Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    Um, what? Did I mention the Bible anywhere? Nice troll attempt..
    Why would I be trolling? Your preconceptions about the childs future in this matter is just as irrational as that source. And btw. that kind of attitude "this shouldn't become normal and accepted" is very conservative way of thinking. There are plenty of parents of the same sex who have raised just fine human beings making your arguments as bad as virgin Mary's.
    Last edited by mmoccfd24c5a79; 2012-02-08 at 08:50 AM.

  2. #22
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristeia View Post
    I'm not sure what you're getting at but we were talking adoption.

    Clearly you're trolling.
    So not agreeing with you means trolling? Well, maybe I was a bit vague. A child needs a mom and a dad is what I meant by having two parents. With gay couples, they only get 2 dads or 2 moms and while they can be very nice people and love the child, they child will still lack either a male or female role model. I'm not saying this will absolutely ruin the child or mess them up psychologically but it is still bad and a disadvantage and the child has an increased chance of having psychological or identity issues later.

    So if it is a biological child, they should remain with the parents, even if the real mom or dad is gone and they live with a same gender partner. It's still better than having no parents at all but adopting is completely optional and shouldn't be allowed in these cases.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    So not agreeing with you means trolling? Well, maybe I was a bit vague. A child needs a mom and a dad is what I meant by having two parents. With gay couples, they only get 2 dads or 2 moms and while they can be very nice people and love the child, they child will still lack either a male or female role model. I'm not saying this will absolutely ruin the child or mess them up psychologically but it is still bad and a disadvantage and the child has an increased chance of having psychological or identity issues later.

    So if it is a biological child, they should remain with the parents, even if the real mom or dad is gone and they live with a same gender partner. It's still better than having no parents at all but adopting is completely optional and shouldn't be allowed in these cases.
    You're incorrect, just by being a female and a male does not make them a better couple for raising a child. Show me extensive studies that your claim is true that children with same sex parents are more likely for psychological issues later on.

    Adopting IS completely optional which is why so many kids rot away in orphanages, making the list of people willing to adopt needy children is just a bad move.
    The earth is not a cold dead place

  4. #24
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiana View Post
    If information should be free, why is it illegal to broadcast gay-porn in prime-time on TV in YOUR country?
    So watching TV is now same as walking to a library or book store and getting a book about being gay? The "healthy society" you speak of are taken care of the kiddos now, lol. Clearly you don't have a clue what this is even about.


  5. #25
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob from Accounting View Post
    Lol, since they can't prosecute people for being gay, they are sweeping homosexuality under the rug. What homosexuality ? Is it food ?
    Indeed. Back to middle ages and burning witches for sorcery...

  6. #26
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Megraam View Post
    Almost 50% of St. Petersburg citizens are either gay or lesbians, that's why that law will affect them so much. The other Russians don't care about that actually.
    Without any evidence to support this claim, this is BS. It would make St Petersburg one of the most homosexual cities IN THE WORLD. Which given the climate in Russia, I somewhat doubt that, especially given as that on average, homosexuals make up only 10% of any given population or less.

    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    Not from Russia but I actually wish the law would be made everywhere. I have nothing against gays but I do have a problem with them "advertising their lifestyle" everywhere. Expecting to be treated equally and other people staying out of their bedrooms is one thing but running around on the streets, shouting that stuff into peoples ears, demanding the right to get married and adopt children etc. is completely unacceptable though.

    They already have the same rights as anyone else but all the rest is just disgusting.
    Writing books, articles, or giving speaches about their life experiences as homosexuals is not "special rights". Everyone does that. Republicans do it, blacks do it, whites do it, asians do it, hell straight people do it. You know what you do when someone publishes a book, an article, or hosts a speech on a subject you don't care for? You don't read/watch/attend it. It's that simple. They're not advertizing for being gay(reasonably, some might, but that's their right just as much as straight people can advertize their sexuality too), they're just talking about their life experiences.

    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    They shouldn't be able get married. They should be able to register it as a partnership or under some other name though, with same rights as married couple with the exception of being able to adopt children.

