|
On June 12 2013 23:06 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:04 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 23:00 cloneThorN wrote: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 some animals do rape, an example would be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphinTheres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection). Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p
I severly doubt humans understand the behavior of animals to define what is rape and what is mating.Animal mating is all about continuing the species aka male sees a female,male fights another male for the female,winning male wins the female.The female herself doesn't have much to say about the topic in most species with a few exceptions.And about the scorpion well most insects do that doesn't mean all insects commit rape
|
On June 12 2013 23:06 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:55 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 22:18 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:06 cloneThorN 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. I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold. 1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays. 2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society. Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights? I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt. - As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade. - A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article. - Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread. - The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes. Well the main point of our disagreement is probably because you believe you can change millions of people and because you think goverment is so mighty, I think it's not. You can't just call millions of people scum, or large portion of believers just for having different of opinion. You can't be tolerant to everything.
Indeed you can't be tolerant to everything. But being intolerant of something that does not affect you in any way, shape or form, is stupid, and behaviour exercised by what we refer to as scum.
|
On June 12 2013 22:44 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex (like being pregnant).
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters against heterosexual couples, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
|
On June 12 2013 23:08 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:06 AxUU wrote: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 Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom. They're most likely not capable of doing that, or they would have already. That's not how politics and international relations work... -_- Jesus christ how old are you?!
I know well enough that they don't work like that... But who knows what the USA will do, they do have a notorious reputation for going on a "freeing" rampage.
+ Show Spoiler +come on girl, why do you take everything that I say so seriously and literally.
|
On June 12 2013 23:10 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:44 Douillos wrote:On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex. It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc. You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters, when external help is not always available. The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide. Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Are you really truly done? Thank god. Because making claims with absolutely not evidence and straight up saying you don't need evidence for said claims is patently stupid.
|
On June 12 2013 23:09 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:06 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 23:04 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 23:00 cloneThorN wrote: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 some animals do rape, an example would be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphinTheres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection). Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p I severly doubt humans understand the behavior of animals to define what is rape and what is mating.Animal mating is all about continuing the species aka male sees a female,male fights another male for the female,winning male wins the female.The female herself doesn't have much to say about the topic in most species with a few exceptions.And about the scorpion well most insects do that doesn't mean all insects commit rape
Thats not the point i was making. You asked "Do you have any evidence of rape in animals or are you just pulling facts up like the roman one", and i just answared, because i thought 3rd party info would be more trust worthy.
|
On June 12 2013 23:08 Cinim 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 USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
The difference with the USA is that you will find much more opposition to the homophobic sentiments. You will still find plenty of homophobic individuals with an equal amount of hatred though.
|
On June 12 2013 23:11 AxUU wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:08 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On June 12 2013 23:06 AxUU wrote: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 Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom. They're most likely not capable of doing that, or they would have already. That's not how politics and international relations work... -_- Jesus christ how old are you?! I know well enough that they don't work like that... But who knows what the USA will do, they do have a notorious reputation for going on a "freeing" rampage. + Show Spoiler +come on girl, why do you take everything that I say so seriously and literally.
Because your other posts are dumb as well... -_-
|
On June 12 2013 23:08 Cinim 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 USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
Yeah we Europeans sometime feel like we are ahead of the States in the way we separate the state and the church... And then right wing extremists start getting more and more votes, people protest every day against gay marriage, muslim grounds are vandalized (jewish ones also)... And then we remember that intolerance is just behind the corner and that it's an every day fight to keep the freedom we/our parents/grand-parents fought for.
|
On June 12 2013 22:55 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:50 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:40 theking1 wrote: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? 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 If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble? If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied. Thanks for manners Romanian realist! I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
|
On June 12 2013 23:10 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:44 Douillos wrote:On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex (like being pregnant). It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc. You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters against heterosexual couples, when external help is not always available. The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide. Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Yeah, as much as I like hitting dead horses, I think this one is done for 
|
On June 12 2013 23:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:59 guN-viCe wrote:On June 12 2013 22:39 shekelberg wrote: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? The difference between homosexuality and rape is that homosexuality is a consensual act with no victim, whereas rape is non-consensual and is doing physical harm onto another. The reason a 14 year old and a 40 year old together is frowned upon and illegal is because 14 year old's do not have a fully developed brain and lack the ability to make well-informed decisions. Any 40 year old who is OK with that is usually sick in the head. The fact that you equate statutory rape (which in all honesty is kind of a gray area in that it depends on case-by-case basis) with legitimate rape as well as your last sentence makes this post quite ironic. Funny, yet also sad.
My post might have confused you because I was responding to shekelberg's 2 posts, within my single post. My post wasn't ironic, funny or sad.
Statutory rape is illegal in many countries including the USA. In the example given by shekelberg, he states a 14 year old with a 40 year old. This is not a grey zone, any way you slice it. In this example, an older person is preying upon and exploiting a naive child.
