Just when the rest of the world are strengthening LGTB rights and enforcing it on the legal level, the Duma, the Russian lower parliament, passed a law criminalizing telling kids about gay. That's right, if you tell people under 18 as much as that gays exist, you will be jailed, fined, and even deported. The law was passed through a unanimous vote of 436 - 0 in the parliament.
The bill's co-author, Yelena Mizulina, is head of the Duma's Committee for Family, Women, and Children. She says the idea is to protect Russian children from information that rejects "traditional family values."
"[The bill prohibits] the spreading of information aimed at forming nontraditional sexual attitudes among children," she said. "Secondly, [it prohibits] the imposition of information about nontraditional sexual relations that may cause interest among children."
The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Russia's lower house of parliament, the Duma, has passed a law imposing heavy fines for providing information about homosexuality to people under 18.
The measure was passed unanimously and will become law when approved by the upper house and President Vladimir Putin, a virtual formality.
Gay rights campaigners clashed with anti-gay activists outside the Duma.
The lower house also passed a bill imposing up to three years in jail on those who offend religious believers.
The law comes in the wake of the imprisoning of members of the punk band Pussy Riot for performing an anti-Putin protest in an Orthodox cathedral in February 2012.
Two band members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, are currently serving two-year jail terms.
The new law on "offending religious feelings of the faithful" will also take effect after approval by the upper house and the president. Street clashes
Violence between rival protesters spread onto Moscow's central street on Tuesday, reports the BBC's Steve Rosenberg in the capital. Pro-church protesters outside the Duma, Moscow, 11 June 2013 Orthodox believers demonstrated their support for the new law on religion
Gay rights campaigners were attacked and there were no police to stop the violence, says our correspondent. When one group ran into a shop to take refuge, their attackers waited and then ran in to find them.
Under the new law, private individuals promoting "homosexual behaviour among minors" face fines of up to 5,000 roubles (£100; $155) while officials risk paying 10 times that amount. Businesses and schools could be fined up to 500,000 roubles.
Homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993, but anti-gay sentiment is high.
A recent poll found that nearly half of Russians believe that the gay and lesbian community should not enjoy the same rights as other citizens.
Clearly in Russia gay teenagers are confused by learning about their sexual identity, the community around them and how to explore it safely and responsibly. Sexual repression will straighten them out in no time, if they don't understand their urges then they'll just disappear. If there is one thing gay children need its to be alienated...
On a related note, this law is really, really fucking retarded.
Well you guys have to understand how conservative Russia is to the extreme. It is just impossible that they would pursue this in the parliament, and at this degree. I have a fellow teacher tell me ones how when he went to a gay rights meeting, it had to be done underground!
There's been a fair few stories recently about this sort of attitude there. We had Section 28 in the UK before (repealed over 10 years ago now) but it wasn't as harsh as this (i.e. no fines or prison etc).
It is positive in one way though, it serves to show the world how Russia actually is and is a clear example of how backwards they are compared to modern societies just like the many Muslim and African countries who have similar attitudes towards gay people.
But obviously at the expense of the unfortunate people who will suffer, who I have nothing but sympathy for.
The stupidity of this law aside, how are they ever gonna uphold this law?
Let's say i live in Russia, and i explain what homosexuality is to my 10 year old son, because he heard the word in school...
1. What are they gonna do about it? If the teachers reported it, i could just say a stranger told him.
2. What are they gonna do about it, if my son starts to explain his fellow classmates and friends about it? Are they gonna fine a bunch of kids for something they don't understand at all, and will have no clue is even forbidden?(teachers can't mention homosexuality, so they won't know it's a crime).
436 to zero? Really? There's no voice of opposition to something this backwards in their legislature? That's actually quite shocking
This.
The Elites of Russia can do whatever they want in their country. Their last presidential election was such a joke. No one will condemn them for anything they do because they give gas to all of the countries of Europe.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Extremely disturbing. Russia has its share of problems but essentially condoning gay bashing is absurd. This sends a really bad message to the public and there is no way the bigots don't feel empowered.
On June 12 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote: Clearly in Russia gay teenagers are confused by learning about their sexual identity, the community around them and how to explore it safely and responsibly. Sexual repression will straighten them out in no time, if they don't understand their urges then they'll just disappear. If there is one thing gay children need its to be alienated...
Maybe give them a sound beating just be sure they gay is all out them. Or forced intercourse between gay men and women, with the rest of the gay class watching.
Really retarded. By the way, what is this law of "offending religious feelings of the faithful" that the article mentions? I have such shitty internet right now so it would probably take 5 minutes to google it, haha.
This is no surprise really, here in eastern Europe we've been raised under the impression that the homosexuality is a mental disorder and the word which everyone uses to describes the homosexuals with would be translated as ''the sickos''. Being raised in such an environment I of course support the law and I don't see how homosexuality could be accepted as normal or natural under any circumstances.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
Really retarded. By the way, what is this law of "offending religious feelings of the faithful" that the article mentions? I have such shitty internet right now so it would probably take 5 minutes to google it, haha.
What I got, doesn't mention the anti gay law but I assume they are linked together. From what I can gather russian punk band makes fun of church, church retaliates by banning gays lol wtf.
MOSCOW: Russia has passed a bill imposing jail terms of up to three years on those who offend religious believers after an anti-Vladimir Putin stunt by punk band Pussy Riot in a church polarised the predominantly Orthodox country last year. According to the bill passed in a 308 to two final vote, "public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the goal of offending religious feelings of the faithful" would be punishable with jail terms of up to one year in prison and fines of up to 300,000 rubles ($A9750). The same actions committed in churches and other places of worship would be punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine of up to 500,000 rubles. Among other forms of punishment to be meted out for the transgressions are compulsory community service and forced labour. Advertisement The controversial bill was proposed after several members of rock band Pussy Riot belted out a "punk prayer" against Mr Putin in an Orthodox cathedral last year. Two Pussy Riot members, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, are serving two years in prison after being convicted last August on charges of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
They also have 12000 nuclear missiles, they might be useful.
On the topic its pretty disgusting but nearly everything russia does is disgusting so no change there.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
They also have 12000 nuclear missiles, they might be useful.
On the topic its pretty disgusting but nearly everything russia does is disgusting so no change there.
If Russia endorses and protects terrorists that attack the US I would expect a retaliation. But sadly all they are doing is oppressing minorities because they are apparently very theological, which while stupid and backward is not a major concern for the US.
well, russia is kind of a broken state what is slowly losing all of its geopolitical power, maybe the rulers are traumatized and take it out on their "subjects".
Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
On June 12 2013 20:09 edlover420 wrote: This is no surprise really, here in eastern Europe we've been raised under the impression that the homosexuality is a mental disorder and the word which everyone uses to describes the homosexuals with would be translated as ''the sickos''. Being raised in such an environment I of course support the law and I don't see how homosexuality could be accepted as normal or natural under any circumstances.
This is like the exact same logic Hitler used against the jews. He was born in a place where the majority blamed the jews as traitors and culprits of germans loss in ww1.
It's also the exact same logic the KKK used against black people "hey, we have been abusing these n!ggers for generations, why stop now?"
On June 12 2013 20:19 LaNague wrote: well, russia is kind of a broken state what is slowly losing all of its geopolitical power, maybe the rulers are traumatized and take it out on their "subjects".
On the contrary, the new oligarchic elite are forming an alliance with the Orthodox church to consolidate their control over the state. Out with the old Tsars, in with the new Tsars, Russia never changes.
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
So you don't have anything against gays as long as they hide at home?
On June 12 2013 20:09 edlover420 wrote: This is no surprise really, here in eastern Europe we've been raised under the impression that the homosexuality is a mental disorder and the word which everyone uses to describes the homosexuals with would be translated as ''the sickos''. Being raised in such an environment I of course support the law and I don't see how homosexuality could be accepted as normal or natural under any circumstances.
This is like the exact same logic Hitler used against the jews. He was born in a place where the majority blamed the jews as traitors and culprits of germans loss in ww1.
It's also the exact same logic the KKK used against black people "hey, we have been abusing these n!ggers for generations, why stop now?"
If you want to start comparing with Hitler... you don't have to rope Jews into this. Gays were persecuted in the Third Reich and died in concentrations camps during the Third Reich.
On June 12 2013 20:09 edlover420 wrote: This is no surprise really, here in eastern Europe we've been raised under the impression that the homosexuality is a mental disorder and the word which everyone uses to describes the homosexuals with would be translated as ''the sickos''. Being raised in such an environment I of course support the law and I don't see how homosexuality could be accepted as normal or natural under any circumstances.
Because no matter what sexual orientation you have we are still the same people and it doesn't make you a sicko. Homosexuality not natural you say? About 80% of all spieces in nature is homosexual. I would say it's one of the most natural things there is. Homosexuality is not what's working against nature, only the socially created prejudices against homosexuals that was created by men is the real atrocity against nature. It's time for people in your county as well to wake up and start working against those distorted views of homosexuality.
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.
On June 12 2013 20:09 edlover420 wrote: This is no surprise really, here in eastern Europe we've been raised under the impression that the homosexuality is a mental disorder and the word which everyone uses to describes the homosexuals with would be translated as ''the sickos''. Being raised in such an environment I of course support the law and I don't see how homosexuality could be accepted as normal or natural under any circumstances.
Where exactly in Eastern Europe are you? Things aren't nearly as extreme over here. o0
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.
You think denying people certain rights and marginalizing them based on their sexual orientation is alright and we should condone such behaviour?
Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
Honestly, i think the reason you are tired of it, is because you never tried to even understand the basic concepts of it.
1. The gay right movement is not about informing you about them being gay,
2. It's about them trying to achive the same rights as straight people like you and me.
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
Doesn't this put Russia even further behind the rest of the world? What is so shocking to me is that none of the members of parliament stood up against this law being passed. An unanimous vote of 436 is astounding. Do Russians hate homosexuality so much because of their orthodox beliefs? I wonder.
This is why you don't want big government that can just take rights away on a whim. You need very small, decentralized government that isn't involved in marriage, or other crap and jailing people for victimless crimes.
But again, until everyone in the world figures out that big government is terrible and its not there to help you, but to hurt you and destroy your rights, we are not going to have liberty, we are not going to have prosperity, we are not going to progress to the next human level.
So the sooner that people all over the world realize that big government is bad, that free markets, free individuals, human interaction, liberty works the faster we can have great things.
But as long as people believe in this absurd notion that if you are in so called government you can rule over people and force them to do stuff or not to stuff and that you can control their lives, we are not going to have liberty and prosperity.
The problem is education, just like when 100 years ago they didn't understand that being black is having pigment basically, now its the not knowing that being gay is to a certain degree natural and these are people just like us with families, friends, etc...
Now some of the homosexual increase is due to certain type of food additives that are being put in certain foods and some of the hygiene products, and while the numbers may be artificially increased, its still a normal thing and just means they have a bit different hormones.
But again, until everyone realizes that we have inherited, inalienable human rights just by the fact we are human and no one can take those rights, and sure as hell government doesn't give us rights, we have them, we are born with rights and government should stay as far away as possible from infringing upon people's rights.
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?
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
I for one admire your bravery in posting this!
Bravery through posting something as that anonymously on the Internet? I can't seem to see the bravery coming through. Just an act of ignorance.
On June 12 2013 20:09 edlover420 wrote: This is no surprise really, here in eastern Europe we've been raised under the impression that the homosexuality is a mental disorder and the word which everyone uses to describes the homosexuals with would be translated as ''the sickos''. Being raised in such an environment I of course support the law and I don't see how homosexuality could be accepted as normal or natural under any circumstances.
This is like the exact same logic Hitler used against the jews. He was born in a place where the majority blamed the jews as traitors and culprits of germans loss in ww1.
It's also the exact same logic the KKK used against black people "hey, we have been abusing these n!ggers for generations, why stop now?"
If you want to start comparing with Hitler... you don't have to rope Jews into this. Gays were persecuted in the Third Reich and died in concentrations camps during the Third Reich.
Iknow, i just used the most commonly know group the nazi's persecuted(incase the other guy didn't know they did it)
On June 12 2013 20:28 NeThZOR wrote: Doesn't this put Russia even further behind the rest of the world? What is so shocking to me is that none of the members of parliament stood up against this law being passed. An unanimous vote of 436 is astounding. Do Russians hate homosexuality so much because of their orthodox beliefs? I wonder.
I doubt it has to do with their orthodox beliefs as you put it, since Romania is primarily orthodox christian as well, yet people don't really give a damn about whether or not someone is homosexual, except for maybe backwards rural areas (the same kind of areas that shelter hateful rednecks in the USA). I'd wager it has more to do with who these parliament members are and who is really pulling the strings on this.
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
I for one admire your bravery in posting this!
Bravery through posting something as that anonymously on the Internet? I can't seem to see the bravery coming through. Just an act of ignorance.
He's brave to stand up to all the E-HATE, obviously.
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?
I am not saying that being anti-gay is good. You can have good or bad opinion on the issue, but what is important is that you are allowed to argue it with a good amount of freedom. In the case of this OP, it is already clear that he does not want to hear what the religious conservative opinion on the matter is, and thus all comment lead to the same direction, calling the law retarded.
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.
I'm gonna go out on a limp here, but i think it's not healthy for anyone except for oppressors to disscus the "benefits" of oppression.
i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
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?
I am not saying that being anti-gay is good. You can have good or bad opinion on the issue, but what is important is that you are allowed to argue it with a good amount of freedom. In the case of this OP, it is already clear that he does not want to hear what the religious conservative opinion on the matter is, and thus all comment lead to the same direction, calling the law retarded.
Is it really a matter of opinion? Because as far as I know, arbitrary persecution is nothing but detrimental to both the targeted group and society as a whole. There is no "good" side to it.
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".
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
i have friends who are either gay or bisexual. Well, today they don't know what to do. If they keep living their lives they will be fined and jailed pretty soon. By just living in our spectacular country. Fucking animals these assholes in the parlament. Plain stupid, what the fuck.
On June 12 2013 20:34 xM(Z wrote: i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
You DO realize, that whatever you want it or not, most humans begins to f!ck like rabbits around the age of 16 years, right? If no one teaches them about sex before that time, they are gonna be vulnarable to STD's.
Teaching about sex is done because it's necessary for the childrens well being, not because we want to f!ck them.
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?
I am not saying that being anti-gay is good. You can have good or bad opinion on the issue, but what is important is that you are allowed to argue it with a good amount of freedom. In the case of this OP, it is already clear that he does not want to hear what the religious conservative opinion on the matter is, and thus all comment lead to the same direction, calling the law retarded.
Is it really a matter of opinion? Because as far as I know, arbitrary persecution is nothing but detrimental to both the targeted group and society as a whole. There is no "good" side to it.
See, you do not even want to listen to the opposing argument anymore.
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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
It's not war against minorities. It's being equal with the native population.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
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?
I am not saying that being anti-gay is good. You can have good or bad opinion on the issue, but what is important is that you are allowed to argue it with a good amount of freedom. In the case of this OP, it is already clear that he does not want to hear what the religious conservative opinion on the matter is, and thus all comment lead to the same direction, calling the law retarded.
Is it really a matter of opinion? Because as far as I know, arbitrary persecution is nothing but detrimental to both the targeted group and society as a whole. There is no "good" side to it.
See, you do not even want to listen to the opposing argument anymore.
Go ahead. Find a single reason, or more if you want, for persecuting homosexuals, that outweighs the inhumane treatment of said homosexuals.
On June 12 2013 20:34 xM(Z wrote: i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
You DO realize, that whatever you want it or not, most humans begins to f!ck like rabbits around the age of 16 years, right? If no one teaches them about sex before that time, they are gonna be vulnarable to STD's.
Teaching about sex is done because it's necessary for the childrens well being, not because we want to f!ck them.
sex at an early age is facilitated by society via information and ... gadgets. did your (grand)grandparents start having sex ~16?.
On June 12 2013 20:34 xM(Z wrote: i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
You DO realize, that whatever you want it or not, most humans begins to f!ck like rabbits around the age of 16 years, right? If no one teaches them about sex before that time, they are gonna be vulnarable to STD's.
Teaching about sex is done because it's necessary for the childrens well being, not because we want to f!ck them.
sex at an early age is facilitated by society via information and ... gadgets. did your (grand)grandparents start having sex ~16?.
On June 12 2013 20:34 xM(Z wrote: i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
You DO realize, that whatever you want it or not, most humans begins to f!ck like rabbits around the age of 16 years, right? If no one teaches them about sex before that time, they are gonna be vulnarable to STD's.
Teaching about sex is done because it's necessary for the childrens well being, not because we want to f!ck them.
sex at an early age is facilitated by society via information and ... gadgets. did your (grand)grandparents start having sex ~16?.
Probably. The idea the people shouldn't have sex until they're an 'adult' is a very new idea. For the vast majority of history people were getting married and having kids soon after puberty.
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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
It is also a requirement for any immigrants moving to France that they MUST learn French. How can you exist in a society where you will often not be understood if you don't speak the language? You don't have to ONLY speak French, but you must be able to interact in society. And france is quite socialist about most issues, this is one I understand. Its silly for one or one hundred people to move to a country and expect the entire population to learn to speak to them, when it is they who chose to come to a new country. that said they do provide free classes to those who need it.
On June 12 2013 20:34 xM(Z wrote: i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
You DO realize, that whatever you want it or not, most humans begins to f!ck like rabbits around the age of 16 years, right? If no one teaches them about sex before that time, they are gonna be vulnarable to STD's.
Teaching about sex is done because it's necessary for the childrens well being, not because we want to f!ck them.
sex at an early age is facilitated by society via information and ... gadgets. did your (grand)grandparents start having sex ~16?.
Probably, mine were married by 18.
but then, church approves! and marriage makes STD sharing a 1 on 1 afair
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
I am aware of the statue you're referring to. I'm also aware that you do nothing but bring religious debate into every single thread you post in, that this fact has gotten you banned already (why not permanently, I can only wonder) and you still do it to this very day. The reason you are disadvantaged in this discussion is not only the fact that you see any amount of good in persecution (ironically, while crying that you're being persecuted in this thread) but also your past conduct on these forums.
There have also been numerous comprehensive discussion that explored every facet and every aspect of such issues. This thread is not for religious debate. Go to a place that allows that, if that's what you're looking for. Or read up on our own closed threads.
There is no reason to allow whatever irrational justification you might find in the act of arbitrary persecution, because there isn't a thing that justifies it.
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?
I am not saying that being anti-gay is good. You can have good or bad opinion on the issue, but what is important is that you are allowed to argue it with a good amount of freedom. In the case of this OP, it is already clear that he does not want to hear what the religious conservative opinion on the matter is, and thus all comment lead to the same direction, calling the law retarded.
Is it really a matter of opinion? Because as far as I know, arbitrary persecution is nothing but detrimental to both the targeted group and society as a whole. There is no "good" side to it.
See, you do not even want to listen to the opposing argument anymore.
Instead of complaining about the OP, just tell us your argument of why this law is so good, useful and fair !
yes, you should try not to be biased when making a thread, but sometime it is simply not possible. "Yesterday a man killed 27 babies with a chainsaw and then ate all of them. WAIT let me try to find a reason why he was right in doing that so I don't appear biased when telling the story to my friends !"
On June 12 2013 20:47 Zeo wrote: How is this anti-gay? All its doing is having kids find out about homosexuality when they are mature enough to make a conscious decision regarding it.
