|
On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:
[quote]
But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done.As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
So you're saying you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than blind statements. Cool. You can take a lemon bar on your way out.
|
On June 12 2013 22:18 idonthinksobro wrote:
i would want to see statistics in 20 years how the percentages of gay people in russia have changed or if they will change at all. There are different scientific ideas about sexual identiy, the whole "born gay" thing is just one scientific idea there are others that suggest the biggest factor is very early childhood development; this law might prove something.
You already have wealth of data from centuries of different levels of oppression. This law will prove nothing. We already know more than whatever this law can provide. And primary purpose of laws should not be validation of scientific theories.
|
On June 12 2013 21:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:51 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way. But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. You seem to be a reasonable and well-intended individual, and if I'm not misconstruing what you're saying, then you believe that being adopted by a gay couple could prove very detrimental to children because of the social stigma and taboo associated with this, am I correct? Now, let me ask you this: do you think it is a better solution to condone the status quo and swipe the issue under the rug, or fight for a society in which gay couples do have the right to adopt children without them or any other family member (including the child in question) not being stigmatized or discriminated against? Sure, the latter would be a longer and more arduous process, and intolerance will never, I repeat, never be completely rooted out from our society. Still, I think it's obvious which future would be more fair... I think what he means is that nobody wants to be the ones cracking the eggs, to make that omelet. Its not fair for the eggs errrimean children to put them through all that, even if it leads to a better outcome. It's like treating them as pawns. Change of this scale is never easy. Humans don't like change. It's not like you can just spout out some beautifully worded ideology and the entirety of society will follow it, no. There are intermediary steps, and a gradual evolution is better than no evolution at all. Don't get me wrong, there is some merit to what he is saying from a practicality standpoint. But there is no "easy" way to make this change happen. If the issue is pushed correctly, we should eventually reach a point where the majority of the population will have adapted or even been educated from a young age to understand what homosexuality is and why it's not wrong but merely different, with only a few intolerant outliers spouting their bigotry. In the end, we've seen it happen with women's rights, with black people's rights, why not this as well?
I think the problem is in the fact that the child has no choice in the matter. He shouldn't have to face the possibility of ridicule at some point in the future for something out of his control.
That being said, this situation obviously shouldn't exist to begin with, and in some countries/areas it very well might not. In the southern half of the United States however, I can say from personal experience this type of discrimination does exist and to put a child through it with knowledge of what you are doing is malicious to that child. This type of environment needs to be destroyed as soon as possible so that such discrimination would not be an issue, but presently it is not a fair thing to do to a child with knowledge that the child would be discriminated against.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On June 12 2013 22:23 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:21 DarkLordOlli wrote:
How the fuck does a law like that not go against the universal declaration of human rights?
Like, what. Freedom of speech is a basic human right. it goes but Russia is to much of a superpower for anyone to do anything about it
That's the only explanation there can possibly be for this. In that case, goddamnit Russia, stop pretending to be a democracy
I mean, Austria has a law against revival of Nazi traditions, symbols, salutes, etc. But that's different as nazism is directly opposing democracy and the constitution clearly states that the republic is responsible for protecting democracy. But this? This is a random fucking discrimination straight from the middle ages.
|
On June 12 2013 22:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:
[quote]
The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't.
You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be.
I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done. As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man. What you also can't do is prove why that matters significantly in context.
Whether it matters or not is situational to the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that emotional support at that point in time. The point is, is that it is a limitation to homosexual parents to not have this type of support ready at their disposal when the opportunity to seek external support isn't always available.
|
On June 12 2013 22:23 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:21 MidKnight wrote:
I can only smile thinking about the world a hundred years in the future (hopefully not that long though) when these kind of primitive issues are finally dealt with and people from that time will look back at us and think "what were those idiots thinking".
Humans are fascinating, we are taught to hate and judge others for things one cannot choose like their gender, color of their skin, nationality or sexual orientation rather than their actions.
It's just a depressing phenomenon which we'll hopefully be able to conquer eventually. Yeah intolerance of decadence is "primitive" Romans fell into decadence, where are they now?
