Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents

[Esquilax]

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.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that all of these fripperies that you frame your argument with really don't apply exclusively to the subject of homosexuality, and that what you're really doing is trying to couch your emotionally driven bigotry in a series of illusory better reasons, because you know that the personal opinion your position actually is, is not particularly compelling to other people.

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.

Ahhh, so you're alright with any kind of person, so long as they don't have the audacity to fight for their rights, where their visibility might bother you.

Again I say, grow up: nobody owes you their silence.

There is no flaw in my reasoning.
You fool yourself. Regardless of your position, these people are abnormal.

Actually, there is a flaw, which is that you're targeting one specific group of people, out of the entirety that your argument actually addressed. Now, you've gone on to expound on your (childish and inane, it turns out) reasons, which does show that there was more to this than I'd known, but don't blame your inability to adequately communicate your position on me.

Other than that, your baseless assertion of abnormality has been noted, and rejected. That which can be asserted without evidence can and will be dismissed without it.

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 That has superseded the main function of sex and sexual organs?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.

I don't really need to argue against "nuh uh!"

And you've nothing to say?

To a bald assertion? I don't really need to say anything: repeating yourself doesn't rebut my argument at all.

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.

You also pee out of it, so I could make an equally strong case that the purpose of your genitals is urination, and you're perverting that by having all that filthy straight sex with it.

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.

What a ridiculous non-sequitur.

Just because he wasn't able to get homosexu, he was very unhappy and this would "reflect" on his wife and children somehow. Yeah.

Yes, actually: do you think his wife would be happy, persisting in a marriage where her husband is sexually incompatible with her, and doesn't have the same depth of feeling? Would she be happy knowing that the man she married is unhappy specifically because he's having to persist there? Would the child be happy knowing his parents are unhappy because they're having to stick together for him?

See, this tells me everything I need to know, and confirmed my worst fears about how you think: you couldn't even imagine what the other participants in the arrangement you want would have been feeling. Did you even consider them? Do you even care?

This is exactly what I was talking about, this unthinking scrabble to preserve an ancient status quo heedless of the human cost. Society isn't just something that you feed human beings to, trample them down, to sustain, Mehmet.

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.

Better that they leave and give everyone a chance at happiness, rather than treating their own family as expendable pawns in a culture war that only serves to keep old men comfortable at the cost of everyone else.

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.

And yet, of the two of us, you're the one advocating that people stay in loveless, unhappy marriages just because staying in marriages is what people did in the past. Your entire argument is basically that people should do this and not that, because the latter makes you uncomfortable, and you're talking to me about selfishness?

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.

"If gays wanted to be a part of social institutions, they shouldn't have been persecuted by me and people like me for so long!"

Are you even passingly familiar with how empathy works, Mehmet? Can you put yourself in someone else's situation for a bit? The real situation and not the fucking cartoon you keep imagining.

They cannot adopt children here. Here, adoptions are only made to people who are married. Single people do not qualifiy.

And... the whole world is your country?

And I believe that its the same in many other countries.

Not in America or Australia, but you still seem to be ignoring that the point you're making doesn't answer my point, nor does it nullify it.

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).

So, do you care to answer my actual point, now?

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?

The more you talk, the more you make yourself out to be the selfish one: you would deny children any sort of parent because some types of parents you dislike.

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.

So, do you make your strawmen yourself, or do you order them from somewhere?

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.

How is it any more difficult than explaining to a child that one of their parents has died? See, you do this a lot, where you make an assertion and then... that's it. Support your arguments.

I'll do it the same way you do. How about allowing incestious couples to adopt children!

I'm not sure that I'd have terribly much to say about that, actually. And I'm sure your argument against it will be nothing more than "it's just wrong!" followed by some insipid caricature.

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.

When you say things like this and offer nothing else, it just shows me that you care more about your personal opinions than whether or not this could actually be a good thing for the kid involved.

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.

I could actually tell you quite a bit about those relationships, and how strong they can be, and what benefits they confer outside of the bedroom, but it's fairly clear that you'd be unwilling to listen if I did. I don't really feel like spending a couple paragraphs explaining myself, only to be hit with "is degenerate!" when I'm done.

Have you any interest at all in actually conversing on the merits of these topics, or are you just here to spout rhetoric until we all get bored and move on to more productive debate opposition?

Well, have you read the rest of his post?

Unfortunately.