Please don't use strawman's or fallacious arguments, it degrades the discussion.
|
On June 12 2013 23:06 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:55 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 22:18 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:06 cloneThorN 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. I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold. 1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays. 2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society. Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights? I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt. - As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade. - A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article. - Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread. - The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes. Well the main point of our disagreement is probably because you believe you can change millions of people and because you think goverment is so mighty, I think it's not. You can't just call millions of people scum, or large portion of believers just for having different of opinion. You can't be tolerant to everything.
Even if you can't change it (immediately), that doesn't mean you should not try to fight for what is right. I can understand not wanting to go to one of those parades out of cowardice if they end up with a high chance of you getting beat up by bigots (I probably wouldn't dare either, though i'd like to think i would). But it is still the right thing to do. If you are doing something that does not hurt anyone else, and people want to beat you up for it and deny you the right to do it, they are wrong, and you are right, and you should fight for your rights. If they damage the city trying to beat you up while you are peacefully demonstrating, that is their fault, not yours. If they beat you up, it is their fault, not yours.
You should not advocate accepting unjust behaviour just because fighting against it would cause the bigots to damage things trying to stop you from peacefully fighting for your rights.
|
On June 12 2013 22:59 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:56 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:53 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:51 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:40 DarkLordOlli wrote:On June 12 2013 22:37 ZeRoX-45 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same. Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point? If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here. Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country. Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
|
On June 12 2013 23:12 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:09 theking1 wrote:On June 12 2013 23:06 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 23:04 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 23:00 cloneThorN wrote: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 some animals do rape, an example would be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphinTheres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection). Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p I severly doubt humans understand the behavior of animals to define what is rape and what is mating.Animal mating is all about continuing the species aka male sees a female,male fights another male for the female,winning male wins the female.The female herself doesn't have much to say about the topic in most species with a few exceptions.And about the scorpion well most insects do that doesn't mean all insects commit rape Thats not the point i was making. You asked "Do you have any evidence of rape in animals or are you just pulling facts up like the roman one", and i just answared, because i thought 3rd party info would be more trust worthy.
You offered me evidence of mating patterns not rape.
|
Homosexuality is clearly not a choice. We don't fully know the cause, but it's VERY clear that it has existed from the dawn of mankind and no, it cannot be cured. And as it turns out, "those damn gays" didn't ruin society. It's a fact that some % of the population is gay. There's nothing to suggest that statistic changed, just that as homosexuality is becoming more accepted, more people come out.
Some people argue that acting upon homosexual "urges" is wrong, but what the fuck is your solution then? Should those people feel disgusted with themselves for the rest of their lives and never have intimate human contact?
Homosexual relationships are mutual relationships between two consenting adults. No one is getting hurt. You can call it a "disorder" if that makes you inflate your ego and feel superior to others, I don't give a shit, but punishing people for feeling affection towards another human being when they aren't hurting anyone is simply stupid.
I browsed through the thread and saw a lot of people saying things like "I don't hate gays blah blah blah, but I don't support their marriage or them adopting children".
Sure, most religions won't support marriage in the traditional sense, that's their right, but preventing homosexuals from establishing a legal bond and gaining same social benefits straight couples have is straight up discrimination.
As for adoption, studies have shown that gay parents raise their children better than straight ones because raising a child is always a choice and there are no "oopsies". What about single parents? By recent statistics 27% of children grew up in a single parent household. If a child truly needs "a father figure and a mother figure" to be raised "properly" what happens to those kids?
There are thousands of kids growing up in adoption centers, are you really claiming they are better off with no parents a loving family of two same sex parents?
|
On June 12 2013 23:13 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:55 theking1 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:50 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:40 theking1 wrote: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? 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 If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble? If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied. Thanks for manners Romanian realist! I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you. I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
|
On June 12 2013 23:05 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:
436-0?
ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
Very surprising , I would expect the communist to be against it at least. Communists in Eastern Europe were never very gay-friendly (rather opposite), but they were also not considering gays as satanic evil.
|
I agree but I am saying that percentage of homophobic people isn't same in every country.
If Serbia is seriously full of homophobic people(and that's what you said) or at least of people like you who don't seem to give a shit if minorities get suppressed or not, i seriously wonder why Serbia wants to join the EU.
|
On June 12 2013 23:12 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 23:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:44 Douillos wrote:On June 12 2013 22:40 Jojo131 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex. It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc. You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters, when external help is not always available. The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide. Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me. Are you really truly done? Thank god. Because making claims with absolutely not evidence and straight up saying you don't need evidence for said claims is patently stupid.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response to that message either, did you?
It's like you're not reading what I'm saying, just so you can skip to your part just to tell me I'm wrong.
Now that I'm done, please do go after everyone else making baseless claims (there's a lot more than just me). For the sake of being consistent of course. Dont make an exception for me just because I'm the only one who went up to say "I dont need stats to understand concepts that are relatively simple". (please actually do read what I said about that earlier message for clarity, geez)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
