand, giving them off to gays will do the exact reverse. It creates confusion, and if you ask me, bears no alturistic connections, and is put forth by the same people that actually attack the concept of family and family values, unless it is practiced by gays.
It is not something that I can ever endorse.
You have every right to think so, but you should be made aware that those children raised by gays tend to become normal members of society... actually, they probably tend to be more open-minded about non-standard individuals, leading to better acceptance of everyone... as opposed to your stance which attempts to shun those not deemed normal, hoping that they never existed in the first place.

(May 28, 2014 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: What should be done is to promote true answers to the question of orphans. Why do orphans exist?
A family tragedy. Both of the parents dead? The child should be given to the grandparents, or uncles and aunts. This is how its done here. Here, if both parents would suddenly die, the kids are not without relatives to help them. The family in a broader sense, takes care of its kin.

Another one would be to tackle the problem of children born out of wedlock. Many mothers who are afraid of their dirty secret coming out usually give off their children to orphanages or just leave them in a place to be found by other people.
Why not teach the people to have children in a safe and advantageous(both for mother and child) environment, the marital institution?
But no, today's society praises promiscuity above all else, while doing nothing to instill responsibility. This is why we have so many single-moms at the age of 18.
One must attack the root causes, by promoting family values and sexual morality.

Promote away. I agree those values should be promoted everywhere.... that's why we had tv shows like "family ties" or "the bill cosby show".
But reality delivers blows that are unexpected and undesired results happen all the time.
We are then left with the need to deal with them.

This is one case where we can improve the quality of life of a few human beings. You say we should wait until a male-female couple comes along, knowing full well that many of those kids will remain "in the system", regardless of how long we wait...
Reply
#55
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
(May 28, 2014 at 11:42 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, it really matters little whatever stereotypes I have of them, I'm not here to actually discuss their antics, I'm here to discuss the fate of the children. They can go and pass on AIDS to eachother in meth parties or whatever.

Your opinion on how children function with gay parents is based completely on your stereotypes, many of which are nothing but slanderous (meth parties? what the actual fuck is a meth party), the rest of which are simply not to your liking and in no way demonstrably negative towards children.
Quote:I don't hate anybody. But I hate one thing. The degeneration of socially key institutions like family and marriage, both of whom are the basis of society, are heavily influenced by good customs and traditions that are beneficial to society.

The fact that you have to invent this problem of degenerating society only proves how much you hate gay people.

Quote:As you have said, if I say that I want children to grow up with normal parents, I'm hateful and ignorant.

You make it very clear that you would rather children grow up with no parents than gay parents, so it's obvious that spite against gay people is your primary motivating factor.

Quote:Really, it is in fact you who is hateful and ignorant. And well, thanks to the media, one can know all there is to know about them without even meeting them.

There is nothing wrong with hating hateful and malicious people.

Quote:They publicize themselves to the degree of creating a reaction against them that will one day, pay off in a way that they themselves won't know what hit 'em.[quote]

Unlike you, I am not willing to judge every Turk based upon how pungently horrible a human being you are.

[quote]Of course. You're okay with children being the pawns of a socio-cultural battle for supermacy. I'm not. I will not have children play a part in the homosexual-liberal propaganda.

I think the person using children as pawns in a culture war is the person who thinks it's better for kids to be orphans than to be raised by capable, loving parents, just because those parents are of the same gender.
Reply
#56
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
Quote:Childless couples, then. Are you happy that you've delayed having to answer for the flaw in your reasoning for a whopping couple of hours? Does that make you proud? Rolleyes

