Refuting fundamentalists

[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]