    And no, what you say is completely different. Being gay is a disorder and while the people who have it have no choice in the matter and shouldn't be treated differently, this parading has to stop. Besides, when was the last time you saw a straight parade?
    Separate but equal didn't work with drinking fountains, it won't work with marriage. No serious line of scientific thought for nearly 40 years has considered homosexuality a "disroder". People can have a parade about whatever the area they live in allows them to have. Some areas don't allow gay pride parades, others do. There is a lack of "straight pride" parades because it usually delves into all the bullshit you talk about about how everything OTHER than straight is wrong, while gay pride parades tend to focus on feeling good about something society normally tells them to feel bad about.

    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    Um, what? Did I mention the Bible anywhere? Nice troll attempt..

    A child needs 2 parents to grow up properly, not 2 dads or 2 moms. Of course this also applies to single parents but in all honesty, this shouldn't become normal and accepted. If there is no other way, like with biological children then fine but it's already becoming too messed up. Just look at the divorce rates and compare them to those from 20 years ago.
    20 years ago was 1992. Divorce rates weren't much different. Considering that homosexuals by-and-large can't get married, divorce rates are on the heads of HETEROSEXUALS. Don't blame gays for YOU failings. And how, exactly are "two parents" not "two people of the same sex"? Oh, they aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    Well, if you can show me how 2 dads can have a child, by all means, I admit my mistake Cause I seem to be influenced by an ancient religious belief that 2 men can "do it" all they want, one of them will not get pregnant. Same applies to women of course.
    Inability to reproduce has no legal bearing, and should not on the right to raise children. Some people are sterile, some people have high risks of genetic disorders. Child-rearing is not limited to your own flesh and blood, and being able or not being able to become pregnant has no relevence on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiana View Post
    If information should be free, why is it illegal to broadcast gay-porn in prime-time on TV in YOUR country?

    There is nothing bad to be gay or lesbian or dog-f*cker or whatever you want.

    But if you want to keep healthy society you'll want to hide all the perversity from children. It means that our children should never see a man f*cking a dog, or another man. They should not also watch videos about it, pictures with it, they should not hear talks about it, and should not read about it in books, newspapers and magazines. Because if they do, one day they'll want to repeat it.

    Thats why this law was suggested. Strictly to protect children and grow a healthy nation. And YOUR country should do exactly the same.
    This has nothing to do with anything. Writing books, articles, going on TV shows or giving speeches about YOUR LIFE as a homosexual is not the same as shoving perversity. Also: comparing homosexuality to bestiality=argument fail. You are mentally incompetent, the kind of people laws should be protecting us from.

    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    So not agreeing with you means trolling? Well, maybe I was a bit vague. A child needs a mom and a dad is what I meant by having two parents. With gay couples, they only get 2 dads or 2 moms and while they can be very nice people and love the child, they child will still lack either a male or female role model. I'm not saying this will absolutely ruin the child or mess them up psychologically but it is still bad and a disadvantage and the child has an increased chance of having psychological or identity issues later.

    So if it is a biological child, they should remain with the parents, even if the real mom or dad is gone and they live with a same gender partner. It's still better than having no parents at all but adopting is completely optional and shouldn't be allowed in these cases.
    Because there are no men or women to be role models for children outside of parents? Yeah, kids totally don't take after whatever pop star is in these days or whatever rapper is singing about thugs and hoes. Good parents come in all shapes, sizes and orientations, your personal opinions on what makes a "proper" parent are meaningless.

    God damn, just lock this thread.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    So not agreeing with you means trolling? Well, maybe I was a bit vague. A child needs a mom and a dad is what I meant by having two parents. With gay couples, they only get 2 dads or 2 moms and while they can be very nice people and love the child, they child will still lack either a male or female role model. I'm not saying this will absolutely ruin the child or mess them up psychologically but it is still bad and a disadvantage and the child has an increased chance of having psychological or identity issues later.

    So if it is a biological child, they should remain with the parents, even if the real mom or dad is gone and they live with a same gender partner. It's still better than having no parents at all but adopting is completely optional and shouldn't be allowed in these cases.
    id call you a moron but i dont expect you to understand what that means
    Isnt 10% of infinite still infinite?

  8. #28
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiana View Post
    If information should be free, why is it illegal to broadcast gay-porn in prime-time on TV in YOUR country?

    There is nothing bad to be gay or lesbian or dog-f*cker or whatever you want.

