|
On June 12 2013 22:32 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote:I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide  . I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Wait, who would get murdered or beaten up again if gays are given equal rights? I'm stumped.
Also, yes, it is infinitely easier to change the masses' opinion than it is to legitimately change someone's (anyone's, regardless of number) sexual orientation.
As for your point that if society doesn't approve it everyone should just deal with it. Should we revert to treating black people as slaves just because society didn't approve of their rights for a long period of time? Should we also revert to treating women as mindless servants and also stop all scientific research?
The masses will always be uneducated on some issue or another. They will always be gullible and more or less believe what they are fed. By adhering to the status quo you do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
|
On June 12 2013 22:29 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:20 ZeRoX-45 wrote: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.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
|
On June 12 2013 22:23 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +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. I'd say you might be foolish to expect it to change, but it's not your fault it happened. Simply being somewhere or something is never a provocation to be attacked or discriminated against.
Yes, in America it isn't, in my country it is. I was refering to Serbia and Russia since they think similar about this matter, not USA or westerners. THere is a difference you know
|
On June 12 2013 22:36 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:33 theking1 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:28 shekelberg wrote: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 Do you have any evidence of rape in animals or are you just pulling facts up like the roman one Dolphins rape humans. Go find your evidence for yourself. But if you're to bigoted to not believe me for not citing it, that's nt my problem
ahhahahahahahahahahaaha. I love the internet.
|
On June 12 2013 22:36 HaRuHi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:28 shekelberg wrote: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 I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love? Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
|
On June 12 2013 22:32 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote:I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide . I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
|
Austria24422 Posts
On June 12 2013 22:37 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:29 DertoQq wrote:On June 12 2013 22:20 ZeRoX-45 wrote: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. I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
|
On June 12 2013 22:28 jxx 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. 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.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
Either way, I think this particular discussion died somewhere around page 10.
|
On June 12 2013 22:37 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:29 DertoQq wrote:On June 12 2013 22:20 ZeRoX-45 wrote: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. I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
Actually, there is a lot you could do. You know what they say about small things... but whatever...
|
On June 12 2013 22:39 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:36 HaRuHi wrote:On June 12 2013 22:28 shekelberg wrote: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 I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love? Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom. A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
It sure took long for someone to bring up statutory rape (pedophilia coming soon(tm) ?) in a thread about homosexuality...
God damnit... -_-
|
On June 12 2013 22:39 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:36 HaRuHi wrote:On June 12 2013 22:28 shekelberg wrote: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 I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love? Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom. A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
You really don't understand what consent means do you.
|
United States5162 Posts
On June 12 2013 22:38 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:23 Myles 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. I'd say you might be foolish to expect it to change, but it's not your fault it happened. Simply being somewhere or something is never a provocation to be attacked or discriminated against. Yes, in America it isn't, in my country it is. I was refering to Serbia and Russia since they think similar about this matter, not USA or westerners. THere is a difference you know
I was talking about the vein of equal rights. The same view was held here before the 60's, yet we managed to get equal rights for blacks.
|
On June 12 2013 22:15 shekelberg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:11 theking1 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:59 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:55 cloneThorN 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. I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have? For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example). So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want. I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority. Spreading homosexualism? What does that even mean :/ And please don't pretend you know what the purpose of gay parades is. he is one of those people who thinks homosexuality is a contagious desease and if you let gays marry each other they will launch a full blown campaign to corrupt our children into becoming homosexuals.In his mind gays are a sort of illuminaty type secret organization who day and night plan to corrupt heterosexuals especially heterosexual children into becoming gay.He also views the fact as letting gay having sex in their own bedroom as a sign of tolerance.Don't bother with him. You're the the one who believes that homosexuality grows on trees or is genetic or sonething stupid like that
Since homosexuality is not at all limited to humans, it's actually as natural as hetrosexualism. Why do you think otherwise?
