|
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...
Obviously you want the good society. In utmost fairness you would want to make sure that gay couples have as many rights as the straight ones, I would agree to that. Though the children come first, hence my position on the matter. Have nice ideals is just that: nice. But sometimes we can't have nice things (pardon the expression). Big changes like these need to be pretty progressive. People (perhaps even me) need to slowly but surely accept gay couples as a valid family model, etc.
Off topic but relevant:
+ Show Spoiler +France is going through that transformation at the moment and honestly it's annoying me to no end. We have huge economic problems, a huge debt, unemployment, things are slowly going downhill and it seems that the only thing that the French government is doing is trying to force gay marriage down the throat of 50% of France. The issue might be pertinent, but I'd rather solve this issue after the real issues are solved. It seems that the socialist government we currently have are doing everything in their power to "please" everyone with things like tolerance and solidarity. So they're forcing the issue with gay marriage but that's all they're doing. Our economy is fucked up and they're not making the tough decisions needed to fix that. anyway end of the off topic rant.
|
On June 12 2013 21:51 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:47 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way. But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. You seem to be a reasonable and well-intended individual, and if I'm not misconstruing what you're saying, then you believe that being adopted by a gay couple could prove very detrimental to children because of the social stigma and taboo associated with this, am I correct? Now, let me ask you this: do you think it is a better solution to condone the status quo and swipe the issue under the rug, or fight for a society in which gay couples do have the right to adopt children without them or any other family member (including the child in question) not being stigmatized or discriminated against? Sure, the latter would be a longer and more arduous process, and intolerance will never, I repeat, never be completely rooted out from our society. Still, I think it's obvious which future would be more fair... I think what he means is that nobody wants to be the ones cracking the eggs, to make that omelet. Its not fair for the eggs errrimean children to put them through all that, even if it leads to a better outcome. It's like treating them as pawns.
Change of this scale is never easy. Humans don't like change. It's not like you can just spout out some beautifully worded ideology and the entirety of society will follow it, no. There are intermediary steps, and a gradual evolution is better than no evolution at all.
Don't get me wrong, there is some merit to what he is saying from a practicality standpoint. But there is no "easy" way to make this change happen. If the issue is pushed correctly, we should eventually reach a point where the majority of the population will have adapted or even been educated from a young age to understand what homosexuality is and why it's not wrong but merely different, with only a few intolerant outliers spouting their bigotry.
In the end, we've seen it happen with women's rights, with black people's rights, why not this as well?
|
On June 12 2013 21:55 cloneThorN 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. 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.
|
On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman 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. 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.
|
On June 12 2013 21:55 opisska wrote:
[...]
This doesn't necesarilly mean that Russia or it's goverment are "bad", "evil" [...]
Any country with Labor camps (no, I think I'll use the term Goulag), has an evil goverment. The number of arbitrary emprisonements has skyrocketed these last years. This homophobic law is nothing compared to the rest of what's going on.
|
On June 12 2013 21:41 GertHeart wrote: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.
Gay rights, female rights and equal rights are the same thing.
This isn't a real issue? It's useless gibberish lol?....
|
The law was passed through a unanimous vote of 436 - 0 in the parliament.
Yeah, democracy sucks when you disagree with it.
|
On June 12 2013 21:50 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky. Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
|
On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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. 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.
|
it is not really a surprize what is happening in Russia.For those in the Western world who do not understand the situation let me bring it down in prieces.
Eastern Europe is one of the most religiously indoctrinated places on earth.About 80% of people in orthodox countries claim to believe in god compared to only 30% in the Neterlands.In terms of fanaticism eastern orthodox are somewhere between muslim extrmists and cathloics.Not enough to blow themselves up but enough to start fistfight based on religious reasons.In terms of indoctrination eastern orthodox are simmilar to muslims.I should know.I lived there for about 20 years,went to church every sunday and wanted to become a priest once.
Having 80% of population indoctrinated the orthodox church is also the main political force in many eastern european countries.You can virtually not become an elected official unless you are filmed going to church during the elections and not mentioning gods name a couple of times during interviews.Basicly no politician dares to go against the church simply because if he does that his party loses the ellection.
On the other hand the church abuses its power by demanding freebies such as oblidging the government to fund churches,pay priests salaries etc.Yes in Eastern Europe the church especially the orthodox one is state sponsored.Most importantly the church now have a new obsession:gays who are being denied rights simply because indoctrinated 80 year old men decide so.Hence politicians impose legislation such as that simply to appease the church and win the ellection.it is that simple.