    But if you want to keep healthy society you'll want to hide all the perversity from children. It means that our children should never see a man f*cking a dog, or another man. They should not also watch videos about it, pictures with it, they should not hear talks about it, and should not read about it in books, newspapers and magazines. Because if they do, one day they'll want to repeat it.

    Thats why this law was suggested. Strictly to protect children and grow a healthy nation. And YOUR country should do exactly the same.
    Woah, that's a very scary mentality. You are comparing two adult consenting showing love to each other to a person raping (no consent) an animal. Also, if people hear about something...they want to repeat it? Since you are talking so much about men having their way with dogs...well, is there something you have to admit now? Maybe you tried it and you liked it?

    How can you grow a healthy nation by controlling what people can and not see? What you are creating is a big oppression against people who don't deserve it, in this case, homosexuality. You are turning them into a taboo subject, even more. This is like going back few centuries.

    What do you have against homosexuals that you compare them to zoophilics? Do you feel that your sexuality is threatened?

    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    So not agreeing with you means trolling? Well, maybe I was a bit vague. A child needs a mom and a dad is what I meant by having two parents. With gay couples, they only get 2 dads or 2 moms and while they can be very nice people and love the child, they child will still lack either a male or female role model. I'm not saying this will absolutely ruin the child or mess them up psychologically but it is still bad and a disadvantage and the child has an increased chance of having psychological or identity issues later.

    So if it is a biological child, they should remain with the parents, even if the real mom or dad is gone and they live with a same gender partner. It's still better than having no parents at all but adopting is completely optional and shouldn't be allowed in these cases.
    Let's compare two (extreme) cases, shall we?

    Case A) Heterosexual couple. The father is an abusive alcoholic who spends the entire day outside and likes to beat her wife and her kid, our subject of matter, when he gets back home stinking alcohol. The mother is a drug addict who gets the money to pay from drugs from stealing from her kid's school and from selling sexual services.

    Case B) Homosexual couple. Two women that have good careers, education and lots of love to give. They are not perfect, but they love each other and they love the kid they have, be it by adoption or pregancy by one of them (could be in vitro).

    I agree, these two cases are too extreme, but according to your logic, Case A is better for the kid that Case B.

    Just for you :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiana View Post
    If information should be free, why is it illegal to broadcast gay-porn in prime-time on TV in YOUR country?

    There is nothing bad to be gay or lesbian or dog-f*cker or whatever you want.

    But if you want to keep healthy society you'll want to hide all the perversity from children. It means that our children should never see a man f*cking a dog, or another man. They should not also watch videos about it, pictures with it, they should not hear talks about it, and should not read about it in books, newspapers and magazines. Because if they do, one day they'll want to repeat it.

    Thats why this law was suggested. Strictly to protect children and grow a healthy nation. And YOUR country should do exactly the same.
    What? You're actually supporting the idea that a type of relationship and a type of person should be illegal to be written about in books? In the fantasy book I'm writing there's a side story about a relationship between two women who love each other, but I never delve into the sexuality or the grotesque acts in bed. Would that be illegal? Because this law makes it so (at least if I was in St. Petersburg). Derp.

    What's the difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one other than the genders of the participants?
    Last edited by vizzle; 2012-02-08 at 09:39 AM.
    Why am I back here, I don't even play these games anymore

    The problem with the internet is parallel to its greatest achievement: it has given the little man an outlet where he can be heard. Most of the time however, the little man is a little man because he is not worth hearing.

  10. #30
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Sendai View Post
    Let's compare two (extreme) cases, shall we?

    Case A) Heterosexual couple. The father is an abusive alcoholic who spends the entire day outside and likes to beat her wife and her kid, our subject of matter, when he gets back home stinking alcohol. The mother is a drug addict who gets the money to pay from drugs from stealing from her kid's school and from selling sexual services.

    Case B) Homosexual couple. Two women that have good careers, education and lots of love to give. They are not perfect, but they love each other and they love the kid they have, be it by adoption or pregancy by one of them (could be in vitro).

    I agree, these two cases are too extreme, but according to your logic, Case A is better for the kid that Case B.

    Just for you :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
    Why compare these cases? Case A - the child would be taken away by social service. Besides, a couple like that could not adopt a child in the first place.

    Case B - the child grows up having no father figure. Might turn out ok but has an increased chance having identity issues and problems with men later in life. It's the same thing as with abusive parents, they tend to be more abusive when they grow up too because when growing up, they see "how it is done" at home and consider it normal or just don't know any other way.