Question still stands.
This wasn't really about them though. We're not talking about whether two people should be together or not. Many of them come together with the hopes of having children of their own, when they learn that one of them or both are sterile.
Its really unrelated to the subject at hand.
Quote:Yes, you digress rather than answering the question: do you give the disabled the same shit, whether it's in public or just within your own head? Or is it just the gays that you dislike because they're "abnormal"?
So is this about me then? To be honest, I don't think too much about the disabled, or the gays. I have other things to worry about. When I see them I give thanks to the almighty that I was born healthy and normal. That's all. But I bear nothing special towards the disabled as they do not actually constitute part of the counter-culture movement, so there is no way that I will be pitted against them. Many of them are mentally disabled, and have their thinking severely restricted. It is as though they have been touched by angels, they do not have to worry about the complexities of life.
On the other hand, there are the people you so fervently protect. After insulting practically every value regarding decency, they try to bend society over to be subversive to their will. This I cannot tolerate.
Quote:Would you cool it with the childish fucking gotcha questions? My position on homosexuality is unambiguously pro, and has been my entire posting history here. I was showing you the flaw in your own reasoning. What did you hope to gain by attempting to tar me with your bigoted brush? Did you really think I wouldn't correct you in my very next post?
There is no flaw in my reasoning.
You fool yourself. Regardless of your position, these people are abnormal.
Quote:And we live in a world where sex may lead to fertilization, but doesn't have to. The act has done something called "changed" as time moved on. Now, I know change might frighten you, but refusing to accept the current reality, that pregnancy isn't the inevitable outcome that it used to be, frightens you, but I'm not going to argue against the fantasy world you'd prefer to live in, over the one we do live in. Your junk is for sex, which may or may not be for procreation, and therefore isn't exclusively for procreation. That's how definitions work.
Changed, oh well. And? That has superseded the main function of sex and sexual organs?
The main function of sex is to procreate. Its virtually the same for every animal that features two sexes.
Quote:Gee, thanks for repeating yourself. Great argument.
And you've nothing to say?
Quote:Which, again, has nothing to do with the purpose of your junk.
The purpose of it is to go into a vajina. The purpose of the vajina is to take it.
That's all I'm going to say.
Quote:Maybe, just perhaps, why he moved on and left his family? Or what effect staying in an unhappy marriage would have on his then-wife and kids? You know, all the things your archaic view of the world has gotten so very, very wrong in the past, which are the same things that fossils like you fight so hard to keep fucking up for the future.
Wow, nice reasoning. In your reasoning, there shouldn't be anything called a family. The whole world should be one big party, everyone just doing things to be more happy about themselves, to get the greatest pleasure from life. Just because he wasn't able to get homosexu, he was very unhappy and this would "reflect" on his wife and children somehow. Yeah. Though this isn't exclusive to homos. Many normal people tend to do the same thing. They get married to find personal happiness, which is not what marriage is about. They get frustrated, and search for happiness elsewhere.
Many leave even their children, they just don't care. Their selfishness has reached such a degree that they even begin to see their families as liabilities, something that is between them and their happiness.
Quote:The kind of facts that put human beings and their happiness above mindless conformity to tradition.
As I said, if you want personal happiness, search it elsewhere. You won't find it in marriage nor the family institution. Happiness in these institutions come from the happiness of your partner and the happiness of your children.
Marriage and family is built on alturism, not on selfishness.
Quote:No, actually it doesn't, because if nobody can find it, it doesn't mean it never happened, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that gays never wanted to adopt in the past.
Well, it doesn't matter if they wanted or not. My point was that they never were a part of the familial institution. Most lived out either secret lives, or lives of prostitution and debauchery.
I don't think that you can actually find a historical basis for gays to stand when it comes to the instiution of the family. There is none.
Quote:Single people can adopt children, Mehmet. And even if they couldn't, you've just committed an argument from personal incredulity fallacy rather than answering the question: you said that if gay people wanted a family they could get into a heterosexual marriage and have them like others do. I pointed out that the same statement also applies to everyone that wants to adopt, making it meaningless.
They cannot adopt children here. Here, adoptions are only made to people who are married. Single people do not qualifiy.
And I believe that its the same in many other countries.
However the criterias for adoption have seemingly changed in some countries, to address what? The needs of children? No.
This only means that the orphanages have shifted their priorities from finding children a proper home consisting of a father and a mother, to giving off children to gays and singles(probably feminists).
Quote:Your response was a glib, "yeah right, as if single people want to adopt."
Why they would want to is beyond me. Why they would be granted a child is even further beyond me. Why not give the child to a proper family instead?
Quote:Doesn't get anywhere near actually addressing the issue; why you running, Mehmet? I thought you were supposed to have a cogent position, here?
I still do.
Quote:Hey, you were the one tacking "it's hard to explain to kids, therefore they just shouldn't have kids!" onto your argument. If you're gonna do that, I'm going to bring up other things that are hard to explain to kids, to show you how absurd your reasoning is when it's applied consistently, and not just through the prism of your baseless bigotry.
But as you see, in the example you gave to me, there already were children involved.
Regardless of what your stupid example was, my point still stands. It only serves to confuse children.
Although I'm fairly certain that gays will spare no gory details about their unholy unions to the new number they brought into their flock.
Quote:I think kids are smarter than you give them credit for. Well, maybe not right wing kids, which might explain your low opinion of them. Rolleyes
Is there such a thing as a right wing kid? Didn't know that.
In addition to that I'm sure that even the smartest kid cannot possibly comprehend how it happens that he has two fathers, or two mothers, whereas everyone else has one of each.
He'll probably realize after a while that there is something wrong with this.
I'm not calling children stupid, for being confused in the face of such a situation. He'll probably think that he's not normal like the others.
And neither are his parents, "normal", after he receives word that children need both a man and a woman to actually come to this world.
Some gays add a lot more to this by actually procuring children from surrogates. They get their eggs from nice, white females, and have them incubate in a woman that lives somewhere in the third world like Thailand.
Explain that to a child.
Death, in this regard is not hard for a child to understand. But things such as these, are.

