Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gee, thanks for repeating yourself. Great argument.

And you've nothing to say?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.