  11. #31
    Yay for embracing ignorance.

  12. #32
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    Why compare these cases? Case A - the child would be taken away by social service. Besides, a couple like that could not adopt a child in the first place.

    Case B - the child grows up having no father figure. Might turn out ok but has an increased chance having identity issues and problems with men later in life. It's the same thing as with abusive parents, they tend to be more abusive when they grow up too because when growing up, they see "how it is done" at home and consider it normal or just don't know any other way.
    You give too much credit to social service systems. They can't be everywhere and this kind of families are very, very common.

    Do you have any proof that what you are saying there is real? Any non-biased scientifc study or something?

    And a somehow not-related question, why do you list your location as USSR?

  13. #33
    I'm russian (moscow though) and i fully support this bill. There's no prosecution for being gay or whatever, it just blocks advertisment of this subculture. If you're happy about your children looking at this kind of behaviour from early teens, i'm not. You can go ahead and question bills against pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles and whatever's left there. It's rediculous how gays/transgenders want to show off with their parades, obscene clothing and starting to make a fuss when rejected from doing it on main streets in broad daylight. Everyone have different preferences but i don't see ppls runing naked on streets, don't see S&M parades so why the fuck i should be watching on gay parades? Right, i shouldn't and this bill just sets things straight.

    P.S. Thnx for showing me a single positive initiative from our russian shitheaded government. I almost lost all hope in them.

  14. #34
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Sendai View Post
    Why do you list your location as USSR?
    What does that have to do with anything..? But if you have to know, I made this account years ago and it was after a song which I liked at the time. Most people put random nonsense there anyway like Azeroth or in denial etc.

    As for the study, yea, I could but can't be arsed in all honesty. It's not that important for me to prove it. It's not an exam after all It's just something I read about a while ago and it made sense. Plus I find the gay parades and all the noise about it disgusting. I don't hate or mind them or anything and am all for equal rights but I wish they banned the public parades here in Sweden too. Books can stay though, I don't have to read them.

  15. #35
    Deleted
    Oh dear, the bigots have invaded the thread already.

    This isn't about stopping gay people from "showing off" (do you also have something against straight couples kissing in public, by the way?), this is about COMPLETELY stopping people from even TALKING about homosexuality. Funny how people think it's healthy for their children to be completely shielded from reality. Are you guys serious? You can't just stop people from talking about something that YOU don't personally like. It's not healthy for you and it's not healthy for your nonexistant kids either. What about if your kid turns out to be gay? In your perfect world they don't even know homosexuality exists. Imagine the torture they'd go through trying to understand what they are, when their bigoted parents refuse to even ACKNOWLEDGE that it exists? But no, you don't think about that, all you can think about is how you, white, middle class straight people are being oppressed by teh gays.
    This is censorship and oppresion pure and simple, it has nothing to do with protecting kids. You don't protect kids by wrapping them up in cotton wool and banning gay literature and banning people from even ADMITTING they're gay.

    I somehow doubt many kids care if 2 men are in a loving relationship with each other. Why would they care? It's the adults who are always thinking about the sex side while the children don't know what all the fuss is about. And the idea that 2 gay people can't raise a child is also ridiculous. I'd love you to cite sources that say that gay couples cannot raise a child as well as a straight couple.

    That said there's no reason for us to get involved. If the russian people want to stop a minority groups freedom of speech that's up to them. Hopefully it will cause a mass exodus of intelligent russians to more free countries. Everybody wins. Of course if things ever get violent then it would become an international issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyaldee View Post
    I'm russian (moscow though) and i fully support this bill. There's no prosecution for being gay or whatever, it just blocks advertisment of this subculture. If you're happy about your children looking at this kind of behaviour from early teens, i'm not. You can go ahead and question bills against pedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles and whatever's left there. It's rediculous how gays/transgenders want to show off with their parades, obscene clothing and starting to make a fuss when rejected from doing it on main streets in broad daylight. Everyone have different preferences but i don't see ppls runing naked on streets, don't see S&M parades so why the fuck i should be watching on gay parades? Right, i shouldn't and this bill just sets things straight.

    P.S. Thnx for showing me a single positive initiative from our russian shitheaded government. I almost lost all hope in them.
    2 pages and some idiot has already compared homosexuality to pedophilia or necrophilia... Really?

