Refuting fundamentalists

[kılıç_mehmet]

And you could make the same kind of argument about racial segregation years back. "What society prefers," isn't always what's right.

And segregation was lifted. Not modified.
Either you abolish a something completely or you don't.

And the notion that social change for the better only occurs when we don't kowtow to what always has been and instead move toward what's actually right and equal, in accordance with factual accuracy means nothing to you, huh?

And I have already said that heterosexual and homosexual couples not equal on the basis of their lack of both social relevance, and natural abilities to produce children.
And of course, you claim that this is right, while I proclaim that this is wrong, on the basis of its opposition to the most fundamental concepts of society.

Except that the basis only need be perception, and not reality: witchburning was a tradition because there was the perception that magic was real, when the reality was different. That's why the appeal to tradition is such an egocentric clusterfuck: you're completely disregarding the possibility that people could ever be wrong about anything, and ever need to change.

Well, when reality is only reality when its based on your perception as it seems. Let me fill you on another reality. Homosexuals cannot mate with eachother. How about that? Real enough for you?
That's the basis of the traditions regarding the institutions of marriage and parenthood. The ability to procreate.

Does it? Got any more than a flat assertion?

Well, since it has been passed down from generation to generation, it is a tradition, and since there are values that are associated with it, which have been passed down from generation to generation, and have also been protected by a legal power, I'd say that its not assertion, but a fact.

Said the slaver to the abolitionist. Said the racist to the equal rights protestor. Said the misogynist to the suffragette. And so on, and so forth.

And I say, if you think that this is in any ways related to what I have to say on marriage abolish marriage.
Abolish marriage and all that it stands for. At least you'd be honest in what you do. Right now, I only see hypocrisy in this whole gay marraige and gay parenting crap.

[Mystical]

@Mehmet

It has a basis, therefore that basis is completely legitimate and should not be questioned in any way. Or something. Kay, I'll get around to taking your viewpoint as valid when you actually bother presenting anything worthwhile.

Well, you do question it, and don't think I did not. With questioning, I came to the conclusion that this is the type of family which is beneficial for society, while the "other type" is nothing more than a useless, unsustainable and unhealthy form of family that mocks the type of family that is beneficial for society.
And to be honest, that is its only use, and only purpose.

Yeah totally, because everyone who wants to live a free life as they have an absolute right to do----and raise kids--- is just doing it to mock your oppressive belief system. PUhleese.

Fun fact: in nature, without homosexuality then social species would not survive. Wrap that around your mind-butt. http://atheistforums.org/thread-19298-po...#pid544602

Here, here's some statistics on the rising rate of marriage failures in Turkey. You're from there, right? Excluding the fact that the """News report""" is chalked full of fallacy and apologetics (no wonder you're a biased bigot), it makes my point. Your "type of family beneficial for society" is a huge fabulous load of failure. Always has been, it's just you guys have been able to repress women into nonconsensual positions their entire lives, by blackmailing them emotionally, economically, and even with their freedoms.

“Divorce rates keep rising in Turkey. However, there are also couples who stay in failed marriages due to familial and societal pressure, causing husbands or wives to stray. Marriage education is necessary to prevent divorce and facilitate healthy relationships for couples,'' Keçe notes, criticizing the Family and Social Policy Ministry for not making this education a legal requirement before marriage.

“The ministry says marriage is a ‘human right'; thus, education before marriage cannot become obligatory,” Keçe says. But he argues that if family is considered a sacred institution, then educating couples would do nothing but support that.

“The main reasons for divorce are, respectively, lack of communication, infidelity and economic concerns within the family,'' marriage expert İnci Yeşilyurt told Today's Zaman. Yeşilyurt underlined that couples fail in their marriages because of their inadequate knowledge about what it means to be married before saying yes to one another. She also claims that marriages based either solely on love or families getting on well are doomed to fail.

Marriages statistics indicate that, compared with men, the rate of women under 30 asking for a divorce is quite high. The roles reverse after 30, as men show a dramatic increase in demanding divorce after that age.

---

Having a biological two parent family is optimal, certainly.

However, children raised in a nuclear family can still turn out to be troublemakers. There is absolutely no guarantee that the child/ren will turn out fine just because he has a biological mother and father.

Studies also indicate that children raised in single parent, same sex, or any other type of non-traditional household grow up to be happy, productive citizens of society.

True, very true. But we did have set a standard, do we not?
I'm sure that they coud grow up to be happy and productive members of society in a society that is compromised entirely of gays. But in a society where we state that the biological two parent family is the optimal one, it will only breed confusion and hardships for the child.

Who states this? You? I'd hardly say you should be able to speak for an entire class of people, Mehmet. You kill goats for fun.

So I profess here and now that the whole idea of this gay parenting is to challenge and mock the standards that have been set for the ideal family.