1st and most important one: I denies teaching. Let's say 15 year old son is attracted to a boy in his class. He will have no idea why, and will think something is wrong with him, because no one have ever taught him on the subject. And even if he tries to seek help with either his parents or authority figures, they are not allowed to tell him about it.
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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
It's not war against minorities. It's being equal with the native population.
What do you mean? Yes, it's not a war because they're not forcing anyone to stay in Russia, but if you're not allowed to teach your child about sexuality it's pretty clear that there is a strong bias against homosexuality, which is also a minority. You can't force a gay person to be "equal" with the rest.
Not saying that I agree with different "official" languages in the same country, if they choose to keep it at one that's fine, I was just curious on how accurate the media depicts these events.
On June 12 2013 20:02 cloneThorN wrote: The stupidity of this law aside, how are they ever gonna uphold this law?
Let's say i live in Russia, and i explain what homosexuality is to my 10 year old son, because he heard the word in school...
1. What are they gonna do about it? If the teachers reported it, i could just say a stranger told him.
2. What are they gonna do about it, if my son starts to explain his fellow classmates and friends about it? Are they gonna fine a bunch of kids for something they don't understand at all, and will have no clue is even forbidden?(teachers can't mention homosexuality, so they won't know it's a crime).
They are going to ask CIA to give them all their online records on your and your son and find something to pin on you :D
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:36 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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
It is also a requirement for any immigrants moving to France that they MUST learn French. How can you exist in a society where you will often not be understood if you don't speak the language? You don't have to ONLY speak French, but you must be able to interact in society. And france is quite socialist about most issues, this is one I understand. Its silly for one or one hundred people to move to a country and expect the entire population to learn to speak to them, when it is they who chose to come to a new country. that said they do provide free classes to those who need it.
You do realize it's not about immigrants, right? Russia is about 80% russians, the rest are minorities that live in the same place they always have, in territories that have been annexed by Russia earlier in history.
Not surprised at all at this law, Russia is socially backwards, and Putin uses every trick in the populist handbook to remain in power.
I'm playing 1v1 ladder on EU server and I get cheesed by a russian player. I get really angry and unleash my frustration via the chat and call him a bastard child. In my rage episode, I let slip that he's probably gay for trying such a strategy in 1 v 1 (even tho it has no relation). What is the Russian governement gonna do about the internet kids like me?!
I'm playing 1v1 ladder on EU server and I get cheesed by a russian player. I get really angry and unleash my frustration via the chat and call him a bastard child. In my rage episode, I let slip that he's probably gay for trying such a strategy in 1 v 1 (even tho it has no relation). What is the Russian governement gonna do about the internet kids like me?!
I'm playing 1v1 ladder on EU server and I get cheesed by a russian player. I get really angry and unleash my frustration via the chat and call him a bastard child. In my rage episode, I let slip that he's probably gay for trying such a strategy in 1 v 1 (even tho it has no relation). What is the Russian governement gonna do about the internet kids like me?!
They are going to kill the russian kid... He knows too much !
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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
It's not war against minorities. It's being equal with the native population.
What do you mean? Yes, it's not a war because they're not forcing anyone to stay in Russia, but if you're not allowed to teach your child about sexuality it's pretty clear that there is a strong bias against homosexuality, which is also a minority. You can't force a gay person to be "equal" with the rest.
Not saying that I agree with different "official" languages in the same country, if they choose to keep it at one that's fine, I was just curious on how accurate the media depicts these events.
I've stated that I've nothing against homosexuals, but making them feel special promotes inequality as they have the "moral high ground" HOWEVER: My personal opinion: let them get married and adopt and whatever I don't really give a shit as long as they stop going all "gay pride world wide" on my face.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist?
On June 12 2013 20:34 xM(Z wrote: i'm 50/50 about this but then again i would keep everyone under 18yrs (yes i know its arbitrary but it's the number used by russians) in the dark about everything related to sexuality. i feel bad for westerners trying to make sex at 13 legal. besides, the church assumes you're not having sex until you get married anyway so there is plenty of time to learn about it after 18. it is discrimination but i don't know why, telling a preteen that he is gay, is always the right call. it may help him but it also may screw him over.
You DO realize, that whatever you want it or not, most humans begins to f!ck like rabbits around the age of 16 years, right? If no one teaches them about sex before that time, they are gonna be vulnarable to STD's.
Teaching about sex is done because it's necessary for the childrens well being, not because we want to f!ck them.
sex at an early age is facilitated by society via information and ... gadgets. did your (grand)grandparents start having sex ~16?.
Yes. They absolutely did. The longer you go back in history, the earier they begang to bang eachother.
An example. My greatgrandmother had a child with a german soldier in ww2, at the age of 15.
My grandmother started "dateing" as in banging with some local boys, at the age of 15 too.
My father accidently impregnated an older student, when he was 14...
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".
Since you bothered to answer, is the speech about minorities true (that Putin gave, I think)? Meaning the one where it was stated that there will be no secondary language in Russia and everyone who lives there will learn Russian or can feel free to GTFO? Apparently it was met with standing ovations.
I'm just curious if the war against minorities of any kind is as severe as the media makes it out to be.
It's not war against minorities. It's being equal with the native population.
What do you mean? Yes, it's not a war because they're not forcing anyone to stay in Russia, but if you're not allowed to teach your child about sexuality it's pretty clear that there is a strong bias against homosexuality, which is also a minority. You can't force a gay person to be "equal" with the rest.
Not saying that I agree with different "official" languages in the same country, if they choose to keep it at one that's fine, I was just curious on how accurate the media depicts these events.
I've stated that I've nothing against homosexuals, but making them feel special promotes inequality as they have the "moral high ground" HOWEVER: My personal opinion: let them get married and adopt and whatever I don't really give a shit as long as they stop going all "gay pride world wide" on my face.
The reason they're going all "gay pride world wide" on your face is because they're not allowed to get married and adopt and whatever.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
The BBC source says: "providing information about homosexuality to people under 18." [1]
The Independent sources say: "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” "spreading information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children, suggesting this behaviour is attractive [...]" [1, 2]
German sources I read (Rianovosti) also use the 2nd one. While it's still very strange, I think this suggests that the title & op is wrong. You're (probably? Oh wait it's Russia we must hate!) not getting fined for mentioning homosexuality & explaining it.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
No you lack knowledge of this situation or you conveniently overlook it. The "two Russians of opposing views" hold views that do not tolerate someone, that is where the entire problem stems.
The problem does not begin with someone existing as a gay individual, it begins when outside forces, for example the two Russians in this thread, do not treat an existence tolerably.
There is no tolerance for intolerance. I can see however that you conveniently overlook details when they are not beneficial to your cause of supporting anti-gay individuals.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Nor do most gay people.
The status quo is straight people 'parading' how straight they are. Look at practically all advertisements, tv shows, music, whatever you like.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Nor do most gay people.
The status quo is straight people 'parading' how straight they are. Look at practically all advertisements, tv shows, music, whatever you like.
Sex does sell, and seeing as most people are straight, that's just a fact, making ads or w/e that appeal to straight people is more profitable than making ads that appeal to gay people. It is all about the money in advertisements, tv shows and music nowadays.
On June 12 2013 21:04 Zocat wrote: The BBC source says: "providing information about homosexuality to people under 18." [1]
The Independent sources say: "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” "spreading information aimed at forming non- traditional sexual behaviour among children, suggesting this behaviour is attractive [...]" [1, 2]
German sources I read (Rianovosti) also use the 2nd one. While it's still very strange, I think this suggests that the title & op is wrong. You're (probably? Oh wait it's Russia we must hate!) not getting fined for mentioning homosexuality & explaining it.
The BBC has been anti-Russia for a long time now. This is why you always need to get your news from multiple sources
I'm not sure how to phrase this, but I too am tired of all the LBGT rhetoric, especially on the Internet, where it's impossible to discuss the subject objectively. See, I do support their fight for rights, and I have had gay friends.
However, why are some people glorifying the LBGT movement? TBH it's annoying me as much as the preachers that go about spewing whatever. I'm not even religious (maybe Agnostic), and yet I believe that the gift of human life, through consummation between a man and woman, is precious beyond belief. Both orthodox religion and homosexuality does kinda detract from the human race's progression IMO. Of course, I'm not demeaning all their contributions, just that I feel there's a fundamental flaw in the inability to produce a new human life.
To me, homosexuals are an unfortunate circumstance of how the world works. Yes, they absolutely should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, I'm all for that, but there's no need to go about glorifying it. It has been stated that homosexuality is not a disorder, I acknowledge that, but deep down I do wish that it was, and that it could be "cured".
This is my personal belief. It might offend many, but, well. :/
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Nor do most gay people.
The status quo is straight people 'parading' how straight they are. Look at practically all advertisements, tv shows, music, whatever you like.
Sex does sell, and seeing as most people are straight, that's just a fact, making ads or w/e that appeal to straight people is more profitable than making ads that appeal to gay people. It is all about the money in advertisements, tv shows and music nowadays.
I'm not disputing that, but your assertion is that gay people shove it in people's faces (by and large, we do not) whereas the reality is the other way round (which is fine, I'm not complaining about it).
Groups of people talk about sex all the time, and almost always it will reference the opposite sex, because that's the majority. Gays don't complain about it because there's nothing to complain about, but it's rather irksome when straight people like you complain about having 'gay' shoved down your throat, when the converse is everyday reality for gay people.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
so you have never heard guys talking about how hot they find women x or y or women dressing up to attract men, men dressing up to attract women?
do you live under a rock? the whole world is nothing else but "displaying how straight they are". its all about sex and sexuality, every single bit we do.
436 to zero? Really? There's no voice of opposition to something this backwards in their legislature? That's actually quite shocking
Not to those who follow events in Russia. The country is less and less democratic
According to Vtsiom 88 % support the new law. So the it's obviously the democratic will of people or at least 88 % of them which is more than enough to pass it.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Nor do most gay people.
The status quo is straight people 'parading' how straight they are. Look at practically all advertisements, tv shows, music, whatever you like.
Sex does sell, and seeing as most people are straight, that's just a fact, making ads or w/e that appeal to straight people is more profitable than making ads that appeal to gay people. It is all about the money in advertisements, tv shows and music nowadays.
I'm not disputing that, but your assertion is that gay people shove it in people's faces (by and large, we do not) whereas the reality is the other way round (which is fine, I'm not complaining about it).
Groups of people talk about sex all the time, and almost always it will reference the opposite sex, because that's the majority. Gays don't complain about it because there's nothing to complain about, but it's rather irksome when straight people like you complain about having 'gay' shoved down your throat, when the converse is everyday reality for gay people.
Please do note that I'm simply speaking from my own experiences, if most gay people aren't doing that in the UK, it's IMO a good thing, I don't have anything against being gay, but to some (not all) it does quite seem like a religion. Which is still all fine, but it occasionally gets out of hand, in Finland we do have anti-straight gay bars.
so you have never heard guys talking about how hot they find women x or y or women dressing up to attract men, men dressing up to attract women?
do you live under a rock? the whole world is nothing else but "displaying how straight they are". its all about sex and sexuality, every single bit we do.
Of course it is, but gay people dress up to attract other gay people too, don't they.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Nor do most gay people.
The status quo is straight people 'parading' how straight they are. Look at practically all advertisements, tv shows, music, whatever you like.
Sex does sell, and seeing as most people are straight, that's just a fact, making ads or w/e that appeal to straight people is more profitable than making ads that appeal to gay people. It is all about the money in advertisements, tv shows and music nowadays.
I'm not disputing that, but your assertion is that gay people shove it in people's faces (by and large, we do not) whereas the reality is the other way round (which is fine, I'm not complaining about it).
Groups of people talk about sex all the time, and almost always it will reference the opposite sex, because that's the majority. Gays don't complain about it because there's nothing to complain about, but it's rather irksome when straight people like you complain about having 'gay' shoved down your throat, when the converse is everyday reality for gay people.
Please do note that I'm simply speaking from my own experiences, if most gay people aren't doing that in the UK, it's IMO a good thing, I don't have anything against being gay, but to some (not all) it does quite seem like a religion. Which is still all fine, but it occasionally gets out of hand, in Finland we do have anti-straight gay bars.
Any minority group will have its 'activists' (which are to an extent necessary). Some are fairly militant.
But it is a product of homosexuals living in a heterosexual-dominated world. Complaining about it when society is all about heterosexuality, catering to you, seems silly to me.
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.
On June 12 2013 21:14 fluidin wrote: I'm not sure how to phrase this, but I too am tired of all the LBGT rhetoric, especially on the Internet, where it's impossible to discuss the subject objectively. See, I do support their fight for rights, and I have had gay friends.
However, why are some people glorifying the LBGT movement? TBH it's annoying me as much as the preachers that go about spewing whatever. I'm not even religious (maybe Agnostic), and yet I believe that the gift of human life, through consummation between a man and woman, is precious beyond belief. Both orthodox religion and homosexuality does kinda detract from the human race's progression IMO. Of course, I'm not demeaning all their contributions, just that I feel there's a fundamental flaw in the inability to produce a new human life.
To me, homosexuals are an unfortunate circumstance of how the world works. Yes, they absolutely should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, I'm all for that, but there's no need to go about glorifying it. It has been stated that homosexuality is not a disorder, I acknowledge that, but deep down I do wish that it was, and that it could be "cured".
This is my personal belief. It might offend many, but, well. :/
Nobody is glorifying it. They are not unable to produce a new human life. Plenty people capable of producing new human life do not.
So homosexuals are an unfortunate circumstance and deep down you wish gay people had a disorder so you could cure them?
Somebody give this guy a medal as his opinions are clearly well thought out and morally sound!
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist?
Somebody ban this troll please.
You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
Couldn't find the copy of it, it will be published after Putin signs it. However, I did find, that it imposes fines on something called public "non-traditional sexual relations propaganda" (definition not available yet) via media, public events, Internet.
Includes:
1. Information that "enforces" the formation of non-traditinal sexual orientation in the underaged individual 2. Information that describes/advertises the appeal of non-traditional sexual orientation and relations 3. Informationt that is touting non-traditional sexual orientation.
The law doesn't say anything about educational information/programs, so it's unclear whether it fits any of the categories. IIRC sex ed is taught in 7th grade, that didn't change.
Translation may be a bit innacurate, - the best I could come up with so far.
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.
There's a whole lot of real life experience and conclusive research which shows your gut feeling isn't worth much.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Really ?
You never heard of a guy telling the story of how he fucked this random hot chick the night before ? I think it describe very well "parading how straight/gay they are". People are completely fine with straight people acting like that, but as soon as someone gay does it, people act disgusted.
On June 12 2013 21:14 fluidin wrote: I'm not sure how to phrase this, but I too am tired of all the LBGT rhetoric, especially on the Internet, where it's impossible to discuss the subject objectively. See, I do support their fight for rights, and I have had gay friends.
However, why are some people glorifying the LBGT movement? TBH it's annoying me as much as the preachers that go about spewing whatever. I'm not even religious (maybe Agnostic), and yet I believe that the gift of human life, through consummation between a man and woman, is precious beyond belief. Both orthodox religion and homosexuality does kinda detract from the human race's progression IMO. Of course, I'm not demeaning all their contributions, just that I feel there's a fundamental flaw in the inability to produce a new human life.
To me, homosexuals are an unfortunate circumstance of how the world works. Yes, they absolutely should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, I'm all for that, but there's no need to go about glorifying it. It has been stated that homosexuality is not a disorder, I acknowledge that, but deep down I do wish that it was, and that it could be "cured".
This is my personal belief. It might offend many, but, well. :/
When a group is persecuted, society needs to 'swing the other way' for a while in order to set things straight.
For example, in Britain we have systems designed to help women get into executive jobs. This is unfair to men, but we have to do this for a while until we get about half of these jobs occupied by women. Currently it's probably less than 5%, due to many factors and possibly some subconscious sexism.
This is not about glorifying anything but rather it is about fixing a problem. This is not an attack on you, but as long as there are a lot of people who wish that homosexuality could be cured then there will be a need for a strong LBGT movement.
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.
436 to zero? Really? There's no voice of opposition to something this backwards in their legislature? That's actually quite shocking
Not to those who follow events in Russia. The country is less and less democratic
According to Vtsiom 88 % support the new law. So the it's obviously the democratic will of people or at least 88 % of them which is more than enough to pass it.
You forgot (or didnt know) that apart from listening to majority, democtratic country is protecting its minorities.
On June 12 2013 20:04 Sword of Omens wrote: [quote]
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
Nor do most gay people.
The status quo is straight people 'parading' how straight they are. Look at practically all advertisements, tv shows, music, whatever you like.
Sex does sell, and seeing as most people are straight, that's just a fact, making ads or w/e that appeal to straight people is more profitable than making ads that appeal to gay people. It is all about the money in advertisements, tv shows and music nowadays.
I'm not disputing that, but your assertion is that gay people shove it in people's faces (by and large, we do not) whereas the reality is the other way round (which is fine, I'm not complaining about it).
Groups of people talk about sex all the time, and almost always it will reference the opposite sex, because that's the majority. Gays don't complain about it because there's nothing to complain about, but it's rather irksome when straight people like you complain about having 'gay' shoved down your throat, when the converse is everyday reality for gay people.
Please do note that I'm simply speaking from my own experiences, if most gay people aren't doing that in the UK, it's IMO a good thing, I don't have anything against being gay, but to some (not all) it does quite seem like a religion. Which is still all fine, but it occasionally gets out of hand, in Finland we do have anti-straight gay bars.
Any minority group will have its 'activists' (which are to an extent necessary). Some are fairly militant.
But it is a product of homosexuals living in a heterosexual-dominated world. Complaining about it when society is all about heterosexuality, catering to you, seems silly to me.
Sorry for being repetitive, but again, to start this I say, I don't have anything against homosexuals, some of my friends are bi/homo and it is totally fine. I don't complain exclusively about homosexuals being militant about it, it's also irritating when preachers are militant about their religion OR when a straight person makes a big deal about him being so straight and good for being straight. However I don't see a reason to get offended by any of this, there will always be annoying people, complaining people, concerned people and people who defend minorities to death. I'm going to have to leave to get some dinner but I''l check back later.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:45 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist?
Somebody ban this troll please.
You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
I didn't suggest you should be banned because you have a different opinion.
You should be banned because you're a troll.
Opposing opinions on slavery or racism or homophobia, to name but a few, aren't really welcome, nor should they be.
If it was a religious, political, economical, philosophical or any number of different types of discussion then the OP shouldn't be biased and all opinions are of course extremely welcome.
On June 12 2013 21:34 zul wrote: I would love to read some insight from some russian members of the community.
It would be nice to hear something from them especially since sources seem to be saying slightly different things, also just to get a direct perspective.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:45 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist?
Somebody ban this troll please.
You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
I didn't suggest you should be banned because you have a different opinion.
You should be banned because you're a troll.
Opposing opinions on slavery or racism or homophobia, to name but a few, aren't really welcome, nor should they be.
If it was a religious, political, economical, philosophical or any number of different types of discussion then the OP shouldn't be biased and all opinions are of course extremely welcome.
This is not one of those cases.
Why am I a troll? Because I have a different opinion? It really seems that you do not know how to use reason.
I extremely encourage opposing views on this case because as far as I read from the report, it is not even about being gay directly but in protecting minors what what their culture and society sees as a threat or whatever. I do not know about this threat or their culture, that is why I want to listen to opposing views.