I'll do it the same way you do. How about allowing incestious couples to adopt children!
Quote:"Threesome couple"? It'd be more aptly called a trio, or a triad. And it sounds sweet to me.
Whatever it is called, the children are becoming a part of this filth.
Sounds sweet, yeah, as if two moms are not enough, now three moms.
Quote:So, why do you think it's acceptable to know nothing about what you're talking about, and then to make up strawmen to make yourself feel better about your total ignorance? Why is that appealing to you?
I'm sorry but what else is there to know about this? Is there some kind of a high philosophical truth behind the degenerate relationship of a woman that has multiple husbands that I'm unaware of?
There is nothing to be said about it, they are doing it because they're sexual deviants, perverts, and they love it.

Quote:Yeah, I don't think that referencing a guy who tosses the term "faggot" around like it's going out of style and misspells the word "sponge" is doing much for the credibility of your arguments, Mehmet.

"Look, assholes believe the same thing as me!" is the weirdest argument from popularity I've ever heard.
Well, have you read the rest of his post?

This is getting rather too long, and I'm sure that we all are getting bored of this. I'm going to reply one last time, and if you choose to reply, I will read your feedback, but won't reply back. I'm sure we all have better things to do.

Quote: I knew you'd like that idea.... and I knew it would be impractical, but some can make it work... at least, in fiction.
Well, such things did exist in reality. As I said, the whole Janissary ocak was built on taking children from their parents, and growing them to become the perfect soldiers, loyal to the Sultan above everything else.
Though I don't see why they had to castrate these guys. It surely would diminish their potency as soldiers.
Quote:I think so too, but the reality is that there are more kids than parents wanting to adopt.
This is the issue.
To be honest, friend, I hear all about the many parents that have to wait in line for adoptions. Are these like "reserved" for gays to adopt them? Who has sold his soul for thirty pieces of silver, and gave out a child not to a normal family, but instead, to the hands of gays to experience perhaps a lot more stress than they already experienced?

Quote:Society is taken care of by the large majority which you call normal.
These fringe cases we're discussing are not required for the propagation of society.
Indeed they're not. But given this, they seem to have more say about how it should work than the majority which aids in its propagation.
Quote:If there is a way to decrease the amount of people who reach the age of majority "in the system", while making their lives overall better, then why not take it?
This is not a chance. It is a conscious attack at the very system that adoption is a part of.
I also think that this is merely a screen for something else. After a while, when surrogacy becomes a large scale enterprise(which it will, at this rate), I can promise you that no gay person will ever consider having an adoption.
Quote:Had you watched the videos I posted earlier, you'd have realized that those children do tend to become such members of society.
Well, whether they wish it or not, they are in truth, members of the sub-society. If you are born to say, to parents of the upper class, there is only a slim chance that you will later on become a part of the working class.
Quote: You have every right to think so, but you should be made aware that those children raised by gays tend to become normal members of society... actually, they probably tend to be more open-minded about non-standard individuals, leading to better acceptance of everyone... as opposed to your stance which attempts to shun those not deemed normal, hoping that they never existed in the first place.
Well, since the numbers of such people are as few as the gays who actually adopt, I'm sure their position does little to change anything. As I said, they are only useful to the cause of the gays when they are still in the custody of their parents, like, poster children.
To be honest, I'm not against the acceptance of people, but I'm against the devaluation of key social institutions. These all serve to devaluate the traditional core family that consists of a father, mother and child.