You feel mocked? Oh my, let me just hand you a tissue you little baby.

[Minimalist]

What's this linked website's agenda? I barely scanned the summary before seeing something about children faring best with their married biological parents. I smell a rat.

Why is it surprising to you that children do better with their biological parents?

Well...because a lot of people have parents who turned out to be fucking assholes. There is no test, you know? Whip it out and stick it in.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Strongly disagree. I've seen many "biological families" fall apart to not fall for this illusion of the perfect family. Such things are rare if they exist at all. Biological or not parents are susceptible to the same mistakes.

@ mehmet, the mere fact that you think people go through the trouble of having a family just to mock your "model" really reveals how mature you are. Are you saying that the only reason heteros deserve to marry and have a family is because they have a basis in tradition? Wow. Uhm, everyone has a right to have a family as long as everything's consensual, I especially like how you tried to make equality sound like a dirty word and a crazy concept.

Well, I do believe that this is not a battle of rights, but of concepts. Its was never about rights, but only social acceptance. The current form of family denies gays social acceptance by merely existing. So either you must find a way to destroy its credibility in the eyes of the people, or abolish it completely.

That's a nonnegotiable point. That's what rights mean. It's something everyone deserves, you don't take it away for petty reasons, by doing so you're in the wrong. Esquillax has already compared this to slavery being socially acceptable but fundamentally it disregards a whole slew of human rights. By saying it's all about acceptance, you have no concept of right and wrong, all you know is to listen to the majority. Therefore you really have no point to argue at all since I live in a society where the majority support gay marriage, so you are the one who'll be the misfit here and should be, according to you, abolished completely.

By consensual, you really don't ask for the child's consent when you create it by natural ways, and you sure don't ask for the child's consent when you give it away from an orphanage. You simply look at the family itself.

I meant consensual partnership. I thought that was blatantly obvious.

And until now, only married heterosexual couples were allowed to adopt children. The gay rights movement needed to grant gays the right to marriage in order to grant them the rights to adopt children, as a non-married couple will not be able to adopt a child. So I still stand by my point that this is not a matter of rights.

This doesn't support your point at all. They were denied their rights, they have now successfully claimed it. Again I refer you to the slavery and abolition of slavery.

And yes indeed, equality as I had said before, is only amongst equals.

The concept of equality is that EVERYONE is equal. Not that you decide who is equal. That practice is the opposite of equality.

The basis of tradition is not one that is so easily discarded. By trying to do this, you will obviously generate a lot heat, and replying to it with claims of moral superiority only makes you look ridiculous.

Bare assertions. Dismissed as such.

Besides, I still don't think that you actually give a damn about children.

Oh yea you know me so fucking well.

I'd say that even a less well functioning nuclear family would breed less confusion and less social stigma for a child than a homosexual family would.

Bare assertion. Tell that to the kids who were sent to camps to "correct" their homosexuality. I think they'd have fared a lot better with loving parents homo or hetero, who would accept who they are, instead of thinking there's something wrong with them that needs to be abolished because society doesn't like it.[/quote]

[Lion IRC]

Repeat the experiment 100 million times and get back to me with the results.

Opposite-gender mate selection and heterosexual (gender-balanced) parenting of human offspring has been "doing great" for 50,000 years.

Did you not read what I said about experiments at this scale? It's not reasonably doable (especially when gay marriage is such a new thing, which means no official records, which means active recruiting). Which part of that is so hard to understand?

You certainly can do such an experiment. It's being done in some jurisdictions right now. Give it time. Nature will gradually take its course over time. Take a hundred million babies and raise them in adoptive, same-sex defacto parenting arrangements and see how things turn out.

...You can't even substantiate your claim that if you compare 100mil homo couples and hetero couples the result will be in your favour. Go ahead and try and present your result. Since you're already so sure that it worked well historically, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find data.

This from the person who sarcastically mocked the importance of maternal breast to the welfare of children.

Yea, cos that's what's parenting is about, the quality of breast milk.

What do you think about drinking alchohol while pregnant? No biggie? Kids turn out just fine? If a woman is being used a a surrogate mom for gay husbands Mitch and Cam to adopt, would it be OK for her to drink during pregnancy?
After all - its not as if she has to worry about the future welfare of the donated baby.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Similarly, the child that is being raised by homosexuals will face these, and in addition, will face problems concerning the reality. While the kids at school have a mother and father, he/she has two mothers or two fathers. Explaining this to a child is particularly hard, and even harder to explain to him/her how children come to be, and how does it come that one of his/her parents is not of the opposite sex. Confusion. Nothing more. This is why I consider same-sex parenthood to be undesirable and harmful to children.

Good god, have you even met a child before? "Billy has two daddies" is not this intensely complex logical puzzle for them, dude. It's actually a pretty simple concept; my sister is a teacher, and she's never had a child come through that was at all scarred by this "confusion," beyond that trouble which is made by other kids raised by parents to be bigots. And I don't think the bullying instilled by homophobes is really the problem of same sex parents.

