Kaneman! said:
Nem said:
Honestly, i disagree with the both of you.
Firstly, homosexuals make as much sense as all of us existing. It's nature. In the end we all die, the sun explodes, all life dies. The universe is chaotic and humanity is a blip. It doesn't have to make sense outside the context, wich is this planet and evolution of said life. Homosexuality is just like any other genetic condition. It is the product of imperfection, but none of us is the perfect human beeing. As great as DNA is for evolution, it hardly ever gets it right, and homosexuality is not the worst you can have.
|
I completely agree with this. I'm just saying that it's a deviation from the norm, or mode, whatever you prefer.
| Nem said:
Now, the second point, i think is utter foolishness. I don't think a homosexual is any less capable of raising a child than anyone else. There are terrible people out there, wich are infinitly worse human beeings who mistreat children.
What a child needs is a caring home. Any issue that could arise would arise from external sources (aka discrimination). Caving to them is reinforcing them. So, i am definitly against that reinforcement.
|
I think you misunderstood me there. I'm not arguing against adoption, I'm arguing against the argument that is nonsensical in that context. You can't flip flop in between answers like that because it fits your narrative, that's all. You can offer a better home to a child, that's perfect, but don't use the argument how natural your relationship is in the next sentence.
|
But the function that is seen in nature for gay couples is to become serrogate parents for orphaned babies. That sounds a lot like adoption to me and therefore the "it's natural" argument would work just fine for gay couples adopting kids.