Quote:Promote away. I agree those values should be promoted everywhere.... that's why we had tv shows like "family ties" or "the bill cosby show".
But reality delivers blows that are unexpected and undesired results happen all the time.
In truth, it is the media that corrupts the youth. Undesired results happen, but today's world does not really try to lower such things, its so indifferent, that hey, no big deal. Just don't accept responsibility if you don't want to.
Of course there are cases that are unavoidable, like children of say, a rape, that a mother may be unwilling to look after. These should be the few cases where people who are unable to have children should adopt. And these should be reserved to normal people, in my opinion.
And in such a case, I'm sure that there will be absolutely no need whatsoever for whatever parenting the gays can offer.
Quote:This is one case where we can improve the quality of life of a few human beings. You say we should wait until a male-female couple comes along, knowing full well that many of those kids will remain "in the system", regardless of how long we wait...
As I said, if it is to simply give the kids away..Its not about that, its to actually find them a good home. I do not think that gay households can provide this. They have a different place in the world. Things like parenting should be left to those that have a natural affinity with it.
Quote:Your opinion on how children function with gay parents is based completely on your stereotypes, many of which are nothing but slanderous (meth parties? what the actual fuck is a meth party), the rest of which are simply not to your liking and in no way demonstrably negative towards children.
Slanderous? Just look them up on the internet. I learned about them on House.
Please do not make me go and research this stuff. It makes me cringe.
Whatever, I'm not stereotyping anyone. They're stereotyping themselves. Do not blame me for their shortcomings.
Quote:The fact that you have to invent this problem of degenerating society only proves how much you hate gay people.
They are only part of the problem. They are not the greatest form of degeneracy to be found.

Quote:You make it very clear that you would rather children grow up with no parents than gay parents, so it's obvious that spite against gay people is your primary motivating factor.
I have explained my views on why I think that would be better. Obviously instead of reading my post, you made assumptions.
Quote:There is nothing wrong with hating hateful and malicious people.
It is true that I'm a hateful person. But my hate is a precious commodity. I do not use it on people that are undeserving of it.
Gays are not deserving of my hate, as they do not really matter. The people that earn my spite are those who include them in their socio-political war on society.

Quote:I think the person using children as pawns in a culture war is the person who thinks it's better for kids to be orphans than to be raised by capable, loving parents, just because those parents are of the same gender.
I can say that I think more about the children than you do. I actually value them, over the rights, and to be honest, non-existent rights of gays on children that are put on adoption. These children are not theirs, they don't belong to anyone as for anyone to have rights on them. Orphanages ought to find a good home that fits the criteria of a family that defines contemporary society, these kids need a mother and father. Not both.
The fact that you seem to assume that gays are like, all fully of love and capable, and to be honest, I don't think they are capabe of providing either the love of a mother, or the figure of a father, in case for lesbians, so how you manage to set up your criteria is beyond me.

For me, children are the future of society.They are too precious to be used as a the pawns of anybody. They should be in an environment where they can appreciate the mechanics that have created society.
The union of a man and a woman. Not the union of two men or two women.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#57
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
(May 28, 2014 at 12:30 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Slanderous? Just look them up on the internet. I learned about them on House.

Thanks for making my point from me.

None of my gay friends (or straight friends, for that matter) have ever invited me to a 'meth party'. I really don't think that makes me an outlier in terms of people who have gay friends.

Quote:Please do not make me go and research this stuff. It makes me cringe.