This is the problem with this tradition argument: you've got the same people that get to stack the decks against homosexuals saying that their way clearly doesn't work or it'd be more prevalent, and pretending like they have no bias, nor a hand in why this is so.

Oh, now lets blame all the other kids at school. Really,a child is not taught by its parents the evils of homosexuality from an early age. But I'm sure a child that has been raised by a father and a mother is able to see the wrongs in a child having two fathers or two mothers, and I'm quite sure that a child is able to see what is so different about his/her own family amongst the multitude of children who have families in the normal sense, a father and a mother. And hey, its not about the problems of gay parents, they won't have a problem, the child they claim to look after, will.

I still stand by my word that what they're doing is to sacrifice the children in order to strengthen their own position.
And that you're claiming that the parents who tell their children that the normal thing is to have a father and a mother, and not two fathers and two mothers, are bigots, and they're supposedly perpetrating this "bigotry" by telling their children the ways of nature, is really beyond me.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Oh god, I have a feeling Mehmet is going to go into his whole "changing tradition is bad because tradition" half-assed argument that he takes super fucking seriously.

Oh, you prophet.

[Esquilax]

And segregation was lifted. Not modified.
Either you abolish a something completely or you don't.

And just why the hell should we stick to this binary?

And I have already said that heterosexual and homosexual couples not equal on the basis of their lack of both social relevance, and natural abilities to produce children.

And again, the former point is your side stacking the deck, because your side has spent so long stamping out any mention of homosexuality in the wider culture. You can't make something unequal and then claim that there's some other reason based in facts as to why this is so. As to your second point, I assume you're also against infertile heterosexual couples adopting.

And of course, you claim that this is right, while I proclaim that this is wrong, on the basis of its opposition to the most fundamental concepts of society.

Because society is always right on every point and never wrong, which is why slavery is still legal in America. Gotcha.

Well, when reality is only reality when its based on your perception as it seems. Let me fill you on another reality. Homosexuals cannot mate with eachother. How about that? Real enough for you?

Factually wrong, too!

That's the basis of the traditions regarding the institutions of marriage and parenthood. The ability to procreate.

Which is why you're also against infertile, old, or single people raising children, yes. You also believe that widows should have their children taken away from them, as should divorcees, and the moment a parent leaves to go away for a while, the children should be taken from the other one, because single humans can't reproduce by themselves.

You believe all this because the reason you're arguing here is based entirely on the premise you stated above, and not at all on an inbuilt homophobia that you're trying to cloak because you understand that the petty opinions of a bigot aren't good enough reason for other people to bend to your whims.

Well, since it has been passed down from generation to generation, it is a tradition, and since there are values that are associated with it, which have been passed down from generation to generation, and have also been protected by a legal power, I'd say that its not assertion, but a fact.

Yet more baseless appeals to tradition.

And I say, if you think that this is in any ways related to what I have to say on marriage abolish marriage.
Abolish marriage and all that it stands for. At least you'd be honest in what you do. Right now, I only see hypocrisy in this whole gay marraige and gay parenting crap.

It's related to your senseless appeals to what's traditional, genius.

And what, exactly, is hypocritical about gay people wanting the same symbolic and legal status as a couple that straight people have?

[Mystical]

I'd say that even a less well functioning nuclear family would breed less confusion and less social stigma for a child than a homosexual family would.

A problem that could easily be reversed by people like yOu. The problem lies in you, not them. You don't blame a black guy for getting hanged by a KuKluxKlan member, either--Just so you know. I'm seriously doubting your ability to distinguish the difference.

[Esquilax]

Oh, now lets blame all the other kids at school.

Or their bigoted parents.

Really,a child is not taught by its parents the evils of homosexuality from an early age.

How the fuck would you know?

But I'm sure a child that has been raised by a father and a mother is able to see the wrongs in a child having two fathers or two mothers, and I'm quite sure that a child is able to see what is so different about his/her own family amongst the multitude of children who have families in the normal sense, a father and a mother. And hey, its not about the problems of gay parents, they won't have a problem, the child they claim to look after, will.

So please explain to me how this magical childhood sixth sense for evil managed to skip over the majority of children that I know, both in adulthood and when I was a child myself?

I still stand by my word that what they're doing is to sacrifice the children in order to strengthen their own position.

Because it's impossible for a gay person to want a family.

And that you're claiming that the parents who tell their children that the normal thing is to have a father and a mother, and not two fathers and two mothers, are bigots, and they're supposedly perpetrating this "bigotry" by telling their children the ways of nature, is really beyond me.

You can't fall back on this nature crap, because we all know what actually happens in nature, Mehmet. You're just lying, when you use that argument.