this is such a incredibly stupid post its not even worht argueing with this guy

but they are both completly diffrent things, how an you use them as an example to prove me wrong? Also black people are not slaves for over 200 years now, thats not even a tradition anymore, while people are still getting maried, so there goes your entire logic

thanks for missing the point I was making.

of course they are different things, BUT they are both an example of a majourity of people oppressing a minority of people.

slavery was also a tradition, people used the same kind of justification as you are to defend it.

Homophobia is just another form of bigotry, plain and simple.

I'd like to pointout that black people haven't been slaves for a little over 100 years, not 200. It was also a tradition up until 50 or 60 years ago.

Then why even bother responding? Surely, it's at the very least worthy of a response with proper grammar.

To be honest, I could care less if you think either I or my post are stupid, but I am curious as to what in particular made you say so? If it wasn't at all worth responding to, the logical thing to do would be to not bother responding at all. However, you take a dismissive, bully-type approach in your response. It's really quite ineffective and, frankly, revealing.

...Irrespective of the first half of my post (upon further reflection, you could have meant something differently than what I thought by "My opinion is in a BIG MAJORITY anyways, and that's all that matters to me" - though by the bolding of 'big' and 'majority', I remain doubtful), I'm still quite amazed how anyone would consider adoption a tradition.

Actually it's easy for me to see why he replied: he felt as though being presented with more facts counter to his opinion was an assault on him, and since he can't refute facts, he needs to result to such a crude reply.

That aside, I do agree with what you're saying- his views are inconsistant, saying what he thinks at the time without any form of unity, and making up more stuff to try to support his failing point, through the adoption tradition.

And that process is incredibly important. That's how moral and social zeitgeists move on. It may seem redundant but until a society makes it very apparent that certain things are deemed immoral and won't be tolerated, then such behavior will continue to propogate and be excepted. So every time somebody pops up saying gays should be denied certain rights that straight people take for granted, then a mob of people need to jump that person so that on lookers know that is won't be tolerated, and more importantly see the reasoning put forth. It may seem reduntant, but it is a very necessary process for change.

And that process is incredibly important. That's how moral and social zeitgeists move on. It may seem redundant but until a society makes it very apparent that certain things are deemed immoral and won't be tolerated, then such behavior will continue to propogate and be accepted. So every time somebody pops up saying gays should be denied certain rights that straight people take for granted, then a mob of people need to jump that person so that on lookers know that is won't be tolerated, and more importantly see the reasoning put forth. It may seem reduntant, but it is a very necessary process for change. What would happen if the opposite happened and a few people came in here saying that gay people are sick, whatever deity of choice is offended by it, and that it is very harmful for some reason that I can't really back up, and nobody challenged them?

I'm a Buddhist, we don't have any problem with sexual preferences etc. It's the deeds a person do that defines them, not WHO they do lol

Couldn't care less if a gay person wants to marry, adopt whatever. Im not about to limit other peoples rights.