436 to zero? Really? There's no voice of opposition to something this backwards in their legislature? That's actually quite shocking
Not to those who follow events in Russia. The country is less and less democratic
According to Vtsiom 88 % support the new law. So the it's obviously the democratic will of people or at least 88 % of them which is more than enough to pass it.
You forgot (or didnt know) that apart from listening to majority, democtratic country is protecting its minorities.
Political equality is a principle of democracy sure, but social equality is not required for a state to be democratic. Majority rule is a fact of democracy and in the end its about the will of the people, and its pretty obvious that the law passed is the will of the people.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:45 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist?
Somebody ban this troll please.
You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
I didn't suggest you should be banned because you have a different opinion.
You should be banned because you're a troll.
Opposing opinions on slavery or racism or homophobia, to name but a few, aren't really welcome, nor should they be.
If it was a religious, political, economical, philosophical or any number of different types of discussion then the OP shouldn't be biased and all opinions are of course extremely welcome.
This is not one of those cases.
Why am I a troll? Because I have a different opinion? It really seems that you do not know how to use reason.
I extremely encourage opposing views on this case because as far as I read from the report, it is not even about being gay directly but in protecting minors what what their culture and society sees as a threat or whatever. I do not know about this threat or their culture, that is why I want to listen to opposing views.
You see "protecting minors", we see pointless censorship of information pertaining to a group of people that are misunderstood and stigmatized enough as it is, especially outside of the Western world.
Nothing good ever comes from advocating and condoning ignorance.
On June 12 2013 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.
Okay, so I have been reading peoples responses from other countries and then the Russians and am noticing one thing. This isn't even being reported on to the public.
My father was very Anti-Gay growing up, and my mother could care less if someone was gay or straight, I was anti-gay growing up as a teenager until I got to know some gay people in highschool and found out I was just retarded for disliking people for no reason, I changed my thought process due to this.
I am not for the law, and like many governments the Russian government is corrupt, most Russians know it's corrupt, but hey American government is even worse nowadays, so to the comment about maybe it should be liberated? Well most of the people who actually control Russia are not even in their own country, most are underground and in different countries. At least in America you know who to kill to free the nation and go back to being a Republic. Russia can't really do that sadly. It would be like killing the Pawns on a chess board, but the enemy can place more after you kill them, and you can't find out who is putting the pieces on the board.
So opinion wise, yes it's a stupid law, I personally don't believe in gay rights or female rights, I believe in equal rights, I'm tired of it either way, politics should be focused on more important and relevant is. In almost all governments the officials talk about useless gibberish rather then real issues. People being gay will not destroy your country, Gay people have existed since the times of Adam and Steve.
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
Do you realize that by allowing someone to support intolerance you become a hypocrite to what you are saying? The problem with allowing someone to support an intolerant agenda is that they then censor, among other things, the group they are intolerant against.
There is no "middle ground" where the hateful/intolerant and the tolerant can coexist. The hateful/intolerant actively seek to destroy the other group.
The tolerant can tolerate the other. While the intolerant does not allow the other to even express its opinion. The discussion here except for the two Russians is intolerant of opposing views.
On June 12 2013 20:51 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:45 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:37 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
On June 12 2013 20:27 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Nevermind, your name is Christ the Redeemer... -_-
This is the bias I am talking about. FYI, Christ the Redeemer is a landmark in my country! For you not to even recognize that speaks volumes about your cultural ignorance. I have no problem if a person supports Satanism, unicorns, socialism, orthodox catholicism, believing in Catholic miracles, doing pagan rituals, whatever, but I have a problem when people are immediately disadvantaged in a discussion. The framing of this OP immediately puts the orthodox catholics at a disadvantage.
There are hundreds of years worth of discourse on this, and it is all under the bridge. Done. No further discussion necessary. Discriminating people because of their race, creed, and gender is morally indefensible. Society has grown much since the Inquisition, and we have become a more tolerant society. To even start to argue about religious justification of bigotry is worthy of hell, it's a shame it does not exist.
Do your research, you have the power to liberate yourself from ignorance.
So far in this thread, there are 2 Russians, and they are both in favor of the law, Can we at least listen to them
Would you want to listen to 2 racist guys tell you why it's good to be racist?
Somebody ban this troll please.
You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
I didn't suggest you should be banned because you have a different opinion.
You should be banned because you're a troll.
Opposing opinions on slavery or racism or homophobia, to name but a few, aren't really welcome, nor should they be.
If it was a religious, political, economical, philosophical or any number of different types of discussion then the OP shouldn't be biased and all opinions are of course extremely welcome.
This is not one of those cases.
Why am I a troll? Because I have a different opinion? It really seems that you do not know how to use reason.
I extremely encourage opposing views on this case because as far as I read from the report, it is not even about being gay directly but in protecting minors what what their culture and society sees as a threat or whatever. I do not know about this threat or their culture, that is why I want to listen to opposing views.
OP says its to protect them (youth) from threats against traditional family values.
Basically a society that assumes heteronormativity struggling with changes to the status quo.
I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
On June 12 2013 21:25 Christ the Redeemer wrote: You are the exact opposite of your username, what a shame. Ban me because I have a different opinion? I did not say racism or hate gay is ok, All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion, all sides should be given equal opportunity to express their opinion, and the way this OP is constructed is discouraging opposing opinion.
Since you are here posting I think we can assume that all sides do indeed have opportunity to express their opinion.
If the OP was phrased from the the other side of the debate - i.e. That the Russians are completely correct in restricting education involving non-traditional relationships, then I can pretty much guarantee that it would make no difference to the responses - most would come against the Russian stance and a few would support it. The way the OP is constructed has nothing to do with how people respond.
On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way.
But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing?
The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't.
You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be.
I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's.
That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
You seem to be a reasonable and well-intended individual, and if I'm not misconstruing what you're saying, then you believe that being adopted by a gay couple could prove very detrimental to children because of the social stigma and taboo associated with this, am I correct?
Now, let me ask you this: do you think it is a better solution to condone the status quo and swipe the issue under the rug, or fight for a society in which gay couples do have the right to adopt children without them or any other family member (including the child in question) being stigmatized or discriminated against? Sure, the latter would be a longer and more arduous process, and intolerance will never, I repeat, never be completely rooted out from our society. Still, I think it's obvious which future would be more fair...
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.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
On June 12 2013 21:43 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.
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.
Mail order brides are perfectly acceptable, but apparently the moral line is drawn at discussing homosexual behavior.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year.
No one makes you go to these parades, or festivals as far as I know. They are there, they are queer, they always have and will be; might as well learn to accept it.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I know that this is one thing which is taken out of context, but it describes the problem with Russia so wonderfully - it is just a society with values very different from what most of us (the relatively young westerners) want to uphold. Things like this should be repeatedly slapped into the face of all the pro-Russian lobbists in my country.
This doesn't necesarilly mean that Russia or it's goverment are "bad", "evil" or whatever - while I have met many Russians who would very gladly let the whole Duma freeze in Siberia (mainly because I get into contact only with people with high education), there are many others who are perfectly fine with these things, so let them be. But it really means that Russia is still not a valid partner for the western world - which is exactly the oposite from what a pretty large lobby (which has been proven to be backed by moeny from Russian industry) tries to tell us.
On June 12 2013 21:43 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.
On June 12 2013 20:26 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I was under the impression that neutrality and objectivity is important. But reading the op, it is obvious which side of the issue it already stands, thereby affecting the discussion. What about those who favor this law? OPs like this discourage a healthy discussion because they already manipulate the discussion to go on a specific way.
But who would argue that being anti-gay is a good thing?
The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't.
You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be.
I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's.
That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Women can make themselves more susceptible to rape, though they are rarely if ever to blame.
Gay parades may make these people more susceptible to oppression, but they are parading because they already feel oppressed.
436 to zero? Really? There's no voice of opposition to something this backwards in their legislature? That's actually quite shocking
I thought the same.. it reeks of some kinda 'if you vote against this, you'll get shot by the KGB' hidden motive. No way can they legitimately vote unanimously on something so retarded.
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.
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 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 21:43 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 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.
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?....
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 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 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...
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 21:43 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.
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 21:43 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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...
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 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
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 22:10 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.
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 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 22:10 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 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 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.
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 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 22:10 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.
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 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.
So you're saying you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than blind statements. Cool. You can take a lemon bar on your way out.
On June 12 2013 22:18 idonthinksobro wrote: 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.
You already have wealth of data from centuries of different levels of oppression. This law will prove nothing. We already know more than whatever this law can provide. And primary purpose of laws should not be validation of scientific theories.
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?
I think the problem is in the fact that the child has no choice in the matter. He shouldn't have to face the possibility of ridicule at some point in the future for something out of his control.
That being said, this situation obviously shouldn't exist to begin with, and in some countries/areas it very well might not. In the southern half of the United States however, I can say from personal experience this type of discrimination does exist and to put a child through it with knowledge of what you are doing is malicious to that child. This type of environment needs to be destroyed as soon as possible so that such discrimination would not be an issue, but presently it is not a fair thing to do to a child with knowledge that the child would be discriminated against.
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
That's the only explanation there can possibly be for this. In that case, goddamnit Russia, stop pretending to be a democracy
I mean, Austria has a law against revival of Nazi traditions, symbols, salutes, etc. But that's different as nazism is directly opposing democracy and the constitution clearly states that the republic is responsible for protecting democracy. But this? This is a random fucking discrimination straight from the middle ages.
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.
Whether it matters or not is situational to the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that emotional support at that point in time. The point is, is that it is a limitation to homosexual parents to not have this type of support ready at their disposal when the opportunity to seek external support isn't always available.
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?
I am sure the invading barbarian hordes and internal conflicts had nothig to do with the Roman Empires decline.Yes man you solved the riddle!The roman empire fell because all its citizens were gay!God damn it I was living in the dark for so long.Thak you for illuminating me!Now I can ace my history major in college!
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.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
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.
We will never conquer it completely.
Where there's freedom, there will invariably be dissenters from the general consensus. Regardless of how many will express their alternative views peacefully, some will still aggressively force their opinion upon others; thus intolerance appears. We can only hope for a society where such people become negligible outliers, but never one that has completely gotten rid of this issue.
On the other hand, we all have a reasonable idea of what repression and coercion will invariably lead to...
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
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.
How about all the other children who don't have access to that kind of empathy? Parents get divorced, parents die, people abandon their children, etc. They get advice and empathy by others... friends, professionals
In a society where children get abused left right and center, I'm pretty sure children with parents of same sex are pretty well off.
But this thread is getting derailed, so let's stop.
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.
Would you mind not asking for people to prove negatives and add some data on your own please?
The only thing I'm finding that looks credible is the NLLFS and they provide no form whatsoever of a control group. It's, for example, completely irrelevant that the kids in their study had higher-than-average GPA when the gay parents they used have higher-than-average income.
Just from skimming through their papers there are a lot of inconsistencies like that that could be eliminated with a properly formed control group. And this seems to be the best known and most quoted study on this topic. -.-
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?
I am sure the invading barbarian hordes and internal conflicts had nothig to do with the Roman Empires decline.Yes man you solved the riddle!The roman empire fell because all its citizens were gay!God damn it I was living in the dark for so long.Thak you for illuminating me!Now I can ace my history major in college!
I never said it was the only reason, but it is a contributing factor
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
The reason rape is natural in animals is because animals have as sole purpose perpetuating their species and passing over their genes to a future generation.
We as humans have far more things to consider than just that.
Your comparison between rape and homosexuality is invalid.
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.
So you're saying you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than blind statements. Cool. You can take a lemon bar on your way out.
If you're going to pull the "where's your proof card", you might as well bring that up with literally everyone else with blind statements. Look around the thread (no really), you'll have your work cut out for you.
I intentionally kept the wording precise by limiting it to binary processes like pregnancy and periods, as to not necessitate the need to go through the burden of proof for concepts that I assumed were fairly easy to grasp (they are exclusive to women).
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote: [quote] That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
What you also can't do is prove why that matters significantly in context.
Whether it matters or not is situational to the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that emotional support at that point in time. The point is, is that it is a limitation to homosexual parents to not have this type of support ready at their disposal when the opportunity to seek external support isn't always available.
What you still can't prove is why that matters or is relevant.
On June 12 2013 21:14 fluidin wrote: I'm not sure how to phrase this, but I too am tired of all the LBGT rhetoric, especially on the Internet, where it's impossible to discuss the subject objectively. See, I do support their fight for rights, and I have had gay friends.
However, why are some people glorifying the LBGT movement? TBH it's annoying me as much as the preachers that go about spewing whatever. I'm not even religious (maybe Agnostic), and yet I believe that the gift of human life, through consummation between a man and woman, is precious beyond belief. Both orthodox religion and homosexuality does kinda detract from the human race's progression IMO. Of course, I'm not demeaning all their contributions, just that I feel there's a fundamental flaw in the inability to produce a new human life.
To me, homosexuals are an unfortunate circumstance of how the world works. Yes, they absolutely should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, I'm all for that, but there's no need to go about glorifying it. It has been stated that homosexuality is not a disorder, I acknowledge that, but deep down I do wish that it was, and that it could be "cured".
This is my personal belief. It might offend many, but, well. :/
Nobody is glorifying it. They are not unable to produce a new human life. Plenty people capable of producing new human life do not.
So homosexuals are an unfortunate circumstance and deep down you wish gay people had a disorder so you could cure them?
Somebody give this guy a medal as his opinions are clearly well thought out and morally sound!
There are quite a few of them, lol. I'm sure you know what kind of people I'm talking about, jumping on the bandwagon of LBGT to look cool and edgy.
They are physically able to give birth, but obviously if they were truly homosexual they would not be doing it. You could argue for IVF for the female homosexuals, but the male ones obviously can't. Either way, this is a niche point not worth arguing over.
Yes, and I too feel that for these people who can but do not, it's really unfortunate.
I do not wish they have a disorder, I wish it IS one that can be cured. But like I said, it isn't and I acknowledge that. Yes, I do feel it is an unfortunate circumstance of how the world works, like many other things, such as petty conflicts, and wars. I understand how these are things that come about as a result of human nature, but it does not stop me from feeling some regret that it is how it is.
Perhaps my thoughts aren't morally sound, but rest assured I have thought them out clearly.
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
Honestly, i think the reason you are tired of it, is because you never tried to even understand the basic concepts of it.
1. The gay right movement is not about informing you about them being gay,
2. It's about them trying to achive the same rights as straight people like you and me.
3. Try replacing "gays" with "black people"
As an african-venezuelan I honestly feel offended by this bullshit, don't try comparing centuries of slavery and murder to being mocked for being gay. Being mocked for being gay is equal to being mocked for being fat, ugly or a nerd or anything really, it happends because gay people are not "normal" people, normal as in average, because average people are always the judges of what is normal.
All societies have gay people because it is a very natural thing but every society treats them differently, although I do not support what Russia did, I also clearly not support that bullshit gay marriage thing that they are trying to get inside our heads as a "normal" thing, when the natural thing is clearly a man and a woman. Political correctness is out of control and a lot of these people celebrate their sexuality in a rather obscene way, most of the time they are showing off and not actually protesting for rights like they want you to believe, that is obvious to anybody that see these parades. And if you are different for whatever reason, because maybe you are disabled or anything, you have to accept that every now and then you will be discriminated but it's part of what we are, and of what you are. If somebody goes too far or phisically hurt you or anything the law should protect you but that should be the limits of your rights, because for the rest you are equal to everybody else, and then you should have the rights of everybody else.
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?
I think the problem is in the fact that the child has no choice in the matter. He shouldn't have to face the possibility of ridicule at some point in the future for something out of his control.
That being said, this situation obviously shouldn't exist to begin with, and in some countries/areas it very well might not. In the southern half of the United States however, I can say from personal experience this type of discrimination does exist and to put a child through it with knowledge of what you are doing is malicious to that child. This type of environment needs to be destroyed as soon as possible so that such discrimination would not be an issue, but presently it is not a fair thing to do to a child with knowledge that the child would be discriminated against.
Everything is about balancing positives and negatives. The fact that child will face ridicule should not be the only criteria used. You can/should prioritize heterosexual parents all other things being equal, but you should not disqualify gay parents just because you are afraid of child being ridiculed. They can bring to the table positives that much outweigh the ridicule, compared to no parents at all. People here have nonsensically black-and-white view of issues.
And of course gay rights are just not possible in countries that have in general low level of societal development. That does not mean we cannot criticize Russia for being immoral douches.
I don't understand the hate vs gays. If everyone were gay, we'd have twice as many people who would like to suck your dick. All jokes aside, me beiing gay for example does not affect anyone, but myself and my possible offspring (which I cannot have because gay). It's not about annoying straight people with ur perverseness, it's about loving someone you care about. Thats a woman for most people, but for some people they get the same kind of feelings for a man. How this affect you? Is it the idea thats repulsive to you? And by stomping it in the ground u think it will somehow go away? It does not work that way. If I were to tell you to not love womans anymore because it's wrong, would you do that? Ofcourse not, because wrong is for other people right.
Also in the light of overpopulation I encourage everyone to be as gay as possible. Altough even encouraging gayness will not change anything. Because most people are born gay or straight. I just would like everyone to be more tolerant of each other. Difference is not a bad thing persé.
Are we now seriously comparing rape to homosexuality? Come the fuck on Teamliquid, get some fucking perspective and maybe think before you type whatever goddamn nonsense passes through your brain.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
Rape is an action something consciously decides to do. Identifying as homosexual is not.
It grows on trees?
You're correct.
I used to be attracted to women, but then one day I say this guy dancing down the street with glitter on his face and feathers in his hair. I could not resist it, I just had to drop to my knees and start sucking a dick.
On June 12 2013 22:31 DarkLordOlli wrote: So the question is will anybody actually have the balls to ask Putin what in all the fucks he's thinking
I think we should start by asking him why the fuck he still supports a Syrian tyrant using chemicals on his people... Oh wait... It's because he is the same!
The law was passed through a unanimous vote of 436 - 0 in the parliament.
Yeah, democracy sucks when you disagree with it.
Democracy also sucks if everyone has the same mind on something. There has to be at least one person in the 400+ parliament who has a different idea, right?
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
Honestly, i think the reason you are tired of it, is because you never tried to even understand the basic concepts of it.
1. The gay right movement is not about informing you about them being gay,
2. It's about them trying to achive the same rights as straight people like you and me.
3. Try replacing "gays" with "black people"
As an african-venezuelan I honestly feel offended by this bullshit, don't try comparing centuries of slavery and murder to being mocked for being gay. Being mocked for being gay is equal to being mocked for being fat, ugly or a nerd or anything really, it happends because gay people are not "normal" people, normal as in average, because average people are always the judges of what is normal.
You're working under a grave misapprehension if you think that gays worldwide only have to put up with "mocking".
Different culture, different mentality. I'm not saying it's fine of course but it's funny to think that most mainstream russian politicians would be considered as far right extremists (almost neo-nazis) in western europe.
This kind of fallback into tradition and religion makes me think about what happens in a lot of countries with a muslim culture. It seems like there's a worldwide fear of future and modernity, especially when it comes to moral values.
On June 12 2013 22:31 DarkLordOlli wrote: So the question is will anybody actually have the balls to ask Putin what in all the fucks he's thinking
I think we should start by asking him why the fuck he still supports a Syrian tyrant using chemicals on his people... Oh wait... It's because he is the same!
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Wait, who would get murdered or beaten up again if gays are given equal rights? I'm stumped.
Also, yes, it is infinitely easier to change the masses' opinion than it is to legitimately change someone's (anyone's, regardless of number) sexual orientation.
