|
On June 12 2013 22:05 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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.
 You're right.
|
On June 12 2013 22:03 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:50 Myles wrote:On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky. Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers. If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
|
On June 12 2013 22:11 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:59 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:55 cloneThorN wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have? For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example). So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want. I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority. Spreading homosexualism? What does that even mean :/ And please don't pretend you know what the purpose of gay parades is. he is one of those people who thinks homosexuality is a contagious desease and if you let gays marry each other they will launch a full blown campaign to corrupt our children into becoming homosexuals.In his mind gays are a sort of illuminaty type secret organization who day and night plan to corrupt heterosexuals especially heterosexual children into becoming gay.He also views the fact as letting gay having sex in their own bedroom as a sign of tolerance.Don't bother with him.
You're the the one who believes that homosexuality grows on trees or is genetic or sonething stupid like that
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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.
According to what study?
|
On June 12 2013 22:10 shekelberg wrote:
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?
There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech and human rights.A couple of years ago a man name Adolf in Germany thought it debatable that jews are humans just like us and decided to exterminate them based on his sick fantasies.Even more recently a dude named osama exercised his free speech and thought it was debatable wheather the american presence in the middle east was justified and as a result 9/11 happened plus 2 wars in the middle years.SOme ideas that imply the suffering of innocent should not be considered normal or free speech,
|
Well in eastern europe gays are still severerly beaten by the ''normal'' guys. Things can get bloody. At least Russia isn't hypocritical about it and actually pass a law like that. The law itself doesn't really make sense to me though.
|
i would want to see statistics in 20 years how the percentages of gay people in russia have changed or if they will change at all. There are different scientific ideas about sexual identiy, the whole "born gay" thing is just one scientific idea there are others that suggest the biggest factor is very early childhood development; this law might prove something.
|
Russian Federation32 Posts
Guys, you made this news seems bigger that it really is. It doesn't change anything. Here, in Motherland, our people do not really support "gay pride" in any form. Many of us is ok with some peoples rights to be gay, but no one is going to fight for them. So, from our politicians point of view it is "win-win" situation. They will get some good publicity and it is all.
The thing is no one is going to monitor the implemenation of this law. It is mostly for good publicity. Only real implementation of it most likely will be a prosecution of some of our opposition who are really loud about gay rights. Which is bad, yeah, but nothing new to speak of.
|
On June 12 2013 22:06 cloneThorN 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. I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold. 1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays. 2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society.
Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights?
|
On June 12 2013 22:15 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:10 shekelberg wrote:
It actually goes both ways.
Wrussia 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? There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech and human rights.A couple of years ago a man name Adolf in Germany thought it debatable that jews are humans just like us and decided to exterminate them based on his sick fantasies.Even more recently a dude named osama exercised his free speech and thought it was debatable wheather the american presence in the middle east was justified and as a result 9/11 happened plus 2 wars in the middle years.SOme ideas that imply the suffering of innocent should not be considered normal or free speech,
Yeah but you forgot the part where everything is now hate speech and abused to shit by feminists, religious people and everyone else.
Words kill people like guns amirite? Ban assault speeches
|
On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote: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. According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
|
On June 12 2013 22:14 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:03 ZeRoX-45 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:50 Myles wrote:On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky. Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers. If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence. If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again ! yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
|
Austria24417 Posts
How the fuck does a law like that not go against the universal declaration of human rights?
Like, what. Freedom of speech is a basic human right.
|
I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
|
I can only smile thinking about the world a hundred years in the future (hopefully not that long though) when these kind of primitive issues are finally dealt with and people from that time will look back at us and think "what were those idiots thinking".
Humans are fascinating, we are taught to hate and judge others for things one cannot choose like their gender, color of their skin, nationality or sexual orientation rather than their actions.
It's just a depressing phenomenon which we'll hopefully be able to conquer eventually.
|
On June 12 2013 22:20 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:15 Mefano wrote:On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote:On June 12 2013 22:00 Jojo131 wrote:On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:41 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote:On June 12 2013 21:23 Incognoto wrote:On June 12 2013 20:29 S:klogW wrote:
[quote]
But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing? The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children. Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't. You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be. I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's. That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption. What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me. I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought. What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child. And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately. As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents. Just saying, the argument has some value. The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents. I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available. According to what study? There's no statistics needed to be done. As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
What you also can't do is prove why that matters significantly in context.
|
On June 12 2013 22:15 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 22:10 shekelberg wrote:
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? There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech and human rights.A couple of years ago a man name Adolf in Germany thought it debatable that jews are humans just like us and decided to exterminate them based on his sick fantasies.Even more recently a dude named osama exercised his free speech and thought it was debatable wheather the american presence in the middle east was justified and as a result 9/11 happened plus 2 wars in the middle years.SOme ideas that imply the suffering of innocent should not be considered normal or free speech,
And actually you can talk shit to gays all you want in the U.S. The government isn't going to stop you. That's why we have moronic groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and Focus on the Family. Hell just two days ago some drunk at a restaurant decided it would be funny to scream "get a girl faggots" at me and my friends. The cops never showed up and the government never told him he couldn't do that. I think most people who think we're "too PC" radically overestimate how involved the government is in policing speech.
|
United States5162 Posts
On June 12 2013 22:03 ZeRoX-45 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2013 21:50 Myles wrote:On June 12 2013 21:48 marvellosity wrote:On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital. Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky. Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers. If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
I'd say you might be foolish to expect it to change, but it's not your fault it happened. Simply being somewhere or something is never a provocation to be attacked or discriminated against.
|
On June 12 2013 22:21 MidKnight wrote:
I can only smile thinking about the world a hundred years in the future (hopefully not that long though) when these kind of primitive issues are finally dealt with and people from that time will look back at us and think "what were those idiots thinking".
Humans are fascinating, we are taught to hate and judge others for things one cannot choose like their gender, color of their skin, nationality or sexual orientation rather than their actions.
It's just a depressing phenomenon which we'll hopefully be able to conquer eventually.
Yeah intolerance of decadence is "primitive" Romans fell into decadence, where are they now?
|
On June 12 2013 22:21 DarkLordOlli wrote:
How the fuck does a law like that not go against the universal declaration of human rights?
Like, what. Freedom of speech is a basic human right.
it goes but Russia is to much of a superpower for anyone to do anything about it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