I am sure the invading barbarian hordes and internal conflicts had nothig to do with the Roman Empires decline.Yes man you solved the riddle!The roman empire fell because all its citizens were gay!God damn it I was living in the dark for so long.Thak you for illuminating me!Now I can ace my history major in college!
|
Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again 
|
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote:Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women. Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever. I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago. Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
|
On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:
[quote]
But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done. As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
|
On June 12 2013 22:20 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:14 DertoQq wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:50 Myles wrote:On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky. Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers. If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence. If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again ! yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country. I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
|
On June 12 2013 22:21 MidKnight wrote:
I can only smile thinking about the world a hundred years in the future (hopefully not that long though) when these kind of primitive issues are finally dealt with and people from that time will look back at us and think "what were those idiots thinking".
Humans are fascinating, we are taught to hate and judge others for things one cannot choose like their gender, color of their skin, nationality or sexual orientation rather than their actions.
It's just a depressing phenomenon which we'll hopefully be able to conquer eventually.
We will never conquer it completely.
Where there's freedom, there will invariably be dissenters from the general consensus. Regardless of how many will express their alternative views peacefully, some will still aggressively force their opinion upon others; thus intolerance appears. We can only hope for a society where such people become negligible outliers, but never one that has completely gotten rid of this issue.
On the other hand, we all have a reasonable idea of what repression and coercion will invariably lead to...
|
On June 12 2013 21:05 AxUU wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:03 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 AxUU wrote:On June 12 2013 20:12 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 20:04 Sword of Omens wrote:On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B5wkYTm.jpg) Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable! Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance? They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?). Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures. Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know  I don't think America actually is capable of doing that. But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why. But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why. Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that. You must be from reddit.
You must be from Romania.
|
On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:
[quote]
But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done. As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
How about all the other children who don't have access to that kind of empathy? Parents get divorced, parents die, people abandon their children, etc. They get advice and empathy by others... friends, professionals
In a society where children get abused left right and center, I'm pretty sure children with parents of same sex are pretty well off.
But this thread is getting derailed, so let's stop.
|
On June 12 2013 22:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:
[quote]
The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't.
You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be.
I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done. As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man. What you also can't do is prove why that matters significantly in context.
Would you mind not asking for people to prove negatives and add some data on your own please?
The only thing I'm finding that looks credible is the NLLFS and they provide no form whatsoever of a control group. It's, for example, completely irrelevant that the kids in their study had higher-than-average GPA when the gay parents they used have higher-than-average income.
Just from skimming through their papers there are a lot of inconsistencies like that that could be eliminated with a properly formed control group. And this seems to be the best known and most quoted study on this topic. -.-
|
On June 12 2013 22:28 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote:Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women. Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever. I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago. Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
Rape is an action something consciously decides to do. Identifying as homosexual is not.
|
On June 12 2013 22:27 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:23 shekelberg wrote:On June 12 2013 22:21 MidKnight wrote:
I can only smile thinking about the world a hundred years in the future (hopefully not that long though) when these kind of primitive issues are finally dealt with and people from that time will look back at us and think "what were those idiots thinking".
Humans are fascinating, we are taught to hate and judge others for things one cannot choose like their gender, color of their skin, nationality or sexual orientation rather than their actions.
It's just a depressing phenomenon which we'll hopefully be able to conquer eventually. Yeah intolerance of decadence is "primitive" Romans fell into decadence, where are they now? I am sure the invading barbarian hordes and internal conflicts had nothig to do with the Roman Empires decline.Yes man you solved the riddle!The roman empire fell because all its citizens were gay!God damn it I was living in the dark for so long.Thak you for illuminating me!Now I can ace my history major in college!
I never said it was the only reason, but it is a contributing factor
|
On June 12 2013 22:28 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote:Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women. Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever. I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago. Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
The reason rape is natural in animals is because animals have as sole purpose perpetuating their species and passing over their genes to a future generation.
We as humans have far more things to consider than just that.
Your comparison between rape and homosexuality is invalid.
|
Austria24417 Posts
So the question is will anybody actually have the balls to ask Putin what in all the fucks he's thinking
|
On June 12 2013 22:24 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:
[quote]
The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't.
You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be.
I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done.As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man. So you're saying you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than blind statements. Cool. You can take a lemon bar on your way out.
If you're going to pull the "where's your proof card", you might as well bring that up with literally everyone else with blind statements. Look around the thread (no really), you'll have your work cut out for you.
I intentionally kept the wording precise by limiting it to binary processes like pregnancy and periods, as to not necessitate the need to go through the burden of proof for concepts that I assumed were fairly easy to grasp (they are exclusive to women).
|
great law, too bad we can't learn more from the only country and parliment that has the guts to do something right...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