As for your point that if society doesn't approve it everyone should just deal with it. Should we revert to treating black people as slaves just because society didn't approve of their rights for a long period of time? Should we also revert to treating women as mindless servants and also stop all scientific research?
The masses will always be uneducated on some issue or another. They will always be gullible and more or less believe what they are fed. By adhering to the status quo you do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
I'd say you might be foolish to expect it to change, but it's not your fault it happened. Simply being somewhere or something is never a provocation to be attacked or discriminated against.
Yes, in America it isn't, in my country it is. I was refering to Serbia and Russia since they think similar about this matter, not USA or westerners. THere is a difference you know
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
The only possible moral problem with being gay is the right to adopt children.
Don't get me wrong I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general, far from it. Though I'm pretty sure it would be hard for a kid to have gay parents because that kid would have to put up with a lot of shit from other people, especially at school. Not only that, I feel good parenting comes from a mother and father. It's like... I don't think gay parents would be bad or anything. It's just that the mother has the role of the mother and the father the role of the father. It's not something that can be rationally explained, it's a kind of gut feeling you get. Interacting with mother isn't the same as interacting with father. It just isn't.
You can be for gay marriage etc, sure why not, but imagine two different scenarios. Your dad is cheating on your mother with a woman and your dad is cheating on your mother with another dude. Just try to imagine that, try to figure out how fucking weird that would be.
I don't hate gays, I'm friends with a few of them. I don't think they shouldn't be able to marry. But as of now, given the current state of things, I don't think they should adopt children. It's not hatred, it's just something else. You could say that it would be "wrong" to deny them the same rights as a straight couple, that there are straight couples who are absolute shit parents. I would agree with you. But the primary concern when it comes to adopting a child isn't the parent's well being or happiness. What's the most important is the children's.
That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
Either way, I think this particular discussion died somewhere around page 10.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
Actually, there is a lot you could do. You know what they say about small things... but whatever...
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
I'd say you might be foolish to expect it to change, but it's not your fault it happened. Simply being somewhere or something is never a provocation to be attacked or discriminated against.
Yes, in America it isn't, in my country it is. I was refering to Serbia and Russia since they think similar about this matter, not USA or westerners. THere is a difference you know
I was talking about the vein of equal rights. The same view was held here before the 60's, yet we managed to get equal rights for blacks.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
Spreading homosexualism? What does that even mean :/ And please don't pretend you know what the purpose of gay parades is.
he is one of those people who thinks homosexuality is a contagious desease and if you let gays marry each other they will launch a full blown campaign to corrupt our children into becoming homosexuals.In his mind gays are a sort of illuminaty type secret organization who day and night plan to corrupt heterosexuals especially heterosexual children into becoming gay.He also views the fact as letting gay having sex in their own bedroom as a sign of tolerance.Don't bother with him.
You're the the one who believes that homosexuality grows on trees or is genetic or sonething stupid like that
Since homosexuality is not at all limited to humans, it's actually as natural as hetrosexualism. Why do you think otherwise?
On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote: [quote] That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
So what about divorced families where the daughter is living with the single father? Heterosexual divorce is EXTREMELY common in the U.S. and it is considered perfectly acceptable and healthy. There's no mother there. Also, what about lesbian parents? Wouldn't the daughter have two parents who could empathize with her then?
On June 12 2013 20:19 Art.FeeL wrote: Well I am quite tired of this gay rights thing, so although I think that this law is too much, I welcome an attempt to stop with this mess already. I don't have anything against gays, but if you are willing to be gay you don't have to tell the whole world how happy and cute you are and stop me getting to my favorite coffee shop with your parade.
Honestly, i think the reason you are tired of it, is because you never tried to even understand the basic concepts of it.
1. The gay right movement is not about informing you about them being gay,
2. It's about them trying to achive the same rights as straight people like you and me.
3. Try replacing "gays" with "black people"
As an african-venezuelan I honestly feel offended by this bullshit, don't try comparing centuries of slavery and murder to being mocked for being gay. Being mocked for being gay is equal to being mocked for being fat, ugly or a nerd or anything really, it happends because gay people are not "normal" people, normal as in average, because average people are always the judges of what is normal.
All societies have gay people because it is a very natural thing but every society treats them differently, although I do not support what Russia did, I also clearly not support that bullshit gay marriage thing that they are trying to get inside our heads as a "normal" thing, when the natural thing is clearly a man and a woman. Political correctness is out of control and a lot of these people celebrate their sexuality in a rather obscene way, most of the time they are showing off and not actually protesting for rights like they want you to believe, that is obvious to anybody that see these parades. And if you are different for whatever reason, because maybe you are disabled or anything, you have to accept that every now and then you will be discriminated but it's part of what we are, and of what you are. If somebody goes too far or phisically hurt you or anything the law should protect you but that should be the limits of your rights, because for the rest you are equal to everybody else, and then you should have the rights of everybody else.
Well if that is clearly the natural thing then what are we all arguing about!!? Your nearsightedness is appalling
You represent the inability of the people to understand what it means to be gay. It IS natural. It has ALWAYS been a part of human society but social norm has dictated that marriage is between man and woman and that is what they are fighting for, this social norm needs to end.
On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote: [quote] That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You know that there is plenty of gay women that gave birth, do you ?
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
There is a very big thing that you can do. If you have children then you can raise them to be tolerant. That's all people have to do. The vast majority of intolerance is instilled in us when we are children.
On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote: [quote] That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
On June 12 2013 21:31 sushiman wrote: [quote] That's such a BS argument that gets thrown around whenever the issue of gay adoption comes up; how the hell would gay parents be worse than no parents at all? Kids will only have trouble at school if the parents of other kids are assholes that teach their children that being gay is unnatural, otherwise children have little trouble accepting new things as natural. The more common it is with children to gay parents, the less of an issue it will be - and considering there is no shortage of adoptable children that would most certainly be happier growing up in a caring home rather than an orphanage, I don't see how there's even an argument against gay adoption.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
But if you're brought up by straight parents you're missing out on the extremely rare and important dynamic that having two same sex parents creates, where both have a deeper understanding of each other than normal couples and thus are able to focus more on the child than each other, to work in harmony to create an environment in which the child can thrive in.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Wait, who would get murdered or beaten up again if gays are given equal rights? I'm stumped.
Also, yes, it is infinitely easier to change the masses' opinion than it is to legitimately change someone's (anyone's, regardless of number) sexual orientation.
As for your point that if society doesn't approve it everyone should just deal with it. Should we revert to treating black people as slaves just because society didn't approve of their rights for a long period of time? Should we also revert to treating women as mindless servants and also stop all scientific research?
The masses will always be uneducated on some issue or another. They will always be gullible and more or less believe what they are fed. By adhering to the status quo you do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
You are still mising the beat. I do not talk about ease of changing sexual orientation but to change their desire to have pride.
You can try to find "gay parade in Belgrade" videos on YT, and then you will know what I am talking about. IT's not something I approve, beating gay people or baning them life conditions, but just saying that society isn't on that frequency. Here, people do understand what are you talking about but disagree with pride's or some parts of gay rights, and it has nothing to do with education since you do not learn about gays in school (or maybe you do in Romania).
Also your examples of black slaves or servant women are showing your "education" since you are constantly doing argumentum ad hominem on me instead of trying to understand what I want to say. I just compared different soceities here and in Russia from western one's, let alone what I personally think about gay righs. Also, I explained why I am against pride's in previous posts.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
Yes they do have the right to change society if they suffer because of it.Just like many serbians fight to change laws that prevent them form being beaten in the EU when they are found working illegaly and sent back home.Even if they are working illegally there they still have rights as HUMAN BEINGS.The police and local population, although they are taking jobs away form law abiding cittizens, still have to treat them based on HUMAN RIGHTS laws and European Legislation.And compared to you who agree with the beating of innocent civilians I disagree with the torture and humiliation of illegal serbian workers in the EU because at the end of the day they are Human Beings justs like me who only want a good job to feed their families.They have a soul just like me and need to be treated as humans.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Wait, who would get murdered or beaten up again if gays are given equal rights? I'm stumped.
Also, yes, it is infinitely easier to change the masses' opinion than it is to legitimately change someone's (anyone's, regardless of number) sexual orientation.
As for your point that if society doesn't approve it everyone should just deal with it. Should we revert to treating black people as slaves just because society didn't approve of their rights for a long period of time? Should we also revert to treating women as mindless servants and also stop all scientific research?
The masses will always be uneducated on some issue or another. They will always be gullible and more or less believe what they are fed. By adhering to the status quo you do nothing but exacerbate the problem.
You are still mising the beat. I do not talk about ease of changing sexual orientation but to change their desire to have pride.
So they can be gay, nothing wrong with that, but they have to hide it from others in shame and fear?
Honestly, how do you expect to be taken seriously when this is your reasoning?
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
When did pedophilia come into this and how does it relate on a 1:1 scale to homosexuality?
Either you are just nitpicking his statement which has no relation to the thread or you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Which if you do not know the difference between the two you can find the definitions quite easily or I can find them for you, as they are very different.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
When did pedophilia come into this and how does it relate on a 1:1 scale to homosexuality?
Either you are just nitpicking his statement which has no relation to the thread or you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Which if you do not know the difference between the two you can find the definitions quite easily or I can find them for you, as they are very different.
He compared rape and homosexuality a few posts ago. Don't feed him, he gets uglier...
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
When did pedophilia come into this and how does it relate on a 1:1 scale to homosexuality?
Either you are just nitpicking his statement which has no relation to the thread or you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Which if you do not know the difference between the two you can find the definitions quite easily or I can find them for you, as they are very different.
When you're a close-minded bigot, they really are the same thing. That is, they are wrong.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
On June 12 2013 22:51 Xahhk wrote: Gay discrimination there, massive problems in the US. Do you Mericans really have any right to laugh at them for being so backward?
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The recent gay pride parade suffered a heavy and violent blow after people threw eggs and water at gay rights movement activists and participants of the parade.
Got this from my feed this morning! This is beyond unbelievable!
Wow... What kind of sick freak throws eggs at peaceful protesters, even aiming for their head at such a distance?
They are just asking for equal rights, they are not trying to somehow magically convert people into gayness(?).
Meanwhile, fanatic douschebags like the guy in this photo, are attacking them for no other reason than seeing the protesters as inferior creatures.
Can't America "liberate" Russia? They have gas and oil you know
I don't think America actually is capable of doing that.
But that aside, most gay people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how gay they are and how it's good to be gay which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm gay and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the picture, don't even know why.
But that aside, most straight people I have met have been friendly, and I have nothing against them, but they often go about parading how straight they are and how it's good to be straight which irritates me to death, they also seem to be offended when they ask me if I'm straight and I say that I'm not. Btw I laughed at the fact that you laughed at innocent, peaceful people being attacked, don't even know why.
Most straight people don't go about parading how straight they are etc. Atleast I have NEVER heard anyone say that.
You must be from reddit.
You must be from Romania.
What? I'm not, can't you read? (I know it doesn't prove which nationality you belong to, but I do believe it says Finland next to my name.)
Even though being from Romania would be better than being from Reddit, we're going beside the point here.
Just another push by the Russian government back towards a Christian value dominated parliament and governing system that relies on superstition and fear-mongering to scapegoat the public's attention away from real problems like the stagnating industrial system, and the culture or irresponsibility and lack of direction in the young people. The close relationship between Putin's government reign and the Russian Orthodox Church might have been going unnoticed in the past decade, but it's inevitable that a push such as this one happens. :/
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
There is a very big thing that you can do. If you have children then you can raise them to be tolerant. That's all people have to do. The vast majority of intolerance is instilled in us when we are children.
I can do that but I can't protect or fight for gay rights.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
So what about divorced families where the daughter is living with the single father? Heterosexual divorce is EXTREMELY common in the U.S. and it is considered perfectly acceptable and healthy. There's no mother there. Also, what about lesbian parents? Wouldn't the daughter have two parents who could empathize with her then?
A lot of stuff to reply to, not sure I'll catch em all
Is it? My impression was that children from divorced families go through their own traumas which are not exclusive to heterosexual families.
The significance (as asked by someone else, not necessarily aimed at you) is solely dependent on the child during the incident and whether she needs that type of support from her mother. The argument I gave was that without a mother (in the context of man/man couples and a pregnant daughter) it is a disadvantage not to be able to provide this type of support if she needs it when external help is not always available.
You know that there is plenty of gay women that gave birth, do you ?
Admittedly, the scenario I outlined seems more directed at gay men couples, as gay women don;t seem to be at a disadvantage to heterosexual couples regardless of having a son or daughter. Thats a fair point.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of education and understanding what homosexuality is. Rational people know all too well that laws of this kind are completely disgraceful to human society (this also includes rational, educated people from Russia, if you bothered to read this very thread you're posting in).
On June 12 2013 22:51 Xahhk wrote: Gay discrimination there, massive problems in the US. Do you Mericans really have any right to laugh at them for being so backward?
Whatever's goin' on in the US, the brutal treatment of minorities in Russia (and not only the gay community) make it look like a detail in the big scheme of things.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
You really don't understand. The burden of change is on society, not on homosexuals to change or hide. Society is in the wrong, society must make itself right. In the meantime, because society has forced so many homosexuals to hide for so long, homosexuals have to have pride parades to show other gay people that they don't have to hide and that they aren't alone. It's a way to identify themselves.
You're telling gay people to assimilate and hide instead of telling the shithead bigots to quit being bigots. You're part of the problem, you're not contributing to the solution.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold.
1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays.
2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society.
Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights?
I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt.
- As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade.
- A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article.
- Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread.
- The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
Because it is by talking about it that it will someday make society be read to accept it. If you don't, things will never change.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
There is a very big thing that you can do. If you have children then you can raise them to be tolerant. That's all people have to do. The vast majority of intolerance is instilled in us when we are children.
I can do that but I can't protect or fight for gay rights.
You do not have to protect anyone the police has to.But f the police is full of people like you no wonder the gays are being brutalized/
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
When did pedophilia come into this and how does it relate on a 1:1 scale to homosexuality?
Either you are just nitpicking his statement which has no relation to the thread or you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Which if you do not know the difference between the two you can find the definitions quite easily or I can find them for you, as they are very different.
He compared rape and homosexuality a few posts ago. Don't feed him, he gets uglier...
I just wanted to make it more obvious.
It's sad how every time a thread on homosexuality is created the bigots are always culled, but their population never decreases.
On June 12 2013 22:51 Xahhk wrote: Gay discrimination there, massive problems in the US. Do you Mericans really have any right to laugh at them for being so backward?
Yes, the two aren't really comparable like that.
Gay rights built on the bodies of droned civilians and children. Given by a government who has been running PRISM, jailing legitimate whistleblowers etc. But no, it's alright to call Russia a step towards 'dictatorship', or some variant of 'Fuck Russia so backward!" There's no moral high ground really for Mericans. Just simply comment without bringing in nationalism, just the rights themselves which some people do, but a great many don't.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
The difference between homosexuality and rape is that homosexuality is a consensual act with no victim, whereas rape is non-consensual and is doing physical harm onto another.
The reason a 14 year old and a 40 year old together is frowned upon and illegal is because 14 year old's do not have a fully developed brain and lack the ability to make well-informed decisions. Any 40 year old who is OK with that is usually sick in the head.
Shades of "women are partly to blame when they get raped". icky.
Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of education and understanding what homosexuality is. Rational people know all too well that laws of this kind are completely disgraceful to human society (this also includes rational, educated people from Russia, if you bothered to read this very thread you're posting in).
Yes they know but they had not stopped them. So ask yourself why...Law isnt almighty, it can be useful only if people act accordingly to it.
On June 12 2013 22:45 PerryHooter wrote: Sounds like another step towards full out dictatorship. Pretty scary.
Considering the wealthiest Russians are targeted by their own state? It's a scary place to live in. Oligarch Boris Berezovsky should not have died or how about the richest man in Russia, Mr. Mikhail Khodorkovsky who they had killed in prison? He knew he was a dead man once the Kremlin came after him. The Russian government my friend is not to be trusted.
On June 12 2013 21:50 Myles wrote: [quote] Yea, and how dare a black person try to sit next to a white. They brought the discrimination on themselves and the violence against them was almost their fault as much as the attackers.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
You really don't understand. The burden of change is on society, not on homosexuals to change or hide. Society is in the wrong, society must make itself right. In the meantime, because society has forced so many homosexuals to hide for so long, homosexuals have to have pride parades to show other gay people that they don't have to hide and that they aren't alone. It's a way to identify themselves.
You're telling gay people to assimilate and hide instead of telling the shithead bigots to quit being bigots. You're part of the problem, you're not contributing to the solution.
I agree but I am saying that percentage of homophobic people isn't same in every country.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
The difference between homosexuality and rape is that homosexuality is a consensual act with no victim, whereas rape is non-consensual and is doing physical harm onto another.
The reason a 14 year old and a 40 year old together is frowned upon and illegal is because 14 year old's do not have a fully developed brain and lack the ability to make well-informed decisions. Any 40 year old who is OK with that is usually sick in the head.
The fact that you equate statutory rape (which in all honesty is kind of a gray area in that it depends on case-by-case basis) with legitimate rape as well as your last sentence makes this post quite ironic. Funny, yet also sad.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
When did pedophilia come into this and how does it relate on a 1:1 scale to homosexuality?
Either you are just nitpicking his statement which has no relation to the thread or you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Which if you do not know the difference between the two you can find the definitions quite easily or I can find them for you, as they are very different.
He compared rape and homosexuality a few posts ago. Don't feed him, he gets uglier...
Great, I hope you are happy. The poor thing starved before it had a chance to deliver pure internet gold.
I bret that woman wants to scissor so hard that she gets dew every time she sees an attractive woman. but the peer pressure of surrounding mental midgets is too overwhelming to handle.
Russians arent born bad people, just more instinctly agressive than most others. Unfortunately the government turns that potential to control with hate. I have some extremely good hearted russian friends. I wonder how the people of russia responded to this.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
You really don't understand. The burden of change is on society, not on homosexuals to change or hide. Society is in the wrong, society must make itself right. In the meantime, because society has forced so many homosexuals to hide for so long, homosexuals have to have pride parades to show other gay people that they don't have to hide and that they aren't alone. It's a way to identify themselves.
You're telling gay people to assimilate and hide instead of telling the shithead bigots to quit being bigots. You're part of the problem, you're not contributing to the solution.
Who are you to tell who has to change? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and whatnot, are they not?
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
When did pedophilia come into this and how does it relate on a 1:1 scale to homosexuality?
Either you are just nitpicking his statement which has no relation to the thread or you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Which if you do not know the difference between the two you can find the definitions quite easily or I can find them for you, as they are very different.
He compared rape and homosexuality a few posts ago. Don't feed him, he gets uglier...
Great, I hope you are happy. The poor thing starved before it had a chance to deliver pure internet gold.
I thought it was a good idea to stop him when he started talking about dolphins raping humans. :D
On June 12 2013 23:01 gosublade wrote: I bret that woman wants to scissor so hard that she gets dew every time she sees an attractive woman. but the peer pressure of surrounding mental midgets is too overwhelming to handle.
Russians arent born bad people, just more instinctly agressive than most others. Unfortunately the government turns that potential to control with hate. I have some extremely good hearted russian friends. I wonder how the people of russia responded to this.