Yeah, don't bother actually gaining knowledge about the subject you speak so much about, because then you would have to risk being grossed out. But, by all means, keep talking about a subject on which you obviously don't know jack shit.

Quote:Whatever, I'm not stereotyping anyone. They're stereotyping themselves. Do not blame me for their shortcomings.

You are stereotyping millions of gay people based on, as far as I can tell, what you see on fictional TV shows. The only person with the shortcomings here is you.

Quote:They are only part of the problem. They are not the greatest form of degeneracy to be found.

I would certainly agree that people who promote discrimination and hate speech against gay people are a much more virulent form of degeneracy.

Quote:I have explained my views on why I think that would be better. Obviously instead of reading my post, you made assumptions.

Your views are uneducated and based on nearly total misinformation.

Quote:It is true that I'm a hateful person. But my hate is a precious commodity. I do not use it on people that are undeserving of it.
Gays are not deserving of my hate, as they do not really matter. The people that earn my spite are those who include them in their socio-political war on society.

The only reason there is a 'war' is because assholes like you simply cannot bring yourself to allow them to be a part of society. It is completely the fault of people like you.

Quote:I can say that I think more about the children than you do. I actually value them, over the rights, and to be honest, non-existent rights of gays on children that are put on adoption. These children are not theirs, they don't belong to anyone as for anyone to have rights on them. Orphanages ought to find a good home that fits the criteria of a family that defines contemporary society, these kids need a mother and father. Not both.

You don't care about children. You care about hating people. You care about this so much that you would rather a kid grow up with no parents at all, as much of a nightmare as this situation frequently is for kids. You are absolutely willing to hurt kids in order to get what you want. You care nothing for them at all, except that they can be used as a tool to discriminate against people you hate. Not one iota of your position shows any honest concern or caring for anybody's well-being. You simply use your pretenses to justify the hatred which means more to you than anything else.
Reply
#58
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
Quote:The only reason there is a 'war' is because assholes like you simply cannot bring yourself to allow them to be a part of society. It is completely the fault of people like you.
Sure, why not allow the whole lot of other sexual and social deviants become part of contemporary society aswell?
There needs to be a norm to any society. The marginals who refuse or cannot become part of this norm can very well live in their sub societies with their own subcultures.
That's what they do right now and have done so for ages.
We do not bear the responsibility of forcing society to change to accomodate everyone.
Society needs limits and standards. It is them who should conform.
[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?
Reply
#59
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
(May 28, 2014 at 1:51 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Sure, why not allow the whole lot of other sexual and social deviants become part of contemporary society aswell?
There needs to be a norm to any society. The marginals who refuse or cannot become part of this norm can very well live in their sub societies with their own subcultures.
That's what they do right now and have done so for ages.
We do not bear the responsibility of forcing society to change to accomodate everyone.
Society needs limits and standards. It is them who should conform.

Slavery was a societal norm for millennia. Your faulty reasoning should now be obvious.
Reply
#60
RE: Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've deleted a rep.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  George Zimmerman suing parents of Trayvon Martin among others Cecelia 140 6937 December 11, 2019 at 11:13 pm
Last Post: EgoDeath
  Saudi Arabia: beating children is finally recorded and exposed WinterHold 13 1217 November 21, 2019 at 6:06 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  #UNFIT Documentary trailer.... Brian37 0 183 March 20, 2019 at 10:04 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Should ISIS fighters/wives/children be repatriated? brewer 112 6492 March 9, 2019 at 9:52 pm
Last Post: Shell B
  Parents form "prayer circle" over gay stage kiss Foxaèr 14 1645 November 13, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  Fucking Catholic Sacks of Shit Minimalist 0 430 October 28, 2018 at 9:39 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Catholic abuse investigations expand. brewer 29 2894 September 11, 2018 at 4:57 pm
Last Post: KevinM1
  Yemen children massacre WinterHold 14 1681 September 5, 2018 at 6:11 am
Last Post: WinterHold
  Melania visits kids taken from their parents? Brian37 36 4564 June 22, 2018 at 11:12 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Alex Jones being sued by parents of Sandy Hook Victims Divinity 26 3587 April 20, 2018 at 7:23 am
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)