Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents

[Esquilax]

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?

Question still stands.

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"?

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?

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.

That function is there as to promote reproduction.

Gee, thanks for repeating yourself. Great argument.

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.

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.

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.

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! hock:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.