I repeat for the hundreth time.Putin and other politicians do not care about gays.It is the Orthodox Church that blackmails and forces politicians to impose anti gay legislation.And considering over 80% of russins identify themselves as Orthodox the politicians do not stand a chance,
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol
Think of how many movies will be banned from TV, and other areas where there is a risk of kids being exposed to even the slightest hints of gayness. Also, will how I met your mother be banned because one of the actors is gay in real life??
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
You really don't understand. The burden of change is on society, not on homosexuals to change or hide. Society is in the wrong, society must make itself right. In the meantime, because society has forced so many homosexuals to hide for so long, homosexuals have to have pride parades to show other gay people that they don't have to hide and that they aren't alone. It's a way to identify themselves.
You're telling gay people to assimilate and hide instead of telling the shithead bigots to quit being bigots. You're part of the problem, you're not contributing to the solution.
Who are you to tell who has to change? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and whatnot, are they not?
As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other human beings. -_-
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol
I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold.
1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays.
2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society.
Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights?
I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt.
- As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade.
- A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article.
- Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread.
- The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes.
Well the main point of our disagreement is probably because you believe you can change millions of people and because you think goverment is so mighty, I think it's not. You can't just call millions of people scum, or large portion of believers just for having different of opinion. You can't be tolerant to everything.
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold.
1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays.
2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society.
Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights?
I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt.
- As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade.
- A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article.
- Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread.
- The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes.
Well the main point of our disagreement is probably because you believe you can change millions of people and because you think goverment is so mighty, I think it's not. You can't just call millions of people scum, or large portion of believers just for having different of opinion. You can't be tolerant to everything.
True tolerance is being tolerant to intolerance. You're welcome.
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
You really don't understand. The burden of change is on society, not on homosexuals to change or hide. Society is in the wrong, society must make itself right. In the meantime, because society has forced so many homosexuals to hide for so long, homosexuals have to have pride parades to show other gay people that they don't have to hide and that they aren't alone. It's a way to identify themselves.
You're telling gay people to assimilate and hide instead of telling the shithead bigots to quit being bigots. You're part of the problem, you're not contributing to the solution.
I agree but I am saying that percentage of homophobic people isn't same in every country.
If that's really all you're saying, then you're not telling us anything that isn't obvious and you're not saying anything meaningful. Perhaps you'd be better served by simply reading the thread instead of trying to contribute.
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol
I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p
I severly doubt humans understand the behavior of animals to define what is rape and what is mating.Animal mating is all about continuing the species aka male sees a female,male fights another male for the female,winning male wins the female.The female herself doesn't have much to say about the topic in most species with a few exceptions.And about the scorpion well most insects do that doesn't mean all insects commit rape
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold.
1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays.
2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society.
Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights?
I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt.
- As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade.
- A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article.
- Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread.
- The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes.
Well the main point of our disagreement is probably because you believe you can change millions of people and because you think goverment is so mighty, I think it's not. You can't just call millions of people scum, or large portion of believers just for having different of opinion. You can't be tolerant to everything.
Indeed you can't be tolerant to everything. But being intolerant of something that does not affect you in any way, shape or form, is stupid, and behaviour exercised by what we refer to as scum.
What I put in bold is something that happens quite, quite frequently. The argument isn't that gay parents are worse than no parents, that's obviously not true. The argument is that straight parents are probably better than gay parents, for reasons I've explained above. You'll notice I said "given the current state of things". There is still a large amount of hate directed towards gay people and chances are a kid with gay parents will be picked on at school for it. There assholes everywhere. Furthermore, as I said before, a child is probably better off with a mother and a father than with two parents of the same sex. I say probably because there's no real way to be sure. But there's something about having an actual mother and father as parents which just bodes well. As I said before, you don't interact with your mother the same way you interact with your father. It's not something that can rationally be explained, at least not by me.
I won't go on in this thread or argument, it's way too controversial and I have better things to do with my time. I just wanted to post food for thought.
What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex (like being pregnant).
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters against heterosexual couples, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
They're most likely not capable of doing that, or they would have already.
That's not how politics and international relations work... -_-
Jesus christ how old are you?!
I know well enough that they don't work like that... But who knows what the USA will do, they do have a notorious reputation for going on a "freeing" rampage.
On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote: [quote] What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex.
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Are you really truly done? Thank god. Because making claims with absolutely not evidence and straight up saying you don't need evidence for said claims is patently stupid.
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol
I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p
I severly doubt humans understand the behavior of animals to define what is rape and what is mating.Animal mating is all about continuing the species aka male sees a female,male fights another male for the female,winning male wins the female.The female herself doesn't have much to say about the topic in most species with a few exceptions.And about the scorpion well most insects do that doesn't mean all insects commit rape
Thats not the point i was making. You asked "Do you have any evidence of rape in animals or are you just pulling facts up like the roman one", and i just answared, because i thought 3rd party info would be more trust worthy.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
The difference with the USA is that you will find much more opposition to the homophobic sentiments. You will still find plenty of homophobic individuals with an equal amount of hatred though.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
They're most likely not capable of doing that, or they would have already.
That's not how politics and international relations work... -_-
Jesus christ how old are you?!
I know well enough that they don't work like that... But who knows what the USA will do, they do have a notorious reputation for going on a "freeing" rampage.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
Yeah we Europeans sometime feel like we are ahead of the States in the way we separate the state and the church... And then right wing extremists start getting more and more votes, people protest every day against gay marriage, muslim grounds are vandalized (jewish ones also)... And then we remember that intolerance is just behind the corner and that it's an every day fight to keep the freedom we/our parents/grand-parents fought for.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
On June 12 2013 21:56 sushiman wrote: [quote] What, so straight parents are better because... they can teach their children to be ignorant and get away with it? Or because some vague reason that a mother and father are somehow better than two mothers or two fathers, but you can't give a reason why other than it can't be "rationally explained"? To get the age old argument out of the cupboard - what about single parents then? They should objectively be worse than a gay couple since they lack a father/mother figure and also has less time for their child than two parents would, yet there's plenty of children to single parents that grow up just fine. And if you're so worried about them lacking a role model of another sex than your parents, you can be sure there's other adults around that could fill that part, whether they are relatives or friends of the parents - and even then I doubt it would be an issue, since two people of the same sex won't have the same personality, so they would still fill different roles in the upbringing of a child.
And as I said before, caring parents are better than an orphanage. It's not like there's fierce competition to adopt children, the supply tends to exceed the demands, unfortunately.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex (like being pregnant).
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters against heterosexual couples, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Yeah, as much as I like hitting dead horses, I think this one is done for
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
I am shocked and hurt. You do get the differnce between rape and the consensual act of love?
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
A 14 year old and a 40 year old both consent "in the name of love" do you support that too?
The difference between homosexuality and rape is that homosexuality is a consensual act with no victim, whereas rape is non-consensual and is doing physical harm onto another.
The reason a 14 year old and a 40 year old together is frowned upon and illegal is because 14 year old's do not have a fully developed brain and lack the ability to make well-informed decisions. Any 40 year old who is OK with that is usually sick in the head.
The fact that you equate statutory rape (which in all honesty is kind of a gray area in that it depends on case-by-case basis) with legitimate rape as well as your last sentence makes this post quite ironic. Funny, yet also sad.
My post might have confused you because I was responding to shekelberg's 2 posts, within my single post. My post wasn't ironic, funny or sad.
Statutory rape is illegal in many countries including the USA. In the example given by shekelberg, he states a 14 year old with a 40 year old. This is not a grey zone, any way you slice it. In this example, an older person is preying upon and exploiting a naive child.
Please don't use strawman's or fallacious arguments, it degrades the discussion.
On June 12 2013 21:43 ZeRoX-45 wrote: I am supportive about Russia and Ukraine about anti-homo laws. I wish my goverment could bring in the same legislative about this topic.
Main thing to question here is kind of the society you live in. In my country, Russia or some others, beng gay is unacceptable by large majority of people. So I do not understand the need if having marriages or parades if you know that people will brake half of the city apart that day or burn something if they accept gay marriages in some law. It's almost fault of gays as much as fault of people who do not want them on the streets.
On the other side, I know I can't change someones sexual behaviours but also I dont need to look at them few days per year. I dont also think orthodox chiristianity has something to do with this subject but here church(also Orthodox) is strongly opposing "pride" marches and that is one if the reasons here pride never sucedeed and never will. I would let them do whatever they want behind their walls but do not make us and our children watch that attrocious parade in the middle of capital.
I agree on the pride thing. However, you said youself that you would "let them do whatever they want behind their walls", so why not just give them the same rights straights have?
For instance, it will not affect straights at all, if gays are allowed to be married.(just an example).
So why not just get it over with? The gay pride parades is a result of you oppressing them, so it's 100% your fault. You could easely make them stop the parades if you just give them the rights they want.
I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority.
I see two things wrong in your post, so i made them bold.
1st one is that you think homosexuality is srpead. Just like you can't convert gays to straights, you can't convert straighs to gays.
2nd one is your idea that the gay parade is to annoy straight people. The gay prides sole function is to make oppressed gays feel like they are welcome somewhere in society.
Well, in my society they are not welcome. Thats why I think that parade isnt solely because of gay rights. Last gay parade, city was damaged like it was war and few millions of Euro's had to be payed ti repair it. And few times pride was stopped like that, so tell me how gays had profit from that? Let alone conversions, if you know current state of opinion about gays in some society, "spreading homo content" would maybe create more gays and more violence/damage to country. Call it stone age, but thats just the way it is here and probably in Russia. I think its much different in other European countries. Probably parades are peaceful and something normal. But if the pride's pourpose is to "get rights" why are there prides in countries which already claimed LGBT rights?
I'm sorry, but reading this post made my head hurt.
- As explained in my previous post, the purpose of pride parade, is to comfort oppressed homosexuals. The more you oppress them, the stronger need for a parade.
- A few million euros worth of damagde was caused. Ok, tell me, who started this riot? Personally i think it's the same ind of scum, as the people throwing eggs like the ones in the bbc article.
- Again, Homosexuality is not like a virus, it's not spread.
- The reason we have pride parades in the west, is because there are still alot of people(nearly 100% of them are religious), that actively persecuted homosexuals. For example, here in Denmark, 20 year old man, was brutally murdered for no other reason than being gay. A fellow student knew he was gay, and stabbed him to death in full public. They also lack alot of rights. Only last year did some churches begin to accept homo marrigdes.
Well the main point of our disagreement is probably because you believe you can change millions of people and because you think goverment is so mighty, I think it's not. You can't just call millions of people scum, or large portion of believers just for having different of opinion. You can't be tolerant to everything.
Even if you can't change it (immediately), that doesn't mean you should not try to fight for what is right. I can understand not wanting to go to one of those parades out of cowardice if they end up with a high chance of you getting beat up by bigots (I probably wouldn't dare either, though i'd like to think i would). But it is still the right thing to do. If you are doing something that does not hurt anyone else, and people want to beat you up for it and deny you the right to do it, they are wrong, and you are right, and you should fight for your rights. If they damage the city trying to beat you up while you are peacefully demonstrating, that is their fault, not yours. If they beat you up, it is their fault, not yours.
You should not advocate accepting unjust behaviour just because fighting against it would cause the bigots to damage things trying to stop you from peacefully fighting for your rights.
If you would go to the same restaurant every day knowing that no one cant protect you from being beaten by waiter, could you say that its notnyour fault? Police cant protect few thousands of people if 100 times more people are attacking them. Its just non sence.
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
Theres also a kind of scorpion(i think it's a scorpion, however i can't remember it's classefication) that wanders in desolated desserts, and only meet a female once or twice in it's entire life, so it's forced to rape the female in order to secure the survival of the species(it can't afford a rejection).
Why are you talking about animal rape ni this thread lol
I was just brining facts to a debate a fw posts back. I wasn't participating in it, just acting like a referee :p
I severly doubt humans understand the behavior of animals to define what is rape and what is mating.Animal mating is all about continuing the species aka male sees a female,male fights another male for the female,winning male wins the female.The female herself doesn't have much to say about the topic in most species with a few exceptions.And about the scorpion well most insects do that doesn't mean all insects commit rape
Thats not the point i was making. You asked "Do you have any evidence of rape in animals or are you just pulling facts up like the roman one", and i just answared, because i thought 3rd party info would be more trust worthy.
You offered me evidence of mating patterns not rape.
Homosexuality is clearly not a choice. We don't fully know the cause, but it's VERY clear that it has existed from the dawn of mankind and no, it cannot be cured. And as it turns out, "those damn gays" didn't ruin society. It's a fact that some % of the population is gay. There's nothing to suggest that statistic changed, just that as homosexuality is becoming more accepted, more people come out.
Some people argue that acting upon homosexual "urges" is wrong, but what the fuck is your solution then? Should those people feel disgusted with themselves for the rest of their lives and never have intimate human contact?
Homosexual relationships are mutual relationships between two consenting adults. No one is getting hurt. You can call it a "disorder" if that makes you inflate your ego and feel superior to others, I don't give a shit, but punishing people for feeling affection towards another human being when they aren't hurting anyone is simply stupid.
I browsed through the thread and saw a lot of people saying things like "I don't hate gays blah blah blah, but I don't support their marriage or them adopting children". Sure, most religions won't support marriage in the traditional sense, that's their right, but preventing homosexuals from establishing a legal bond and gaining same social benefits straight couples have is straight up discrimination.
As for adoption, studies have shown that gay parents raise their children better than straight ones because raising a child is always a choice and there are no "oopsies". What about single parents? By recent statistics 27% of children grew up in a single parent household. If a child truly needs "a father figure and a mother figure" to be raised "properly" what happens to those kids? There are thousands of kids growing up in adoption centers, are you really claiming they are better off with no parents a loving family of two same sex parents?
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
Very surprising , I would expect the communist to be against it at least. Communists in Eastern Europe were never very gay-friendly (rather opposite), but they were also not considering gays as satanic evil.
I agree but I am saying that percentage of homophobic people isn't same in every country.
If Serbia is seriously full of homophobic people(and that's what you said) or at least of people like you who don't seem to give a shit if minorities get suppressed or not, i seriously wonder why Serbia wants to join the EU.
As a dad it's harder (impossible?) to empathize if your girl is having her period/is pregnant. Delegating that to someone else isn't always an option that is available. You can educate yourself on the subject all you want, but who knows if that'll be enough to convince her that "you're there" the same way a woman would be. Same goes for single parents.
Just saying, the argument has some value.
The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex.
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Are you really truly done? Thank god. Because making claims with absolutely not evidence and straight up saying you don't need evidence for said claims is patently stupid.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response to that message either, did you? It's like you're not reading what I'm saying, just so you can skip to your part just to tell me I'm wrong. Now that I'm done, please do go after everyone else making baseless claims (there's a lot more than just me). For the sake of being consistent of course. Dont make an exception for me just because I'm the only one who went up to say "I dont need stats to understand concepts that are relatively simple". (please actually do read what I said about that earlier message for clarity, geez)
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
Democracy is like perfection. It's not reachable, however we should all do our best to get as close as possible. Also, just an afterthought. I have no clue at all, as to why some people hate homosexuals. The only idea i can come up with, is that they have nightmares about this guy
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
Very surprising , I would expect the communist to be against it at least. Communists in Eastern Europe were never very gay-friendly (rather opposite), but they were also not considering gays as satanic evil.
In communist Romania and even a few years after there was a death penalty for being gay.Don't know about the czech ones though.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
The difference with the USA is that you will find much more opposition to the homophobic sentiments. You will still find plenty of homophobic individuals with an equal amount of hatred though.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
Yeah we Europeans sometime feel like we are ahead of the States in the way we separate the state and the church... And then right wing extremists start getting more and more votes, people protest every day against gay marriage, muslim grounds are vandalized (jewish ones also)... And then we remember that intolerance is just behind the corner and that it's an every day fight to keep the freedom we/our parents/grand-parents fought for.
I didn't talk about all of europe as a whole, we are too diverse to say that. In scandinavia though, netherlands as well I know are very tolerant towards homosexuality. There has been only a few things in Denmark I know, where it's legal to get married as a gay couple but some priests didn't want to wed them. I don't know why you bring up the fight our previous generations were fighting in with the wards, you're talking about it as if we're in danger of another war. If you're implying that there is a "war" threatening the peace between us, within communites (straight vs gay or something) I think you're exaggerating quite significantly
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
I think some of the representatives were just scared of being labelled "gayfriend". Belive me or not, in some conservative countries that kind of label can be super hurtfull. Even if some of them probably dont have anything against gay rights they were afraid of being singled out.
Russian governement showing its true colors (as always, but since this time its about something which west cares about there will some reaction) (or at least i hope there will be).
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
Let me guess you are a greek orthodox.would you say the same if a german politician would give a law banning german kids form learning about greeks because he perceives them as lazy and have huge debts and would give a bad economical example?
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
What exactly are you basing your assertion that religion in the US is somehow used to excuse bad stuff? The US is not a paragon of Human rights (although in this case its definitely ahead of Russia) but its generally a pretty tolerant society since core values of freedom are important to people. Usually when making attempts to justify things like discrimination against gays the justification is emphasis on family and legal difficulties with interpreting homosexuality.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
Rape is also natural in animals, it doesn't mean it's good
Also: Come on Murrica. Free the shit out of them. Redeem yourself for all the wars you did for oil, do one for freedom.
They're most likely not capable of doing that, or they would have already.
That's not how politics and international relations work... -_-
Jesus christ how old are you?!
I know well enough that they don't work like that... But who knows what the USA will do, they do have a notorious reputation for going on a "freeing" rampage.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
Democracy is like perfection. It's not reachable, however we should all do our best to get as close as possible. Also, just an afterthought. I have no clue at all, as to why some people hate homosexuals. The only idea i can come up with, is that they have nightmares about this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6A2WhUcNec
I agree but I am saying that percentage of homophobic people isn't same in every country.
If Serbia is seriously full of homophobic people(and that's what you said) or at least of people like you who don't seem to give a shit if minorities get suppressed or not, i seriously wonder why Serbia wants to join the EU.
Citizens actually wont. 60% of them roughly. Me neither But our corrupted goverment is doing a good work for Bruxelles, being their puppet for a more then a decade already.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
I said I am against the pride's lol.
You are pride of being a Serbian,I am proud of being a romanian,they are proud of being gay.Where is the issue?
On June 12 2013 22:03 Reason wrote: [quote] The argument has no value, it's commonly known homosexual parents are just as good at bringing up children as heterosexual parents.
I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex.
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Are you really truly done? Thank god. Because making claims with absolutely not evidence and straight up saying you don't need evidence for said claims is patently stupid.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response to that message either, did you? It's like you're not reading what I'm saying, just so you can skip to your part just to tell me I'm wrong. Now that I'm done, please do go after everyone else making baseless claims (there's a lot more than just me. For the sake of being consistent of course. Dont make an exception for me just because I'm the only one who went up to say "I dont need stats to understand concepts that are relatively simple". (please actually do read what I said about that earlier message for clarity, geez"
No. I've read all of your posts from start to finish. You provide a narrative, and then you say that narrative represents reality. Then when people ask you to demonstrate the connection with evidence, you refuse to because you say that your narrative speaks for itself. Logic doesn't work like that. If you want us to believe your narrative is in any way connected to reality, you have to provide evidence. Which you have not.
If you truly believe that homosexual parents are disadvantaged at raising daughters because they cannot empathize with her biological functions, then you must be able to cite some study. If you have no study and simply made this theory up on the spot, then you have no reason for believing it and it's madness to expect us to believe it as well. And pretending like we don't believe you simply because we haven't read your narrative is moronic. Fiction doesn't become reality simply because the plot sounds good.
