|
On June 12 2013 21:39 Christ the Redeemer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:33 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 21:25 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 21:00 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 20:54 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:50 DonKey_ wrote:On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_- This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage. Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against. There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group. The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views. On June 12 2013 20:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:45 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_- This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage. There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist. Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance. So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist? Somebody ban this troll please. You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion. I didn't suggest you should be banned because you have a different opinion. You should be banned because you're a troll. Opposing opinions on slavery or racism or homophobia, to name but a few, aren't really welcome, nor should they be. If it was a religious, political, economical, philosophical or any number of different types of discussion then the OP shouldn't be biased and all opinions are of course extremely welcome. This is not one of those cases. Why am I a troll? Because I have a different opinion? It really seems that you do not know how to use reason. I extremely encourage opposing views on this case because as far as I read from the report, it is not even about being gay directly but in protecting minors what what their culture and society sees as a threat or whatever. I do not know about this threat or their culture, that is why I want to listen to opposing views.
You see "protecting minors", we see pointless censorship of information pertaining to a group of people that are misunderstood and stigmatized enough as it is, especially outside of the Western world.
Nothing good ever comes from advocating and condoning ignorance.
|
On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way. But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
|
I am Russian, I will start with this.
Okay, so I have been reading peoples responses from other countries and then the Russians and am noticing one thing. This isn't even being reported on to the public.
My father was very Anti-Gay growing up, and my mother could care less if someone was gay or straight, I was anti-gay growing up as a teenager until I got to know some gay people in highschool and found out I was just retarded for disliking people for no reason, I changed my thought process due to this.
I am not for the law, and like many governments the Russian government is corrupt, most Russians know it's corrupt, but hey American government is even worse nowadays, so to the comment about maybe it should be liberated? Well most of the people who actually control Russia are not even in their own country, most are underground and in different countries. At least in America you know who to kill to free the nation and go back to being a Republic. Russia can't really do that sadly. It would be like killing the Pawns on a chess board, but the enemy can place more after you kill them, and you can't find out who is putting the pieces on the board.
So opinion wise, yes it's a stupid law, I personally don't believe in gay rights or female rights, I believe in equal rights, I'm tired of it either way, politics should be focused on more important and relevant is. In almost all governments the officials talk about useless gibberish rather then real issues. People being gay will not destroy your country, Gay people have existed since the times of Adam and Steve.
|
On June 12 2013 21:39 Christ the Redeemer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:33 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 21:25 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 21:00 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 20:54 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:50 DonKey_ wrote:On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_- This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage. Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against. There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group. The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views. On June 12 2013 20:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:45 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_- This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage. There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist. Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance. So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist? Somebody ban this troll please. You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion. I didn't suggest you should be banned because you have a different opinion. You should be banned because you're a troll. Opposing opinions on slavery or racism or homophobia, to name but a few, aren't really welcome, nor should they be. If it was a religious, political, economical, philosophical or any number of different types of discussion then the OP shouldn't be biased and all opinions are of course extremely welcome. This is not one of those cases. Why am I a troll? Because I have a different opinion? It really seems that you do not know how to use reason. I extremely encourage opposing views on this case because as far as I read from the report, it is not even about being gay directly but in protecting minors what what their culture and society sees as a threat or whatever. I do not know about this threat or their culture, that is why I want to listen to opposing views.
OP says its to protect them (youth) from threats against traditional family values.
Basically a society that assumes heteronormativity struggling with changes to the status quo.
|
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.
|
On June 12 2013 21:25 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame.
Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
Since you are here posting I think we can assume that all sides do indeed have opportunity to express their opinion.
If the OP was phrased from the the other side of the debate - i.e. That the Russians are completely correct in restricting education involving non-traditional relationships, then I can pretty much guarantee that it would make no difference to the responses - most would come against the Russian stance and a few would support it. The way the OP is constructed has nothing to do with how people respond.
|
On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way. But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
You seem to be a reasonable and well-intended individual, and if I'm not misconstruing what you're saying, then you believe that being adopted by a gay couple could prove very detrimental to children because of the social stigma and taboo associated with this, am I correct?
Now, let me ask you this: do you think it is a better solution to condone the status quo and swipe the issue under the rug, or fight for a society in which gay couples do have the right to adopt children without them or any other family member (including the child in question) being stigmatized or discriminated against? Sure, the latter would be a longer and more arduous process, and intolerance will never, I repeat, never be completely rooted out from our society. Still, I think it's obvious which future would be more fair...
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
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.
|
Russian Federation4050 Posts
The quote in the OP is simply amazing, especially the last part.
|
United States5162 Posts
On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's hard to stay polite sometimes...
|
On June 12 2013 21:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way. But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. You seem to be a reasonable and well-intended individual, and if I'm not misconstruing what you're saying, then you believe that being adopted by a gay couple could prove very detrimental to children because of the social stigma and taboo associated with this, am I correct? Now, let me ask you this: do you think it is a better solution to condone the status quo and swipe the issue under the rug, or fight for a society in which gay couples do have the right to adopt children without them or any other family member (including the child in question) not being stigmatized or discriminated against? Sure, the latter would be a longer and more arduous process, and intolerance will never, I repeat, never be completely rooted out from our society. Still, I think it's obvious which future would be more fair...
I think what he means is that nobody wants to be the ones cracking the eggs, to make that omelet.
Its not fair for the eggs errrimean children to put them through all that, even if it leads to a better outcome. It's like treating them as pawns.
|
Bad post. Not going to start a stupid internet fight.
|
Mail order brides are perfectly acceptable, but apparently the moral line is drawn at discussing homosexual behavior.
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.
No one makes you go to these parades, or festivals as far as I know. They are there, they are queer, they always have and will be; might as well learn to accept it.
|
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 know that this is one thing which is taken out of context, but it describes the problem with Russia so wonderfully - it is just a society with values very different from what most of us (the relatively young westerners) want to uphold. Things like this should be repeatedly slapped into the face of all the pro-Russian lobbists in my country.
This doesn't necesarilly mean that Russia or it's goverment are "bad", "evil" or whatever - while I have met many Russians who would very gladly let the whole Duma freeze in Siberia (mainly because I get into contact only with people with high education), there are many others who are perfectly fine with these things, so let them be. But it really means that Russia is still not a valid partner for the western world - which is exactly the oposite from what a pretty large lobby (which has been proven to be backed by moeny from Russian industry) tries to tell us.
|
On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's not even close to it, bad analogy.
|
On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way. But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
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.
|
On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Women can make themselves more susceptible to rape, though they are rarely if ever to blame.
Gay parades may make these people more susceptible to oppression, but they are parading because they already feel oppressed.
Very different.
|
I thought the same.. it reeks of some kinda 'if you vote against this, you'll get shot by the KGB' hidden motive. No way can they legitimately vote unanimously on something so retarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
