Gay Adoption (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sheik Yerbouti
- Start date
Maybe not idiots but certainly people who dont really think or care about others and are closeminded. Like I said, classic example of "first they came for the jews..." Easy to talk how somebody else shouldnt have some rights when you have all those rights...
It's progressive, liberal people who have pushed the world forward and who have given an effort to change the world instead of staying in the same place, keeping the status quo.
I actually do agree with you, I am arrogant in many ways. However, in this case my arrogance leads me to wish to give more rights and freedoms to people instead of discriminating against them, while your humbelness leads you to deny those same people rights and freedoms others enjoy.
Now, which sounds better to you? If wanting to give people more rights so they can live happier and more fulfilled lives is while thinking those who deny those rights are closeminded is arrogance, then yes, I am very arrogant.
And yes, I do think you (not you personally, but the whole anti-homosexual camp) is very closeminded and doesnt really have an idea what it is like to be discriminated against.
Human rights should not be selective. They should be for everybody. Remember that next time you feel you are discriminated against in some way. Discrimination is always about being different, regardless of what that difference is, whether its skin color, ethnicty, sexdual orientation, age or something else.
Remember that next time you think you are discriminated because you are different on some grounds and then remember you are doing the same thing.
I do not know if you are talking bout politically conservative, republican/conservative political parties or what, but:
lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə
rəl/Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Therefore, somebldy that discarded traditional values (slavery) and changed the traditional behaviour is by definition liberal.
con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
WHile somebdy that tried to keep hold of old traditional ways of life (slavery) would be conservative.
Therefore somebody that changed the traditional ways cannot, by definition, be conservative. Sou can not be for the radical changing of society and be a conservative, because that is the very opposite of the definition of conservative.
Well thanks for taking me out if that camp. I as you know am not against their adoption so I do not fit in that discussion. I just point out that when one dismisses the other side without respectful discourse it minimizes the discussion. Did you ever think that possibly if you guys didn't call those in the opposition names or question them as humans they may listen to your reasoning?
I do not know if you are talking bout politically conservative, republican/conservative political parties or what, but:
lib·er·al/ˈlib(ərəl/
Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Therefore, somebldy that discarded traditional values (slavery) and changed the traditional behaviour is by definition liberal.
con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
WHile somebdy that tried to keep hold of old traditional ways of life (slavery) would be conservative.
Therefore somebody that changed the traditional ways cannot, by definition, be conservative. Sou can not be for the radical changing of society and be a conservative, because that is the very opposite of the definition of conservative.
lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə
rəl/Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Therefore, somebldy that discarded traditional values (slavery) and changed the traditional behaviour is by definition liberal.
con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
WHile somebdy that tried to keep hold of old traditional ways of life (slavery) would be conservative.
Therefore somebody that changed the traditional ways cannot, by definition, be conservative. Sou can not be for the radical changing of society and be a conservative, because that is the very opposite of the definition of conservative.
So let me get this straight... you've been arguing for 80 pages that gays should not adopt... yet you are for gay adoption?
And plenty of good, rational arguments have been made without any name calling, but it all ends up in the same way from the other side: comparations with pedophilia, beastiality, etc, how it is not natural, how it is against religion, etc... It is very difficult to reason when you have to explain, for example, the concept of consent over and over again.