On June 12 2013 23:15 guN-viCe wrote: Statutory rape is illegal in many countries including the USA. In the example given by shekelberg, he states a 14 year old with a 40 year old.
I never disputed that it is illegal.
On June 12 2013 23:15 guN-viCe wrote: This is not a grey zone, any way you slice it. In this example, an older person is preying upon and exploiting a naive child.
Feel free to prove the fact that no 14 year old anywhere in the world is capable of deciding about whether or not they love someone and feel ready to have intercourse, any kind of exterior pressure notwithstanding. Oh, you can't? Why's that? Oh, because you should never generalize an entire category of people and draw conclusions that are ultimately inaccurate? Yeah... The law against statutory rape might do more good than harm, but to say it's perfect is beyond absurd.
On June 12 2013 23:15 guN-viCe wrote: Please don't use strawman's or fallacious arguments, it degrades the discussion.
Wherein lay the fallacies?
On June 12 2013 23:15 guN-viCe wrote: My post might have confused you because I was responding to shekelberg's 2 posts, within my single post. My post wasn't ironic, funny or sad.
No, it is ironic because you harp on shekelberg for his intolerance and bigotry (which is reasonable), while at the same time advocating intolerance against every single man who has ever had or intended to have a relationship with a significantly younger woman, simply because you believe that no teenager is capable of making that kind of decisions on their own. Furthermore you make your case not as "I believe this is wrong" but as "lol these people are fucked in the head" without even considering outliers and exceptions, or you know, the fact that the legal system will never cover every single exception without becoming completely subjective.
As parting words, I'd like to point out that beyond any fetishes or personal preferences, men are biologically wired to be more sexually attracted to teenagers and young adult women than to older ones.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
I said I am against the pride's lol.
You are pride of being a Serbian,I am proud of being a romanian,they are proud of being gay.Where is the issue?
By pride's He means the carnival like marches that happen once a year.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
And here I was thinking the greek were gay-friendly!
Its not the greeks.The orthodox church is even more hardcore in Greece than in Russia.Mount Athos with the monks is there and monks would kill people for being gay.You really dont wanna find out what will happen to gays in hell according to the monks.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
What exactly are you basing your assertion that religion in the US is somehow used to excuse bad stuff? The US is not a paragon of Human rights (although in this case its definitely ahead of Russia) but its generally a pretty tolerant society since core values of freedom are important to people. Usually when making attempts to justify things like discrimination against gays the justification is emphasis on family and legal difficulties with interpreting homosexuality.
I didn't talk about homosexuality in general, I was making a basic point, to talk about homosexuality. I'm not talking about those massacres or something, it's a bit more hidden in the USA. One example is all those companies harvesting lumber in the Amazon rainforrest. A common reason for them justifying what they are doing to the environment there they use the bible, it says something about man has to take care of earth, so they believe that earth is theirs to do with as they want, according to the bible.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
And here I was thinking the greek were gay-friendly!
Its not the greeks.The orthodox church is even more hardcore in Greece than in Russia.Mount Athos with the monks is there and monks would kill people for being gay.You really dont wanna find out what will happen to gays in hell according to the monks.
Yeah I know i'm just fuckin' around. Getting a bit bored as we have finished this piñata approx 200 posts ago.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
I said I am against the pride's lol.
You are pride of being a Serbian,I am proud of being a romanian,they are proud of being gay.Where is the issue?
Pride is parade you know? I stated all reasons and wont be doing it again.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
Let me guess you are a greek orthodox.would you say the same if a german politician would give a law banning german kids form learning about greeks because he perceives them as lazy and have huge debts and would give a bad economical example?
If I go to a restaurant and get beat up by the waiter for no reasons, he would be fired and probably arrested. The boss would give me free meal for life and then I would happily go back to this restaurant again !
yep, that's how it feels living in a civilized country.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
And here I was thinking the greek were gay-friendly!
Its not the greeks.The orthodox church is even more hardcore in Greece than in Russia.Mount Athos with the monks is there and monks would kill people for being gay.You really dont wanna find out what will happen to gays in hell according to the monks.
You should be ashamed of your posts, really. This is complete nonsence.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
Let me guess you are a greek orthodox.would you say the same if a german politician would give a law banning german kids form learning about greeks because he perceives them as lazy and have huge debts and would give a bad economical example?
Off topic?
Stop trying to passive-aggressively backseat moderate this thread without posting anything of substance. Thanks.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
I pointed out example where anyone cant protect you. In some countries, police cant protect gqys since there is multiple times more people against gays then there is police.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Theking1 has brought an interesting element that goes against what you are saying and that is the power of the orthodox church in most of eastern Europe. I believe that you would need less church for homophobia to disappear from these countries.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
And here I was thinking the greek were gay-friendly!
Its not the greeks.The orthodox church is even more hardcore in Greece than in Russia.Mount Athos with the monks is there and monks would kill people for being gay.You really dont wanna find out what will happen to gays in hell according to the monks.
They are like the pinnacle of ignorance. Their parents probably feel ashamed of them.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
Let me guess you are a greek orthodox.would you say the same if a german politician would give a law banning german kids form learning about greeks because he perceives them as lazy and have huge debts and would give a bad economical example?
Off topic?
Stop trying to passive-aggressively backseat moderate this thread without posting anything of substance. Thanks.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
Let me guess you are a greek orthodox.would you say the same if a german politician would give a law banning german kids form learning about greeks because he perceives them as lazy and have huge debts and would give a bad economical example?
Off topic?
Stop trying to passive-aggressively backseat moderate this thread without posting anything of substance. Thanks.
Be careful, I already received a warning in this very thread for backseat moderating by requesting a ban for this intelligent individual.
On June 12 2013 22:21 theking1 wrote: I am suprised that so many homophobic posters exist in this forum.Sadly humanity until a great genocide happens does not learn its lesson.The Jews were persecuted for hundreds of years and only after Hitler commited the Hollocaust was antisemitism finally condemned.Now the gays are going to a simmilar process.until many of them are butchered no one will take any actions against inhumane violence against a group of human beings who have done nothing to no one and wish to live their life the way they decide .
I am here via phone so sry for not quoting you previous post. Aside from your terrible try to act as intelectual by writing my psychological profile, you completely misunderstood my point. I dont hate someone just for being gay, jew, black or whatever, I just dont want someone murdered or beatan up or damaged whole city just so they can walk 2 kms. If society doeeent approve it, deal with it, or youre saying its easier to change 7 million peoples then few hundreds of gays?
Hey serbian homophobe thank you for replying! The discussion isnt about damage done to public space.the discussion is about this comment of yours:
"I agree. I havent said that I wouldnt give them (some)rights. They are people after all. I would just like to stop parading and spreading homosexualism that much. But main thing is that here, parades arent really made for gays to get rights but to "inject finger in the eye" of straight people. Plus they get much of publicity as a unrelevant minority."
Now answer my previous question:
Would you say the same if a swiss politician decided to ban Serbian restaurants and Serbian dinner manifestations simply because he feels that serbians are "inject finger in the eye" of the western european populace and are an unrelevant minority?Just asking.
Thank you in advance for your answer
If society isn't ready to accept homosexualism why would you want to march on parades knowing that there would be some kind of trouble?
If small group of Serbs in Switzerland would be unwanted just by their existing(from any reason), and country couldn't protect them, then I would request for ban personally for restaurant. It's not fair to Serbs but it is for other 99% of people living. You can't have perfect world where everyone is happy and satisfied.
Thanks for manners Romanian realist!
I am quite shocked on how easily you would agree to discrimination against your peers based on your perceived idea of democracy.Democracy and human rights mean rule of the majority and PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.If 99% of swiss do not want serbians in their country they can't do anythng about it because Switzwrland is a democracy signatary of human rights and after centuries of world wars and genocides western nations how you call them have realised that discriminationa against a minority if not humane and hence was made illlegal.Being tolerant goes a long way if you want other people being tolerant to you.
I would fight for it because it's in my interest, but gay people isn't. You must be realistic sometimes and deal with something, not scream around like Kalimero "this isnt fair". Also, there is no perfect democracy, there never was. It's ideal and no one can reach it, gays, blacks or anyone else, maybe whites will one day be minority without rights.
If you have no interest in gay rights one way or another, then why are you posting in a thread about gay rights? If you were truly apathetic, you might have read the OP, shrugged, and moved on. But you stayed to post. So no one believes that this is not of interest to you.
I said I am against the pride's lol.
You are pride of being a Serbian,I am proud of being a romanian,they are proud of being gay.Where is the issue?
Pride is parade you know? I stated all reasons and wont be doing it again.
Parades are just manifestations of pride.You would be surprised but most embassyes have special celebrations in their host countries during national days.For example the Dutch embassy planted tulips in Bucharest during the Netherlands national day and made a tulip exhibition It is also a simbol of national pride albeit it is not a parade.Portoricans celebrate portorican day each year in the USA with a parade.Should that be illegal to?Also last year a couple of Romanian Parlamentarians were invited at the Serbian Embassy in Timisoara during serbia's national day.Inviting foreign officials during your national day is also a sign of pride.Should I protest?
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Theking1 has brought an interesting element that goes against what you are saying and that is the power of the orthodox church in most of eastern Europe. I believe that you would need less church for homophobia to disappear from these countries.
Well, the only thing that leads to less churches, is more eduction for the general public. The trend in EU, is that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to belive in crazy things like religion.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
Church being influential is one thing, but i personally know a lot of people who shit on church (catholic one) and still are highly homophobic. Its much deeper issue. Part of entire culture here.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this movement? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Theking1 has brought an interesting element that goes against what you are saying and that is the power of the orthodox church in most of eastern Europe. I believe that you would need less church for homophobia to disappear from these countries.
I have to disagree. Brazil is a widely catholic country and yet it also has one of the biggest acceptance rates for homossexuals.
One more reason to actually fight for your rights (and by "you" I mean them/us fighting people like you you). If you can't go outside because you are afraid of getting beaten up, then there is something seriously wrong with your country. (and no, locking those people inside isn't a solution).
If everyone were like you, black people would still be slaves in America and we would still have a king in France.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Theking1 has brought an interesting element that goes against what you are saying and that is the power of the orthodox church in most of eastern Europe. I believe that you would need less church for homophobia to disappear from these countries.
I can't refute any of what Theking1 is saying, but I have to chime in that as a Romanian, not I nor anyone in my family (or extended family, for that matter), circle of friends or network of acquaintances is influenced by church or really gives a damn about it to any significant extent (although most people do claim to be earnest christians, they simply don't act like it, whether in theory or in practice )
I also live in a small city (or large town, however you want to call it, approx. 50 thousand people) in a predominantly rural county, so if anything we should feel church influences more?
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
On June 12 2013 23:34 Silvanel wrote: Church being influential is one thing, but i personally know a lot of people who shit on church (catholic one) and still are highly homophobic. Its much deeper issue. Part of entire culture here.
On June 12 2013 23:18 Steveling wrote: I agree with this, excellent job Putin.
And here I was thinking the greek were gay-friendly!
Its not the greeks.The orthodox church is even more hardcore in Greece than in Russia.Mount Athos with the monks is there and monks would kill people for being gay.You really dont wanna find out what will happen to gays in hell according to the monks.
You should be ashamed of your posts, really. This is complete nonsence.
No its actually true.I have red those books.If you insist I will post the links here where they describe the punishments the gays will receive in hell.Most of the books are in Romanian and greek since orthodoxy isnt spread into the English speaking world that much.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
I really REALLY hope this is sarcasm.
Come to Romania!
I hear its nice but I probably won't be coming any time soon :/
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
On June 12 2013 23:34 Silvanel wrote: Church being influential is one thing, but i personally know a lot of people who shit on church (catholic one) and still are highly homophobic. Its much deeper issue. Part of entire culture here.
Those small groups of people can not influence politicians to change laws.The Church can.we are talking about a 100% vote in a Parliament.Random neonazy groups don't have that power.
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
As someone who is pretty neutral on their opinion of gay...
I can totally see that perspective. It is not natural (as it isn't way we were supposed to be born), just as bestiality is, however being gay is a lot more widespread of course. And I would say pedophilia is the same kind of disorder.
THE DIFFERENCE is that being gay does not have negative impact on the rest of society, to me they are just generally annoying because they, like other people say, glorify being gay(I still think it's nothing to be proud of, but just accept the fact others are, and don't treat them poorly because of that), and just seem to have more "weird" values than the average person; by society standards anyway.
On June 12 2013 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: 436-0? ZERO? did the mafia get involved and blackmail members of the parliament or something? how is this even possible
Yep, it's the 0 that's actually pretty scary, and that's in isolation from whatever the legislation is. The lack of dissent is shocking, whatever is behind the lack of dissent must be terrifying and strong.
Very surprising , I would expect the communist to be against it at least. Communists in Eastern Europe were never very gay-friendly (rather opposite), but they were also not considering gays as satanic evil.
In communist Romania and even a few years after there was a death penalty for being gay.Don't know about the czech ones though.
In here it was decriminalized 1962, but I think it was tolerated long before than. Interesting about Romania though, I knew they were officially unofficially discriminated, but not that it was that bad. Plus considering how progressive they were on women rights issues I thought that discriminating gays was more of a historical quirk, similar to their dislike of Jews as it does not fit well with communist ideology.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
As someone who is pretty neutral on their opinion of gay...
I can totally see that perspective. It is not natural (as it isn't way we were supposed to be born), just as bestiality is, however being gay is a lot more widespread of course. And I would say pedophilia is the same kind of disorder.
THE DIFFERENCE is that being gay does not have negative impact on the rest of society, to me they are just generally annoying because they, like other people say, glorify being gay(I still think it's nothing to be proud of, but just accept the fact others are, and don't treat them poorly because of that), and just seem to have more "weird" values than the average person; by society standards anyway.
Pedophilia and child molestation are very different...
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
The difference with the USA is that you will find much more opposition to the homophobic sentiments. You will still find plenty of homophobic individuals with an equal amount of hatred though.
On June 12 2013 22:27 guN-viCe wrote: Did you guys know homosexuality is common in some animals?
Imagine having sex with a man, are you repulsed? That's how a gay man feels when he thinks about women.
Homosexuality exists, deal with it. It's not going away, ever.
I feel like Russia and quite a few other countries are like the USA 50-100 years ago.
Religion combined with ignorance and dogma strikes again
USA isn't ahead on that, especially when you mention religion. In USA religion is used on a daily basis as an excuse for many thing, on that area USA is behind compared to most of the countries. The same goes with their attitude to the military. You're frequently being exposed to propaganda from both those areas, most other nations see it all the time in your shows, and whatnot. You're quite modern when it comes to tolerating homosexuality but not religion in general...
Yeah we Europeans sometime feel like we are ahead of the States in the way we separate the state and the church... And then right wing extremists start getting more and more votes, people protest every day against gay marriage, muslim grounds are vandalized (jewish ones also)... And then we remember that intolerance is just behind the corner and that it's an every day fight to keep the freedom we/our parents/grand-parents fought for.
I didn't talk about all of europe as a whole, we are too diverse to say that. In scandinavia though, netherlands as well I know are very tolerant towards homosexuality. There has been only a few things in Denmark I know, where it's legal to get married as a gay couple but some priests didn't want to wed them. I don't know why you bring up the fight our previous generations were fighting in with the wards, you're talking about it as if we're in danger of another war. If you're implying that there is a "war" threatening the peace between us, within communites (straight vs gay or something) I think you're exaggerating quite significantly
Sorry I think I misunderstood your first post. I thought you were referring to the homosexuality bit, but I have re-read your post and that was not the case.
I think in general though the USA holds more opposition to to a greater amount of ideas, good or bad, more than just about any other country for better or worse. I believe it is this way as a result of the USA holding a larger amount of minority groups (not just racial) than any other country I can think of. For that reason I see the country as being naturally more divided on the majority of issues than a predominately homogeneous country.
On June 12 2013 22:10 Jojo131 wrote: [quote] I'm almost convinced you just decided to sidestep what I just typed -_- Being unable to empathize to biological processes of the opposite sex is a protruding disadvantage to same-sex couples, when the opportunity to seek external help isn't always available.
According to what study?
There's no statistics needed to be done.
As a guy I can't invoke previous pains of being pregnant, or having a period. I cannot empathize with a woman's pain the same way another woman can. It's a type of emotional support I cannot provide as a man.
This is completely ridiculous. So if your child loses a limb to some accident then he is gonna hate you because you can't empathize with that kind of pain since you never lost a limb? Everyone can understand pain and fathers/mothers feel more because there is a connection (love) involved, it doesn't matter if there aren't the same sex, when someone you love is in agony you feel for them and will be there for them no matter what, that is human nature.
You can't anticipate that your child will lose a leg, so you have no agency in your inability to empathize in this situation.
Being able to empathize with your child as she's pregnant/giving birth is dependent of whether you're a gay couple or not (ie. if you are then you cant, if you are not than you can).
And of course you can still try to feel for them through love, but you're not as "there" with them as someone else who's shared the same experience. The significance of this factor is situational to the child and the incident.
You did not answer my reply to you which insisted on the fact that a lot of people lack that kind of empathy though their parents, life is tough and not as many people as you think have both parents (accident, divorce, etc.)...
But people seem to get through that and live happily anyways... Your argument is invalid because this case scenario already exists without Homoparentality.
Then I dont think you understood my argument, which was (from the very beginning) that gay men couples are disadvantaged against heterosexual couples because they can't empathize with their pregnant daughters (when external help is not always available), because they can't provide the type of empathy which is exclusive to individual sex.
It is NOT that gay men couples are disadvantaged against all other family structures, which seems to be where you were headed by drawing on single parents, divorces etc.
You're correct in stating that other family structures (such as single parents) also cannot provide that type of empathy, in which case they are also disadvantaged (which shouldn't be too hard to understand right? 1<2?). But that does not shake the argument that there is a clear disadvantage for gay men couples with daughters, when external help is not always available.
The significance of this ability to empathize is solely dependent on the child and the incident, whether she feels that she needs that type of support, which 2 men cannot provide.
Like you though, I'm done beating on this dead horse. Thats all from me.
Are you really truly done? Thank god. Because making claims with absolutely not evidence and straight up saying you don't need evidence for said claims is patently stupid.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response to that message either, did you? It's like you're not reading what I'm saying, just so you can skip to your part just to tell me I'm wrong. Now that I'm done, please do go after everyone else making baseless claims (there's a lot more than just me. For the sake of being consistent of course. Dont make an exception for me just because I'm the only one who went up to say "I dont need stats to understand concepts that are relatively simple". (please actually do read what I said about that earlier message for clarity, geez"
No. I've read all of your posts from start to finish. You provide a narrative, and then you say that narrative represents reality. Then when people ask you to demonstrate the connection with evidence, you refuse to because you say that your narrative speaks for itself. Logic doesn't work like that. If you want us to believe your narrative is in any way connected to reality, you have to provide evidence. Which you have not.
If you truly believe that homosexual parents are disadvantaged at raising daughters because they cannot empathize with her biological functions, then you must be able to cite some study. If you have no study and simply made this theory up on the spot, then you have no reason for believing it and it's madness to expect us to believe it as well. And pretending like we don't believe you simply because we haven't read your narrative is moronic. Fiction doesn't become reality simply because the plot sounds good.