|
On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:28 jxx wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation. Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can). And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
So what about divorced families where the daughter is living with the single father? Heterosexual divorce is EXTREMELY common in the U.S. and it is considered perfectly acceptable and healthy. There's no mother there. Also, what about lesbian parents? Wouldn't the daughter have two parents who could empathize with her then?
|
On June 12 2013 22:33 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 20:27 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote:
Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade. Honestly, i think the reason you are tired of it, is because you never tried to even understand the basic concepts of it. 1. The gay right movement is not about informing you about them being gay, 2. It's about them trying to achive the same rights as straight people like you and me. 3. Try replacing "gays" with "black people" As an african-venezuelan I honestly feel offended by this bullshit, don't try comparing centuries of slavery and murder to being mocked for being gay. Being mocked for being gay is equal to being mocked for being fat, ugly or a nerd or anything really, it happends because gay people are not "normal" people, normal as in average, because average people are always the judges of what is normal. All societies have gay people because it is a very natural thing but every society treats them differently, although I do not support what Russia did, I also clearly not support that bullshit gay marriage thing that they are trying to get inside our heads as a "normal" thing, when the natural thing is clearly a man and a woman. Political correctness is out of control and a lot of these people celebrate their sexuality in a rather obscene way, most of the time they are showing off and not actually protesting for rights like they want you to believe, that is obvious to anybody that see these parades. And if you are different for whatever reason, because maybe you are disabled or anything, you have to accept that every now and then you will be discriminated but it's part of what we are, and of what you are. If somebody goes too far or phisically hurt you or anything the law should protect you but that should be the limits of your rights, because for the rest you are equal to everybody else, and then you should have the rights of everybody else.
Well if that is clearly the natural thing then what are we all arguing about!!? Your nearsightedness is appalling
You represent the inability of the people to understand what it means to be gay. It IS natural. It has ALWAYS been a part of human society but social norm has dictated that marriage is between man and woman and that is what they are fighting for, this social norm needs to end.
|
On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:28 jxx wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation. Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can). And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You know that there is plenty of gay women that gave birth, do you ?
|
On June 12 2013 22:37 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:29 DertoQq wrote:On June 12 2013 22:20 ZeRoX-45 wrote: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. I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
There is a very big thing that you can do. If you have children then you can raise them to be tolerant. That's all people have to do. The vast majority of intolerance is instilled in us when we are children.
|
On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:28 jxx wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation. Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can). And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
|
On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:28 jxx wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation. Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can). And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
But if you're brought up by straight parents you're missing out on the extremely rare and important dynamic that having two same sex parents creates, where both have a deeper understanding of each other than normal couples and thus are able to focus more on the child than each other, to work in harmony to create an environment in which the child can thrive in.
Also, single parents.
|
On June 12 2013 22:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:32 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote:I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide . I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays? Wait, who would get murdered or beaten up again if gays are given equal rights? I'm stumped. Also, yes, it is infinitely easier to change the masses' opinion than it is to legitimately change someone's (anyone's, regardless of number) sexual orientation. As for your point that if society doesn't approve it everyone should just deal with it. Should we revert to treating black people as slaves just because society didn't approve of their rights for a long period of time? Should we also revert to treating women as mindless servants and also stop all scientific research? The masses will always be uneducated on some issue or another. They will always be gullible and more or less believe what they are fed. By adhering to the status quo you do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
You are still mising the beat. I do not talk about ease of changing sexual orientation but to change their desire to have pride.
You can try to find "gay parade in Belgrade" videos on YT, and then you will know what I am talking about. IT's not something I approve, beating gay people or baning them life conditions, but just saying that society isn't on that frequency. Here, people do understand what are you talking about but disagree with pride's or some parts of gay rights, and it has nothing to do with education since you do not learn about gays in school (or maybe you do in Romania).
Also your examples of black slaves or servant women are showing your "education" since you are constantly doing argumentum ad hominem on me instead of trying to understand what I want to say. I just compared different soceities here and in Russia from western one's, let alone what I personally think about gay righs. Also, I explained why I am against pride's in previous posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