    What do you mean "there's no persecution"? Are heterosexuals also banned from advertising their sub culture? Are all advertisements depicting a man and a woman in a romantic relationship going to be banned? I thought not. This is persecution plain and simple.
    Last edited by mmoce719e7ace2; 2012-02-08 at 10:41 AM.

  16. #36
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by ita View Post
    What does that have to do with anything..? But if you have to know, I made this account years ago and it was after a song which I liked at the time. Most people put random nonsense there anyway like Azeroth or in denial etc.

    As for the study, yea, I could but can't be arsed in all honesty. It's not that important for me to prove it. It's not an exam after all It's just something I read about a while ago and it made sense. Plus I find the gay parades and all the noise about it disgusting. I don't hate or mind them or anything and am all for equal rights but I wish they banned the public parades here in Sweden too. Books can stay though, I don't have to read them.
    Because I live in a former Soviet republic (I'm not from here though) and during Soviet times, homosexuality was illegal. When I see homophobia in this country it comes from the Russian minority, almost never from the natives. You have a nice example in the post just above you, a Russian comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and talking like if gay parades were something done every single day. Ignorance and homophobia go together.

    You read it where? What kind of study was it? Gay parades are made...once a year? And not even everywhere. Fireworks are much more annoying if we're talking about noise, maybe they should be banned too.

    This is not about gay parades, it's about ANY talks of homosexuality in any kind of media. "If we close our eyes, maybe it'll go away".

  17. #37
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Inability to reproduce has no legal bearing, and should not on the right to raise children.
    There is no such thing as a right to raise children. I am all for gay marriage, but you do not have a right to raise children - nobody does. If you decide to be in a relationship with the same gender then you should be aware that you forego the possibility of having kids. Talking about the right to have children is symptomatic of the entitled society we have today, where everybody wants their rights but not their responsibilities. Children are not an experiment, and while I can't offer a study to corroborate this, that's because I believe raising a kid to 25 or beyond to see if there is any long term damage is highly unethical.

  18. #38
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tommypilgrim View Post
    There is no such thing as a right to raise children. I am all for gay marriage, but you do not have a right to raise children - nobody does. If you decide to be in a relationship with the same gender then you should be aware that you forego the possibility of having kids. Talking about the right to have children is symptomatic of the entitled society we have today, where everybody wants their rights but not their responsibilities. Children are not an experiment, and while I can't offer a study to corroborate this, that's because I believe raising a kid to 25 or beyond to see if there is any long term damage is highly unethical.
    The "being gay is a choice" brigade has arrived!

    I wasn't aware that wanting basic rights is suddenly "entitlement issues" but OK.. Were women also entitled back when they wanted the vote? Our countries ran fine before they got the vote, how dare they be so entitled as to expect basic human rights?

    Everyone has a right to raise children. That's why the government can't just take children away from people it doesn't like. There are numerous ways in which a gay couple can have a baby without using adoption services, it's just a 3rd person would have to be involved. You would seriously support the government taking that baby away from the couple purely because they're gay? Ok...

  19. #39
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by john67 View Post
    The "being gay is a choice" brigade has arrived!

    I wasn't aware that wanting basic rights is suddenly "entitlement issues" but OK.. Were women also entitled back when they wanted the vote? Our countries ran fine before they got the vote, how dare they be so entitled as to expect basic human rights?

    Everyone has a right to raise children. That's why the government can't just take children away from people it doesn't like. There are numerous ways in which a gay couple can have a baby without using adoption services, it's just a 3rd person would have to be involved. You would seriously support the government taking that baby away from the couple purely because they're gay? Ok...
    I said nothing of the sort. And yes, the government can take children away from couples, through social services for example. You do not have a right to have children. I fail to see why gay couples cannot just accept that? Why not just accept that your lifestyle is going to differ from a heterosexual couple's? It's not about equality, just a simple fact.

  20. #40
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tommypilgrim View Post
    I said nothing of the sort. And yes, the government can take children away from couples, through social services for example. You do not have a right to have children. I fail to see why gay couples cannot just accept that? Why not just accept that your lifestyle is going to differ from a heterosexual couple's? It's not about equality, just a simple fact.
    Who are you to say that homosexual couples don't have that right?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •