On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
Actually, we are not. We are discussing anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, and as an extension of that the question has been brought up whether people who are not from Uganda have a right to judge their laws, and maybe act against them. Noone was talking about nations telling each other what to do except you.
"We were discussing whether it's okay for people from other countries to judge other countries laws and maybe act against them. No one was talking about countries telling each other what to do except you."
Did you really just write that?
Someone asked him to stay on topic and he simply and correctly pointed out that they were essentially discussing whether it's any of our business in the first place.
Who cares about the specific wording? It was obvious what he meant and the contradiction in what you just wrote there is hilarious.
On November 23 2012 23:21 mcc wrote: [quote] And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
Do you even read what people say?
You just keep droning on without actually reacting to what anyone says. If you're not going to actually engage other people, why not just spout your opinions at a wall?
People have repeatedly explained to you why these parades matter, and like a broken record, you just repeat "nuh-uh".
if u read my responmse u will see i explain my point of viewand why i think that the explanations given by tlers on why parades are important are not convincing to me
gg wp liquidlahara
Gay parades are necessary because there is still strong opposition to gay rights movements. Why do gay rights do not have be "severely threatened" to justify parades?
On November 24 2012 00:30 DeepElemBlues wrote: By the way lahara did you know not everyone who competes in the Paralympics has a mental disability, it's also for people who are physically disabled in some way as well... not everyone there is a "retard."
i am fully aware of this. i was actuall pmed on this matter by some over zealous pseudo intelectuall 2 weeks ago :D
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
In a way he is describing an ideal world. You shouldn't need to parade about your pride in being gay, straight, male, female. It's just what you are and you should be accepted for what you are.
The fact that he can't acknowledge that we don't live in an ideal world and there's a reason people take "pride" in certain things and not other, more accepted things simply means he is trolling you hard is or genuinely incapable of simple reasoning.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
my point is i personally think its unnecessary for mentioned reasons. i also dont see how one can be proud ot be gay staright male or female. just not ym cup of tea gg wp liquidlahara
On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote: [quote] I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
my point is i personally think its unnecessary for mentioned reasons. i also dont see how one can be proud ot be gay staright male or female. just not ym cup of tea gg wp liquidlahara
When there are people trying to put you down, what better way to lift yourself, and eachother, up; than a big celebration.
On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote: [quote] I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
my point is i personally think its unnecessary for mentioned reasons. i also dont see how one can be proud ot be gay staright male or female. just not ym cup of tea gg wp liquidlahara
The gay pride parade is about "pride" just in name though, I also take issue with the wording but in reality that's just semantics since the purpose is not to simply express an ambiguous emotional state but to show presence and continued dedication to preserving their way of life as well as the sexual rights of other people not exclusive to their party. People have the freedom to celebrate / protest / parade in a peaceful manner. I may take issue with the GOP / Tea party parades but I understand that they are well with in their rights to, I could choose to engage in a civil discussion about why I think their parades / protests are misconstrued but I can't simply dismiss them on the basis on a word.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
Actually, we are not. We are discussing anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, and as an extension of that the question has been brought up whether people who are not from Uganda have a right to judge their laws, and maybe act against them. Noone was talking about nations telling each other what to do except you.
"We were discussing whether it's okay for people from other countries to judge other countries laws and maybe act against them. No one was talking about countries telling each other what to do except you."
Did you really just write that?
Someone asked him to stay on topic and he simply and correctly pointed out that they were essentially discussing whether it's any of our business in the first place.
Who cares about the specific wording? It was obvious what he meant and the contradiction in what you just wrote there is hilarious.
There is no contradiction. A country telling another country what to do is completely different from PEOPLE from a country judging another countries legislation and trying to change it. If i would found a group that tries to change ugandan gay legislation through legal means (flyers, information, getting the pope to say that gays are ok, whatever), that is a completely different thing then if Germany said something like "either you change your laws or we invade/don't give you aid anymore/whatever). The difference between the two is pretty important.
And somehow he believes that anyone who believes that the first thing is good actually means the second thing. The difference is not merely semantics, there is a distinct difference between the acts of a country as a legal entity and those of individual people, even if they are from that country. Which is why his examples have little to do with this situation, because noone asks for america to invade Uganda, or anything along those lines.
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote: Reminds me of this video.
No wonder its a third world country..
Oh wow..sorry. Couldn't help but laugh when the guy keeps saying "poo poo". Gotta love his sophistication.
Poo-Poo
Poo-Poo everywhere
On topic:
Obscurantism is everywhere... People should check whats happening in their own country... Hell, the other day I had an anti gay marriage march right under my flat, here in France, supposedly one of the more progressist countries.
Im a white straight male, but be it racism, homophobia, sexism or whatever discrimination I loose a bit of faith in humanity. Even though to tell you the truth I didnt have much to begin with.
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote: So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
other moral standards? They are going to imprison or even convict the gay people to death sentence. I've got friends who are gay and there is nothing fucking criminal about that trust me.
Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
No I don't expect that religious believers will accept open, socially tolerated homosexuality, but I don't expect them to put people in jail for it either. I don't expect extreme leftists to tolerate extreme rightist views, but I don't expect them to jail them either. Also considering all sides isn't simply a tolerance issue, it is also an issue of being willing to stand up for what you believe in when your opinion is logically consistent and based on factual evidence and the opposition is not when the opposition is actively hurting other people.
If I disagree with someone's political stance, and that person's political stance is actively hurting the livelihoods of other people, then I do have a choice, if not responsibility to act upon that. If we accept the right for religious believers to exert their influence in politics, we also accept the right for the opposition to that to exert their influence. Not having a personal opinion is just tripe. you do have a personal opinion, choosing to remain neutral is a conscious effort and a decision with consequences.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
i beg ur pardon are you serious or is this a joke in a not funny context?
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Seconded. WN fighting for "traditional families" and "traditional marriage" just like our almighty Lord and Savior intended.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
i beg ur pardon are you serious or is this a joke in a not funny context?
That was my interpretation of what I had bolded above.
EPT