I agree with what you're saying, and would say the same if I was in your shoes and if this was a research paper. You're also correct to point out that my arguments are baseless. However, at least on the medium of an online discussion thread, purely for the sake of discussion, and provided that the claims aren't completely outlandish I think that this is fine. My question then is, do you expect everyone making a claim/argument here on TL to back it up with sources? Or that a discussion/narrative cannot be had online unless everyone else linked to a study? Anyone who draws a claim/narrative is projecting some type of reality, and if it's within reason (ie. pigs dont fly) then I don't feel it necessitates referencing given that this is just a discussion thread. If these are your expectations however, then I imagine you're well on your way to pointing out everyone else making claims for not having sources.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
As someone who is pretty neutral on their opinion of gay...
I can totally see that perspective. It is not natural (as it isn't way we were supposed to be born), just as bestiality is, however being gay is a lot more widespread of course. And I would say pedophilia is the same kind of disorder.
THE DIFFERENCE is that being gay does not have negative impact on the rest of society, to me they are just generally annoying because they, like other people say, glorify being gay(I still think it's nothing to be proud of, but just accept the fact others are, and don't treat them poorly because of that), and just seem to have more "weird" values than the average person; by society standards anyway.
Impressive, you managed to get the buzzwords unnatural, bestiality and paedophilia into one post about homosexuality. My congratulations.
I am not talking about neonazis lol. I am talking about young highly liberal , well educated people with good jobs. I know a lot of such people who have nothing aginst other races, religions, national minorities, but are strongly against gay rights.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
The name already reveals the troll
No it doesn't.
But do explain, when a couple people share a voice about equality, why does everyone start to agree with them, and raise their voice to aid them. The only person you're screwing over with it is yourself(assuming you are straight).
I'm trying to find reasoning for this topic to be such an important topic to people. I've stayed out of this until now, because its like really... are we still going on about this? Why do people care so much?
EDIT: I'm trying to offer the more "radical" perspective here, just so people can actually have a second to think, no need to bash me for what I said. LOTS of people think what we don't here if it gets banned in countries, its not as if they don't have a brain. So analyze before you say the Russians are dumb/crazy/etc, and make an education decision whether it's a bad or good decision before being anti gay=awful. Maybe it's good for the common good in Russia.
On June 12 2013 21:25 Christ the Redeemer wrote:All I am saying is that for a healthy discussion.
So why would you support a law that essentially bans healthy discussion for a considerable group of people?
Denying information to people is pretty much never the way to go. Making it illegal to share information is generally simply stupid.
It goes without saying that when you deny bigots the ability to spread their bigotry they will play victim, even when there's tremendous irony in doing so. ^^
Russia's population is dying. The death rate is much much higher than the birth rate, and the exorbitant amount of death during the Eastern front of World War II is remembered constantly by especially the older generation, which forms a considerable part of the Duma.
The result of this is that Russia is desperate to stabilize its population. I haven't seen it personally but I believe there is a government stipend for having a child on June 12, Russia Day. The point of all of this is that some in the government really want people to increase the birth rate, almost making it a patriotic duty.
Putin went on CNN before and said he was publicly discouraging homosexuality in an effort to encourage all to reproduce and possibly increase Russia's population. This is just an extension of that belief. The Church may support it and conservatives may support it but this is the underlying cause for a lot of the support among middle aged and older Russians.
I originally lived in Moscow and visit there at least once a year, my mom especially likes discussing this issue when it's brought up.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
I think it has something to do with human intelligence, compassion, ethics. We need to transcend our "Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain" mentality. We are endowed with intelligence and wisdom to see other as our brothers and sisters.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Because unlike the attitude you are displaying, people are not sociopaths.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
I really REALLY hope this is sarcasm.
Come to Romania!
I hear its nice but I probably won't be coming any time soon :/
On June 12 2013 23:45 Silvanel wrote: I am not talking about neonazis lol. I am talking about young highly liberal , well educated people with good jobs. I know a lot of such people who have nothing aginst other races, religions, national minorities, but are strongly against gay rights.
I can promise you, if they truly have nothing against other races, religions, or national minorities, they also have nothing against gay rights. If they have something against gay rights, then they aren't nearly as tolerant of other minorities as you're claiming. Bigotry isn't rational and it's never compartmentalized.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Compassion, I guess.
How far do we go before Individual Selfishness > Compassion?
Because in history we were always very Selfish it seems, and people saying "Compassion is a human trait" is only so true, I think we are really being educated to value compassion a lot, but it's interesting, because 100 years ago this would be agreed upon by almost all people...
And it's not like, those people weren't "human".
EDIT: Compassionate people are usually easier to control, less outspoken, more peaceful... I think our society really tries to teach us in this way for the sole reason of us being easier to control, and make society more fluid. But it's always good to look at the other perspectives.
On June 12 2013 23:46 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: It has nothing to do with religion.
Russia's population is dying. The death rate is much much higher than the birth rate, and the exorbitant amount of death during the Eastern front of World War II is remembered constantly by especially the older generation, which forms a considerable part of the Duma.
The result of this is that Russia is desperate to stabilize its population. I haven't seen it personally but I believe there is a government stipend for having a child on June 12, Russia Day. The point of all of this is that some in the government really want people to increase the birth rate, almost making it a patriotic duty.
Putin went on CNN before and said he was publicly discouraging homosexuality in an effort to encourage all to reproduce and possibly increase Russia's population. This is just an extension of that belief. The Church may support it and conservatives may support it but this is the underlying cause for a lot of the support among middle aged and older Russians.
I originally lived in Moscow and visit there at least once a year, my mom especially likes discussing this issue when it's brought up.
So the 150 million population of Russia can not multiply because of a few hundred homosexuals.God damnit so thats the new excuse.A few gay people having sex in their bedrooms prevent 150 million russians form having sex.Where do homophobes come up with this stuff.Putin is a politician he needs the church to subdue the masses.But really homosexuals being responsible for depopulation.Thats a new one.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
I'll begin my post by asking you. Do you feel that power justifies oppression of those who are "weaker" than you? I mean with the logic you are using here: "If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out" Why does the rich man tolerate the poor. Why doesn't he just enslave all of those who are more disadvantaged than himself.
I take it you are probably not a millionaire, so let's say hypothetically, a millionaire sees you on the street one day and suddenly starts beating you. Naturally you are confused and ask him "why are you beating me" and replies "shut up poor boy, I'm better than you, I can do what I want." Is that the type of world you are trying to advocate?
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
As someone who is pretty neutral on their opinion of gay...
I can totally see that perspective. It is not natural (as it isn't way we were supposed to be born), just as bestiality is, however being gay is a lot more widespread of course. And I would say pedophilia is the same kind of disorder.
THE DIFFERENCE is that being gay does not have negative impact on the rest of society, to me they are just generally annoying because they, like other people say, glorify being gay(I still think it's nothing to be proud of, but just accept the fact others are, and don't treat them poorly because of that), and just seem to have more "weird" values than the average person; by society standards anyway.
Awesome. I love being compared to pedophiles and dog-fuckers. Great way to start my day on some forums.
We see homosexuality in nature (in other animal species), and it boggles my mind what
(as it isn't way we were supposed to be born)
actually means. What do you mean by supposed? God? Evolution? I'm really always baffled by this particular invocation of the naturalistic fallacy.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Compassion, I guess.
How far do we go before Individual Selfishness > Compassion?
Because in history we were always very Selfish it seems, and people saying "Compassion is a human trait" is only so true, I think we are really being educated to value compassion a lot, but it's interesting, because 100 years ago this would be agreed upon by almost all people...
And it's not like, those people weren't "human".
How on earth does oppressing minorities satisfy your individual selfishness? At best, it makes you a sadist, not selfish. But, expanding freedoms for all groups does satisfy your selfishness in the long run because if you ever become a minority it means you're less likely to be oppressed yourself. If you defend the freedoms of others it ultimately makes your freedoms more secure.
Yeah, because You know my friends so well....A friend of mine has a black boyfriend (shes a white girl) i am going to tell her she is fucking racist because she doesnt support gay rights.... Thats just one example. You are talking nonsense dude.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
As someone who is pretty neutral on their opinion of gay...
I can totally see that perspective. It is not natural (as it isn't way we were supposed to be born), just as bestiality is, however being gay is a lot more widespread of course. And I would say pedophilia is the same kind of disorder.
THE DIFFERENCE is that being gay does not have negative impact on the rest of society, to me they are just generally annoying because they, like other people say, glorify being gay(I still think it's nothing to be proud of, but just accept the fact others are, and don't treat them poorly because of that), and just seem to have more "weird" values than the average person; by society standards anyway.
Assuming you're referring only to comparing homosexuality with bestiality....
Having sex with animals doesn't negatively impact the rest of society, it's merely deemed animal cruelty and is illegal in most civilised countries, homosexuality is not.
Homosexuality is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom but interspecies relations are not.
Gay people aren't "annoying" because they glorify being gay. Gay people are "annoying" because they don't want to be treated as sub-humans and if that makes them annoying to you then I'd reconsider your pet peeves.
I don't see what's the big deal. Talking about sex to a kid is already a much avoided subject between adults and children. Teaching kids about homosexuality and homosexuals is going to be just as awkward.
Imagine you're the teacher in a class and you're teaching sex ed and a some darn kid decide to ask is doing a guy or a girl better. You can be neutral, and say they're both good, then the kid asks you "which one do you do?" And before you know it, you got parents bombarding you. With this law implemented, it makes it easy for educators, even if it's not true.
Hell, anyone who pursuit sciences and engineering knows that the simple formulas and models aren't true and yet we're teaching them because we have to start somewhere. So unless someone wants to say with 100% confidence how we should teach our kids about homosexuals with minimal effect on altering their sexuality then I don't see why avoiding the whole subject at all should be bad. Kids are young, one moment they're the jolliest thing in the world the other moment they're emo out of their mind. If anyone watched Modern Family should know what I'm talking about with Lily. lol.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
This is actually one of the most neonazy posts I have red on this website.The slave/disabled people are part of nazy ideology.But even the nazys weren't promoting animal cruelty and discrimination against women.You must be one sick bastard.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
<-- White Hetrosexual male posting here, from Denmark.
The reason why i personally wants these things, is because i know that our current life is our only time of existance.
1 - I want equal rights for women, because i love my mother, i love my female friends, and i understand the fact, that women are usefull for society.
2 - I know what freedom truely means, so that is why i want to share it with everyone. The thing i hate most in this world, is people who think they own other people. If i could, i would personally beat the shit out of anyone who thinks they own others. Be they kings or gods.
3 - Because we have more than enough rescources atm. As long as we can make them self-sustaning in the long run, theres no reason at all to not help them(unless they don't want help).
4 - The only reason i want liberation of the middle east, is because i see religion as humanity's cancer. It's for our best to remove any influence i t have on society. People can still have personal belives and religions, however religion should have no political or social power at all.
5 - Because theres no difference between me and them except or taste in mates. I honstly don't even know why i should concern myself over someones sexuality. What defines a person, is the actions they take, and people like the man throwing eggs on the picture in the OP, is a person i would beat to a bloody pulp.
6 - Why the fuck would you go around randomly hurting/killing living things? Say we are talking about a bear. As long as it is not trying to eat me, and i don't want it eat, then i have no reason to torment it.
7 - Because it's not their fault how they where born. If you can't understand that, i seriously think you should go to a mental hospital, because you completely lack empathy. Imagin your that you break your back from falling, and you get paralyzed from the waist and down. Should we just let you die? Imagin if it was your mother, or your father, or your wife.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
so basically what you are saying is that I (western white male) am not SUPPOSED to care about everything bad that happens to people "below" me in the food chain? I can understand why you would say that about animals and if you want to think of humans in such a pessimistic way that's up to you to decide but my personal definition of the human race goes much beyond just acting on instincts and egoism not caring about others at all and I really have a difficult time understanding why some people would think about the human race in such a way
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Compassion, I guess.
How far do we go before Individual Selfishness > Compassion?
Because in history we were always very Selfish it seems, and people saying "Compassion is a human trait" is only so true, I think we are really being educated to value compassion a lot, but it's interesting, because 100 years ago this would be agreed upon by almost all people...
And it's not like, those people weren't "human".
Knowledge grows. We keep getting better and better as a society. Whereas before we only see thing in the context of our tribe, village, country, we will eventually learn that we are all brothers and sisters and we must work together to achieve justice and equality.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Compassion, I guess.
How far do we go before Individual Selfishness > Compassion?
Because in history we were always very Selfish it seems, and people saying "Compassion is a human trait" is only so true, I think we are really being educated to value compassion a lot, but it's interesting, because 100 years ago this would be agreed upon by almost all people...
And it's not like, those people weren't "human".
You could think of it as "the common good". Society as a whole tends to progress more when all people are given equal rights. (less fighting, more productivity/workers, more happy people, etc)
I dont want to fight alone for gay people rights, I just do not care about them enough. If they can't accept socety the way it is, they could move in France and live normal life. I am sorry for them but there's nothing I can do.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
On June 12 2013 23:55 Silvanel wrote: Yeah, because You know my friends so well....A friend of mine has a black boyfriend (shes a white girl) i am going to tell her she is fucking racist because she doesnt support gay rights.... Thats just one example. You are talking nonsense dude.
I'm not a racist! One of my best friends is black! HAHAHAHA Not saying she is a racist, but jesus christ your logic wouldn't last in elementary school much less in the adult world.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
I'm just going to stop posting guys, didn't think I'd get this much hate.
I never said I believe all I said, I was offering a different perspective, and just some food for thought, because just as some people look at gay's as "sub humans", you guys look at anti-gays as "sub humans", when you aren't understanding their logic. I was trying to get into their shoes and find their arguments and perspectives, and MANY of the posts just tried and argue my point by not even pointing out flaws in my logic, instead, calling my a sociopath, loling, etc.
So whatever, that's what you get when you try and provoke some thoughts.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
On June 13 2013 00:01 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'm just going to stop posting guys, didn't think I'd get this much hate.
I never said I believe all I said, I was offering a different perspective, and just some food for thought, because just as some people look at gay's as "sub humans", you guys look at anti-gays as "sub humans", when you aren't understanding their logic. I was trying to get into their shoes and find their arguments and perspectives, and MANY of the posts just tried and argue my point by not even pointing out flaws in my logic, instead, calling my a sociopath, loling, etc.
So whatever, that's what you get when you try and provoke some thoughts.
You didn't think you would get much hate condoning slavery and oppression? Clearly you are not at the top of the food chain.
On June 13 2013 00:01 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'm just going to stop posting guys, didn't think I'd get this much hate.
I never said I believe all I said, I was offering a different perspective, and just some food for thought, because just as some people look at gay's as "sub humans", you guys look at anti-gays as "sub humans", when you aren't understanding their logic. I was trying to get into their shoes and find their arguments and perspectives, and MANY of the posts just tried and argue my point by not even pointing out flaws in my logic, instead, calling my a sociopath, loling, etc.
So whatever, that's what you get when you try and provoke some thoughts.
That's when you get when you present a fairly poorly-worded argument and at no point mention "i do not identify with this school of thought, but it would be interesting to understand their viewpoints" etc etc.
On June 12 2013 23:56 eScaper-tsunami wrote: I don't see what's the big deal. Talking about sex to a kid is already a much avoided subject between adults and children.
Well it's okay to say 'most children have a mommy and a daddy, and they love each other' and not okay to describe heterosexual intercourse in detail. The same applies to discussions about homosexuality. It's okay to acknowledge that two men or two women can be boyfriends or girlfriends, without describing how they have sex. It's a copout to support this law by saying children shouldn't have this stuff explained to them since we already do it appropriately for heterosexual relations.
Teaching kids about homosexuality and homosexuals is going to be just as awkward.
Definitely can be true (doesn't have be). I guess the correct response, rather than dealing with it, is to unfairly oppress huge groups of people.
Imagine you're the teacher in a class and you're teaching sex ed
You generally don't teach sex ed until the students are 15-16 and by then they can handle this stuff.
and a some darn kid decide to ask is doing a guy or a girl better.
You can tell them the question is inappropriate for class. Why is it okay for your student to ask you about who is better to do?
You can be neutral, and say they're both good, then the kid asks you "which one do you do?" And before you know it, you got parents bombarding you. With this law implemented, it makes it easy for educators, even if it's not true.
This ridiculous law is not necessary for a half-way competent teacher to deal with such a situation.
Hell, anyone who pursuit sciences and engineering knows that the simple formulas and models aren't true and yet we're teaching them because we have to start somewhere. So unless someone wants to say with 100% confidence how we should teach our kids about homosexuals with minimal effect on altering their sexuality then I don't see why avoiding the whole subject at all should be bad.
So it's okay to discuss heterosexuality but not homosexuality? The comparison to formulas that simplify situations is a bit ridiculous. I can use the same logic to discuss almost everything I like, and ban discussing almost everything I don't like.
You really should re-evaluate this issue and be more open minded about it.
On June 12 2013 23:55 Silvanel wrote: Yeah, because You know my friends so well....A friend of mine has a black boyfriend (shes a white girl) i am going to tell her she is fucking racist because she doesnt support gay rights.... Thats just one example. You are talking nonsense dude.
I'm not a racist! One of my best friends is black! HAHAHAHA Not saying she is a racist, but jesus christ your logic wouldn't last in elementary school much less in the adult world.
Dude You have some serious problems with understanding what You read. You say You cant be against gay rights and not racist, i say You can. I know such people... You might not belive me, thats one thing. But judging from Your post You are not even able to comprahend what i am saying.
And my logic is working just fine for me thank You.
Today is my 32nd birthday, and the first time I've ever been embarrassed about a thread on TL. I have been a reader for years, (jaedong fighting) but I don't really post on here, because I always feel like I have missed the boat, and don't have time to read the 15 pages of posts and spot where someone smarter than me already posted my point on a topic. Generally, I brag about the readers and posters of this website to my non-video gaming friends. The intelligence it takes to get out of silver sort of implies that you are smarter than most people who walk around this earth, and yet far too many posts in this thread seem to be missing the point about this law.
I don't know much about Russia, but to me, this is about information and education. Is it illegal to inform children about the existence of bears? Is it illegal to inform children about the existence of Jesus? Whether you think being gay is wrong or not, whether you think it's a mental defect, or a choice only an adult can make, whether or not you want them prancing about next to your coffee shop, they exist, and frankly, throwing eggs at them is enough to prove they exist. If they chose this sinful lifestyle, or are subject to mother nature's attempt to thin the population, or are just real life trolls who want to defile the sanctity of marriage or even humanity, it is still hard to argue that they exist. To deny children the information about what exists is far more appalling than any ignorant person's opinion or belief.
I can argue about the existence of Jesus, and of Heaven and Hell, because there is very little evidence of any of it. It is impossible to argue that people who believe in this stuff exist, because they are flesh and blood human beings breathing the same air that I breathe. Are there other precedents of Russia suppressing any other reality based information like this? To attempt to put an entire generation into denial reminds me that there must be some country that tries to deny that the German Holocaust ever happened. A lot of time and money is spent in this country to inform children about "stranger danger," to address a small percentage of adults that want to kidnap and or molest small children. I would argue that this is in many ways a waste of money, but it is impossible for me to put myself into denial about the existence of dangerous strangers. At what age is it appropriate for a child to learn that unicorns or dragons don't exist? At what age is it appropriate for children to learn that poisonous berries exist? I venture to say that I would be less appalled if Russia passed a law to actively inform children that homosexuality is a terrible sin or a blight on society, because at least it doesn't require, by law, that you lie to children when they ask very innocent questions.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
Thanks.
English wannabe who hates Orthodox church. I am sick of you people.