The level of fanaticism tends to be lower in European Union countries but not by much.Romanian before joining the EU had a death penalty for gays and many romanians still consider the Leader of WW2 ROmania(a fascist general) as a hero.
Even in Romania,a EU country, gays are being abused in publc.Until recently the gays parade which takes place every year in bucharest got attacked by football hooligans and right wing extremist with rocks.Recently romanian parlamentarians gave a law modifying the constitution to "protect the family" aka ban gay gay marriage.They did this because they know the EU will soon liberalize marriage policy but they are so indoctrinated and so afraid of the church they will do anything to save face.
Russia is a lost cause but the only way to protect homosexuals in EU countries is to impose a united legislation bannied countries form discriminated against gays.
P.S If you ever see an orthodox priest confornt him about the situation
|
On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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. 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.
My friend, how wrong you are... France just went through the whole Gay marriage debate, and trust me, most people know fuck all about homoparentality...
Don't underestimate the stupidity of the mass.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 12 2013 21:59 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:55 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have? For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example). So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want. I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
Spreading homosexualism? What does that even mean :/ And please don't pretend you know what the purpose of gay parades is.
|
On June 12 2013 21:59 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Russian Federation18 Posts
On June 12 2013 20:36 Go0g3n wrote:
Couldn't find much about it in the russian media, read it first here. I for one am for equal rights, however I do think that being gay is some sort of genetic disorder or whatever.
Until i find the copy of the law (which should be digitally published), I wouldn't believe BBC on this one, Russians aren't that stupid, although I met a number of anti-gay "thinkers".
Lol. Do you live in a bottle or smth? It's one of the most discussed topics in Russia.
So, to clarify:
1. Opposition does exist, its just not in the duma.
2. Most russians support this law
3. Most adequate russians are against this kind of shit.
4. What's more disturbing is that other law which criminalizes any offense to the feelings of believers. I mean, I dont even know what that means, how is that feelings of religious people are more important than everyones else.
Unfortunately people in Duma only think on how to control russians, and unfortunately most russians dont even understand that.
|
On June 12 2013 21:59 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Russian Federation4050 Posts
I just can't resist not to add that this is the best thread that I have ever read on TL.
Don't forget that Russia is working with the terrorists to use child labor to infringe homosexual freedoms.
|
It actually goes both ways.
In russia you can't say there are gay people
In US you can't talk shit to gays
Both are enforced by their own governments.
I dunno about russia but where's the freedom of speech?
|
On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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. 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.
|
On June 12 2013 22:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:59 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:55 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have? For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example). So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want. I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority. Spreading homosexualism? What does that even mean :/ And please don't pretend you know what the purpose of gay parades is.
he is one of those people who thinks homosexuality is a contagious desease and if you let gays marry each other they will launch a full blown campaign to corrupt our children into becoming homosexuals.In his mind gays are a sort of illuminaty type secret organization who day and night plan to corrupt heterosexuals especially heterosexual children into becoming gay.He also views the fact as letting gay having sex in their own bedroom as a sign of tolerance.Don't bother with him.
|
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.
Spewing out random things that aren't even on point are what makes people who are "pro gay" look stupid in debates like this.
1) How the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all?
By the same logic we wouldn't need any regulation for adoptions. Any (non-abusive) parent is better than no parent at all, right?
2) 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.
This is true for any. Single. Thing. Out there. What you're actually advocating here is an authority stepping in and telling parents with which values to raise their children. It's not illegal to raise your children with those kind of values, neither do I believe it should be. However, "someone else might be an asshole to your kid" isn't even close to an argument when it comes to any topic like that in the first place.
3) I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
His argument is probably the most often one heard there is. Assuming that a father and a mother have different roles that should be filled for a healthy development the position that "father+father / mother+mother <<< mother+father" isn't very far. This is where people who are more into the topic should throw studies in people's faces; - personally since I'm aware that adoptive parents barely have any influence on their child's personality or interests in the first place I'm assuming the difference is far smaller than most would initially assume.
In general, when you actually want to convince someone that your position is more sound "lolol u don't even have a point lolol" doesn't exactly help. The thought process outlined above isn't way out there or rocket science and can pretty much only debated with studies on the topic.
Pretty sure someone must have looked at children adopted by same-sex couples with a "normal" control group.
e:
On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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. 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.
Look at this thread. Very, very obviously it isn't. Hell, I personally have no precise clue about it because I never looked into it. Once more, this is where you throw around studies to give those that lack it the necessary background.
e2: Actually... pretty much any thing I can dig out via google sounds pretty damn bullshit, from either side. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