It's not their responsibility to change themselves for society or move away because they're not accepted. That line of thought is straight from the 13th century. It's society's job to accept people the way they are as long as they do no harm to others. And I don't know about anyone else but I don't feel especially harmed when I meet a homosexual person.
Well, try to come here or Ukraine, Russia, Georgia on pride. Then you will understand what I am talking about. It's not 13th century it's different opinion. Just if westerners think gay is ok, it doesen't mean it actually is acceptable to everyone. Not everyone are same.
Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
This law encourages homophobia, you said you can't force people to be gay friendly. Fine. That doesn't mean you force them in the other direction either. That was the point.
Also, "forcing" straight people to be gay friendly isn't discriminatory towards straight people because straight people aren't inherently homophobic.
On June 12 2013 22:53 Reason wrote: [quote] Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
Thanks.
English wannabe who hates Orthodox church. I am sick of you people.
And yet I'm the one who posts ad hominems, right?
Just FYI, I bear disdain for all churches equally.
On June 12 2013 23:46 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: It has nothing to do with religion.
Russia's population is dying. The death rate is much much higher than the birth rate, and the exorbitant amount of death during the Eastern front of World War II is remembered constantly by especially the older generation, which forms a considerable part of the Duma.
The result of this is that Russia is desperate to stabilize its population. I haven't seen it personally but I believe there is a government stipend for having a child on June 12, Russia Day. The point of all of this is that some in the government really want people to increase the birth rate, almost making it a patriotic duty.
Putin went on CNN before and said he was publicly discouraging homosexuality in an effort to encourage all to reproduce and possibly increase Russia's population. This is just an extension of that belief. The Church may support it and conservatives may support it but this is the underlying cause for a lot of the support among middle aged and older Russians.
I originally lived in Moscow and visit there at least once a year, my mom especially likes discussing this issue when it's brought up.
So the 150 million population of Russia can not multiply because of a few hundred homosexuals.God damnit so thats the new excuse.A few gay people having sex in their bedrooms prevent 150 million russians form having sex.Where do homophobes come up with this stuff.Putin is a politician he needs the church to subdue the masses.But really homosexuals being responsible for depopulation.Thats a new one.
Many atheists in Russia are still homophobic. The Church might subdue the people who already have homophobic tendencies - the older generations. The population rose for the first time since 1991 last year so any growth is good growth. I'm not arguing that it's not a stupid decision because it is. I'm saying that there is a rationale for the government to do this besides the usual "church/quelling dissenters/medieval bigotry" rationale for what is going on here.
And there is way more than a few hundred gays in the country.
I really think that, though there are some universal things like tolerance, this shows that is more society than any kind of universal standard that sets the bar for what is tolerated. While the west increasingly looks at homosexuality in an at least neutral light, the east hasn't found that the issue deserves tolerance. This is definitely a cultural thing IMO.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
The name already reveals the troll
No it doesn't.
But do explain, when a couple people share a voice about equality, why does everyone start to agree with them, and raise their voice to aid them. The only person you're screwing over with it is yourself(assuming you are straight).
I'm trying to find reasoning for this topic to be such an important topic to people. I've stayed out of this until now, because its like really... are we still going on about this? Why do people care so much?
EDIT: I'm trying to offer the more "radical" perspective here, just so people can actually have a second to think, no need to bash me for what I said. LOTS of people think what we don't here if it gets banned in countries, its not as if they don't have a brain. So analyze before you say the Russians are dumb/crazy/etc, and make an education decision whether it's a bad or good decision before being anti gay=awful. Maybe it's good for the common good in Russia.
Screwing everyone when you are at the top can turn out to be a horrible idea of the roles are turned at some point. Also most men know and care for women, why would you not support a world that give them equal rights to you? Same with gay's, I know a couple and they are good people and have been good to me, why wouldn't I support their desire to be accepted and be able to marry (or whatever it may be)? I fail to see how this are "screwing myself over".
All marriage should be banned because its a stupid religious tradition thats unnatural. Why do people become militant athiests these days and yet still want to get married.. mind blowing.
You don't need a ring and a priest to make your love official, gay people should be fighting for marriage to be removed from law, not for marriage to be allowed by gay/lesbians.
On June 12 2013 23:55 Silvanel wrote: Yeah, because You know my friends so well....A friend of mine has a black boyfriend (shes a white girl) i am going to tell her she is fucking racist because she doesnt support gay rights.... Thats just one example. You are talking nonsense dude.
I'm not a racist! One of my best friends is black! HAHAHAHA Not saying she is a racist, but jesus christ your logic wouldn't last in elementary school much less in the adult world.
Dude You have some serious problems with understanding what You read. You say You cant be against gay rights and not racist, i say You can. I know such people... You might not belive me, thats one thing. But judging from Your post You are not even able to comprahend what i am saying.
And my logic is working just fine for me thank You.
I said it's highly unlikely that you can be a bigot in one way and not any other way. I bet if you poked at your friend you'd fine she had some notions based on bigotry. And of course your logic is working fine for you, it always works just fine for bigots.
On June 13 2013 00:05 SirStiggy wrote: Today is my 32nd birthday, and the first time I've ever been embarrassed about a thread on TL. I have been a reader for years, (jaedong fighting) but I don't really post on here, because I always feel like I have missed the boat, and don't have time to read the 15 pages of posts and spot where someone smarter than me already posted my point on a topic. Generally, I brag about the readers and posters of this website to my non-video gaming friends. The intelligence it takes to get out of silver sort of implies that you are smarter than most people who walk around this earth, and yet far too many posts in this thread seem to be missing the point about this law.
I don't know much about Russia, but to me, this is about information and education. Is it illegal to inform children about the existence of bears? Is it illegal to inform children about the existence of Jesus? Whether you think being gay is wrong or not, whether you think it's a mental defect, or a choice only an adult can make, whether or not you want them prancing about next to your coffee shop, they exist, and frankly, throwing eggs at them is enough to prove they exist. If they chose this sinful lifestyle, or are subject to mother nature's attempt to thin the population, or are just real life trolls who want to defile the sanctity of marriage or even humanity, it is still hard to argue that they exist. To deny children the information about what exists is far more appalling than any ignorant person's opinion or belief.
I can argue about the existence of Jesus, and of Heaven and Hell, because there is very little evidence of any of it. It is impossible to argue that people who believe in this stuff exist, because they are flesh and blood human beings breathing the same air that I breathe. Are there other precedents of Russia suppressing any other reality based information like this? To attempt to put an entire generation into denial reminds me that there must be some country that tries to deny that the German Holocaust ever happened. A lot of time and money is spent in this country to inform children about "stranger danger," to address a small percentage of adults that want to kidnap and or molest small children. I would argue that this is in many ways a waste of money, but it is impossible for me to put myself into denial about the existence of dangerous strangers. At what age is it appropriate for a child to learn that unicorns or dragons don't exist? At what age is it appropriate for children to learn that poisonous berries exist? I venture to say that I would be less appalled if Russia passed a law to actively inform children that homosexuality is a terrible sin or a blight on society, because at least it doesn't require, by law, that you lie to children when they ask very innocent questions.
the information is not denied, it's delayed 1 or 2 years.
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
Thanks.
English wannabe who hates Orthodox church. I am sick of you people.
And yet I'm the one who posts ad hominems, right?
Just FYI, I bear disdain for all churches equally.
We weren't really arguing right now, I just insulted you for trying to be something you are not
On June 13 2013 00:01 FiWiFaKi wrote: I'm just going to stop posting guys, didn't think I'd get this much hate.
I never said I believe all I said, I was offering a different perspective, and just some food for thought, because just as some people look at gay's as "sub humans", you guys look at anti-gays as "sub humans", when you aren't understanding their logic. I was trying to get into their shoes and find their arguments and perspectives, and MANY of the posts just tried and argue my point by not even pointing out flaws in my logic, instead, calling my a sociopath, loling, etc.
So whatever, that's what you get when you try and provoke some thoughts.
Next time, try to provoke some thoughts with decent arguments.
On June 13 2013 00:08 Synapze wrote: All marriage should be banned because its a stupid religious tradition thats unnatural. Why do people become militant athiests these days and yet still want to get married.. mind blowing.
You don't need a ring and a priest to make your love official, gay people should be fighting for marriage to be removed from law, not for marriage to be allowed by gay/lesbians.
Because, it's not that exciting to ask "will you civil union me?", gay or straight.
On June 12 2013 22:53 Reason wrote: [quote] Yeah, some people are racist or homophobic, what's your point?
If 90% of people are homophobic, country can't protect pride. Neither gay people, ergo, parade would be more damaging than useful. That's my point. But it differs from west (and 90% of posters aren't from few named countries) and that's why I am fighting the wind here.
Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
Thanks.
English wannabe who hates Orthodox church. I am sick of you people.
HAHAAHA>I knew it.You primitives are so easy to deconspire.You were so calm and full of arguments before until I mentioned the allmighty ORTHODOX CHURCH,THen you became passionate and spitefull and resorted to ad hominen attacks.It hurts doesn't it but your homophobia deep down inside is rooted into your subcounscious by the Orthodox Church.My point is proven.You only hate gays because some old dudes who live on public money tell you to based on a 2000 year old book.And no nobody here is hating ont he Orthodox Church theya r eth eones hating ont he gays.It is called justice and every criminal including the orthodox ones must receive punishment for their crimes.And sexual discrimination is a crime.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Compassion, I guess.
How far do we go before Individual Selfishness > Compassion?
Because in history we were always very Selfish it seems, and people saying "Compassion is a human trait" is only so true, I think we are really being educated to value compassion a lot, but it's interesting, because 100 years ago this would be agreed upon by almost all people...
And it's not like, those people weren't "human".
You could think of it as "the common good". Society as a whole tends to progress more when all people are given equal rights. (less fighting, more productivity/workers, more happy people, etc)
Well is that what's best for society? Depends what you consider society as most decisions benefit one party, and negative impact the other. The gay oppression is just very hard to do because it's a 10%~ or so population you are oppressing, and because people have friends that are gay etc, they support it.
But take a look at homelessness, they are still very disregarded by very many people, and in my city, First Nation's living on the reserves are also oppressed, and poorly treated by society (Because they are a very small percentage).
In Calgary, pretty much the only group really supporting the First Natives is the government, and that pisses most citizen off, because lots of tax dollars go to them, when the general population here thinks they do anything useful and it's just a waste of money.
So it's really hard to say whether everyone SHOULD be equal, because usually that means its a detriment to other people that they aren't happy about, and that's why you still see oppression regardless of where you live. Usually the business owners have less of the humane traits, and economically are higher up, and therefore I'm saying compassion is a double edged sword; has it's positives and negatives.
To me it seems we are giving equal rights only to people that improve the common good(or help society), so I find it rather hypocritical. As Obama was anti-gay marriage, then boom, as everyone says... To gain support of the people for elections he became pro-gay marriage. Government wants to stop protests? Give them more rights. Oppression is stopped when people want it to be stopped.
Stop oppression in China where people work 12 hours a day in awful working conditions for little money? We benefit, we want more free stuff, so not that many people care.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
<-- White Hetrosexual male posting here, from Denmark.
The reason why i personally wants these things, is because i know that our current life is our only time of existance.
I really did not want to reply to other posts like this in this thread, but this is too much. You are forgiven though if you are still in highschool and just think you know about things like tolerance, equal rights, etc. let me break it down for you:
1 - I want equal rights for women, because i love my mother, i love my female friends, and i understand the fact, that women are usefull for society.
The primordial need for equal rights for everyone DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LOVE OR PREFERENCES. Someone needs right not because you love him or her, but because it is an unalienable thing, a natural feature of a just and modern society. Worst is your argument about them being useful. With your logic, you are saying that if you don;t love someone, they dont deserve rights. And if someone is useless, they dont deserve any rights either.
2 - I know what freedom truely means, so that is why i want to share it with everyone. The thing i hate most in this world, is people who think they own other people. If i could, i would personally beat the shit out of anyone who thinks they own others. Be they kings or gods.
Care to elaborate on this "true freedom"?
3 - Because we have more than enough rescources atm. As long as we can make them self-sustaning in the long run, theres no reason at all to not help them(unless they don't want help).
We do not, don't be naive.
4 - The only reason i want liberation of the middle east, is because i see religion as humanity's cancer. It's for our best to remove any influence i t have on society. People can still have personal belives and religions, however religion should have no political or social power at all.
How little you know about religion, society, and politics. Even if you have a point about the evils of religion, your point here is borderline xenophobic.
5 - Because theres no difference between me and them except or taste in mates. I honstly don't even know why i should concern myself over someones sexuality. What defines a person, is the actions they take, and people like the man throwing eggs on the picture in the OP, is a person i would beat to a bloody pulp.
In the present discourse on LGTB, gender is more than "taste in mates". And you again threatening to beat someone makes me think you are a naive or ignorant internet tough guy.
6 - Why the fuck would you go around randomly hurting/killing living things? Say we are talking about a bear. As long as it is not trying to eat me, and i don't want it eat, then i have no reason to torment it.
My head hurts already...
7 - Because it's not their fault how they where born. If you can't understand that, i seriously think you should go to a mental hospital, because you completely lack empathy. Imagin your that you break your back from falling, and you get paralyzed from the waist and down. Should we just let you die? Imagin if it was your mother, or your father, or your wife.
Ok point, but like point one, rights have nothing to do with love or familiarity.
Sorry to hit it hard on you mate. Imagine this as trying to wake you up to the cruelties of real life, or your incoming college life in your case.
On June 12 2013 23:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Holy shit, finally something is being done.
So sick of this Gay movement thing all over the world, people are too squishy here, wanting to make everything fair and equal, they should know by now this isn't how the world operates.
If you are ontop of the food chain, why do you feel bad for all others to try and even everything out, I never understood it. Many examples are of this. Say you are a western white man, why do you all of the sudden feel:
1) Woman should have equal rights to you 2) No more slaves 3) We should feed starving people in Africa 4) Go liberalize the middle east or something 5) Give equal rights to homosexuals and bisexuals 6) No more animal cruelty 7) Helping incompetent disabled people
Not being a troll or anything, but seriously, if you are well off, why do you try and make everyone equal and make you poor in the process? Survival of the fittest, top of the food chain survives - which is the majority in the society. Maybe this is a crazy perspective, and I don't fully embrace it, but why is everyone so negative about this law? Are all the homosexuals on TL posting? Since to me everyone takes the group that is the well off, takes them as suckers, and tries to get to their level. And people buy that shit. Russia putting the hammer down, so good on them.
Compassion, I guess.
How far do we go before Individual Selfishness > Compassion?
Because in history we were always very Selfish it seems, and people saying "Compassion is a human trait" is only so true, I think we are really being educated to value compassion a lot, but it's interesting, because 100 years ago this would be agreed upon by almost all people...
And it's not like, those people weren't "human".
You could think of it as "the common good". Society as a whole tends to progress more when all people are given equal rights. (less fighting, more productivity/workers, more happy people, etc)
Well is that what's best for society? Depends what you consider society as most decisions benefit one party, and negative impact the other. The gay oppression is just very hard to do because it's a 10%~ or so population you are oppressing, and because people have friends that are gay etc, they support it.
But take a look at homelessness, they are still very disregarded by very many people, and in my city, First Nation's living on the reserves are also oppressed, and poorly treated by society (Because they are a very small percentage).
In Calgary, pretty much the only group really supporting the First Natives is the government, and that pisses most citizen off, because lots of tax dollars go to them, when the general population here thinks they do anything useful and it's just a waste of money.
So it's really hard to say whether everyone SHOULD be equal, because usually that means its a detriment to other people that they aren't happy about, and that's why you still see oppression regardless of where you live. Usually the business owners have less of the humane traits, and economically are higher up, and therefore I'm saying compassion is a double edged sword; has it's positives and negatives.
To me it seems we are giving equal rights only to people that improve the common good(or help society).
I thought you said you were going to stop posting.
On June 12 2013 19:42 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The bill's co-author, Yelena Mizulina, is head of the Duma's Committee for Family, Women, and Children. She says the idea is to protect Russian children from information that rejects "traditional family values."
It's always nice to know that the USA isn't the only nation that has thoroughly bastardized that phrase...
On June 12 2013 22:59 Reason wrote: [quote] Don't act or speak out against racism if you live in a racist country. Don't act or speak out against homophobia if you live in a homophobic country.
Is that your message? It's a poor one.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
Thanks.
English wannabe who hates Orthodox church. I am sick of you people.
And yet I'm the one who posts ad hominems, right?
Just FYI, I bear disdain for all churches equally.
We weren't really arguing right now, I just insulted you for trying to be something you are not
Uhh... what?
I don't see how being Eastern European and being cultured and educated are mutually exclusive, but then again with people like you around it's hard to tell.
No, my message is that our countries aren't identical in every matter and you can't compare pride in London and pride here.
It has nothing to do with your country, it has everything to do with YOU. If you started not to be homophobic like 90% of your people, it would be a big improvement already. And you know what the best thing is ? You don't even have to do anything about it ! Just stay in front of your computer screen and be like "hu? maybe I was wrong, gay people should also have rights !". And when the time comes and you have kids, tell them that.
Enough people do that and you solved the homophobic problem in your country !
Actually I am doing it, I am just stating reasons behind this law. Society isnt ready for it and you cant force people to be gay friendly in a few years.
About gay rights, I cant agree with all, as much as I couldnt agree if people who does sex with animals (which would be some kinda new topic but it's example) would want ALL the rights.
So instead of forcing people to be gay friendly you go completely the other direction and encourage homophobia?
Don't equate homosexuality with bestiality unless you want to discredit yourself even further than you already have.
If I was cynical brit now I would say, forcing people to be gay friendly would be discriminatory towards straight. But I am not impolite as you sir. No one talked about encouraging homophobia, but if it's easier to insult then think, go for it.
Please don't try to associate your incredibly narrow-minded and bigoted views with TotalBiscuit's brand name.
Thanks.
English wannabe who hates Orthodox church. I am sick of you people.
And yet I'm the one who posts ad hominems, right?
Just FYI, I bear disdain for all churches equally.
We weren't really arguing right now, I just insulted you for trying to be something you are not
Uhh... what?
I don't see how being Eastern European and being cultured and educated are mutually exclusive, but then again with people like you around it's hard to tell.
In his view you are an English wannabe for defending TotalBrit.In his view only british people are allowed to defend total brit.Very advanced logic.No wonder he is a homophobe
On June 12 2013 23:55 Silvanel wrote: Yeah, because You know my friends so well....A friend of mine has a black boyfriend (shes a white girl) i am going to tell her she is fucking racist because she doesnt support gay rights.... Thats just one example. You are talking nonsense dude.
I'm not a racist! One of my best friends is black! HAHAHAHA Not saying she is a racist, but jesus christ your logic wouldn't last in elementary school much less in the adult world.
Dude You have some serious problems with understanding what You read. You say You cant be against gay rights and not racist, i say You can. I know such people... You might not belive me, thats one thing. But judging from Your post You are not even able to comprahend what i am saying.
And my logic is working just fine for me thank You.
I said it's highly unlikely that you can be a bigot in one way and not any other way. I bet if you poked at your friend you'd fine she had some notions based on bigotry. And of course your logic is working fine for you, it always works just fine for bigots.
First time in my life i am being called a bigot. Most of the time they call me fucking liberal
Closing. Eventhough this is a legitimate topic, so far the discussion has been "not that great". Note that I am not making this decision on my own, several moderators discussed this and we were all in agreement.
EPT
you let me down.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B5wkYTm.jpg)
)
