The U.S, Then France, Now Russia. Gay rights issues

[Puck]

Why do people who blatantly promote discrimination play the victim card whenever someone disagrees with them?

[semaphore]

So you have nothing more valuable to say than "I am morally superior la la la la la"?

So you have no rebuttal beyond whining about the fact that you're on the losing side of history and human progress?

[Cybran]

No idea, why is it more than half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce?

Too much social benefits for single mothers and a toxic culture that undermines the value of raising a child in a traditional enviorment, by glorifing promiscuous behavior?

[semaphore]

Why do people who blatantly promote discrimination play the victim card whenever someone disagrees with them?

Complaining about persecution allows them to ignore or justify morally bankrupt beliefs.

Too much social benefits for single mothers

Try being one.

[Puck]

Too much social benefits for single mothers and a toxic culture that undermines the value of raising a child in a traditional enviorment, by glorifing promiscuous behavior?

So you acknowledge that straight couples have a high failure rate and still see it relevant to bring up homosexual couples failure rates?

Why?

[-Ethos-]

Here:

I'm going to ignore the fact you took my quote out of context and repurposed it and instead let's talk about the supposed "promiscuity" of homosexuals which is a false notion that died out years ago.

[Elegiac]

Too much social benefits for single mothers and a toxic culture that undermines the value of raising a child in a traditional enviorment, by glorifing promiscuous behavior?

If you want to play the tradition card, the nuclear family is only a relatively recent development. Hell, traditionally women were property exchanged during marriage.

[NatePsy]

I feel sorry for the nicer Christians, their crazies make the good ones look bad. I used to be judgmental when it came to the gay rights subject but I grew up years ago and stopped being ridiculous about it, now I support them fully and agree they deserve the same rights as straight people. Though it surprises me that adults can act that way when I stopped being judgmental in my teens.

[Deleted]

The goal of Gay right's advocates is simple: Pain everyone who doesn't support them as bigots/hophobes/retards.

Everyone is free and right to not support the gay rights movement.
However being against equal rights for gay couples is homophobic, heck being against equal rights for anyone even is the definition of bigotry.

Too much social benefits for single mothers and a toxic culture that undermines the value of raising a child in a traditional enviorment, by glorifing promiscuous behavior?

While i agree that sexual promiscuous behaviour is being glorified in todays society that has nothing to do with people divorcing often, very few divorces are due to being sexually unfaithful.

As for too much social benefits for single mothers ... it depends on the country and divorce rates are high everywhere.

[randomnamegenerator16]

Ignorant bigots are ignorant.

Pro tip: I am atheist.

[Deleted]

Pro tip: I am atheist.

Do you imply atheists can not be bigots or ignorant ? O_o

[Powerogue]

Opposers gonna oppose and whatnot, change will be slow. It only sounds like banning of promotion of gay events is the planned law, and that their organization existing isn't technically illegal.

The US isn't some haven of freedom either, there's plenty of states where you could wind up fined or jailed for promoting christianity in a similar fashion.

[semaphore]

Pro tip: I am atheist.

What does atheism have to do with being an ignorant bigot who's against equality?

[Cybran]

If you want to play the tradition card, the nuclear family is only a relatively recent development. Hell, traditionally women were property exchanged during marriage.

This is total bullshit. I can't believe people still use this as an argument. Let me ask you something. 200 years ago, would you have rather been working 14 hour shifts at the steel factory or sit at home and watch over the children?

I have yet to find and example of slaves or property that spread its genes at a rate of 2:1 (only half of males in history managed to leave an offspring compared to most women). Where does the so called property outlived the opressor in almost every family? Where the men were thrown to die at the battle fields and were expected to share their spoils with the wives. Look at Sparta, and the famous quote "With your shield or on it". Women have been much more then property and it makes me sick that people still bring that up as an exuse.

Now on topic: Lets look why heterosexual men dislike gay men and women respectively.

Gay men: They are seen as "deserters". Men who refuse to pick up their social load and preserve the tribe/social group. They are seen as "women without uterus", they are not benefitical. The fathers see their gay sons as people who will doom their bloodline and all the land/property they accumilated will be lost together with their name.
Gay women: They are wasting their potential.

These are extemely oversimplified statements that try to explain from where the "irrational" fear comes from.

[Elegiac]

This is total bullshit. I can't believe people still use this as an argument. Let me ask you something. 200 years ago, would you have rather been working 14 hour shifts at the steel factory or sit at home and watch over the children?

I have yet to find and example of slaves or property that spread its genes at a rate of 2:1 (only half of males in history managed to leave an offspring compared to most women). Where the so called property outlived the opressor in almost every family. Where the men were thrown to die at the battle fields and were expected to share their spoils with the wives. Look at Sparta, and the famous quote "With your shiled or on it". Women have been much more then property and it makes me sick that people still bring that up as an exuse.

Now on topic: Lets look why heterosexual men dislike gay men and women respectively.

Gay men: They are seen as "deserters". Men who refuse to pick up their social load and preserve the tribe/social group. They are seen as "women without uterus", they are not benefitical. The fathers see their gay sons as people who will doom their bloodline and all the land/property they accumilated will be lost together with their name.
Gay women: They are wasting their potential.

These are extemely oversimplified statements that try to explain from where the "irrational" fear comes from.

Come off it. Women have basically been treated as chattel since the development of sedentary society; and conflating biology with society is specious reasoning at best.

Furthermore, both gay men and gay women remain productive to the tribe economically, even if they do not contribute to the gene pool. Point of fact, because they don't increase the size of the community it ultimately results in surplus labor.

[Jackmoves]

This is total bullshit. I can't believe people still use this as an argument. Let me ask you something. 200 years ago, would you have rather been working 14 hour shifts at the steel factory or sit at home and watch over the children?

We could legally rape our wifes and beat them if we felt like it not too long ago. Good times, good times.

[Cybran]

Come off it. Women have basically been treated as chattel since the development of sedentary society; and conflating biology with society is specious reasoning at best.

Everyone except the few at the top have been treated as cattle all throughout history. You know how the Ottomans called the non muslims in the Balkans? They called us râya which litterally means cattle.

The point still stands most societies where the survival of the family was important didn't tolerate gay people. Even the laughable example that homosexuallity exists in nature is not backed up by actual facts. 100% homosexual animals do not exist, that is a real fairytale.

A poster said earlier that "Nature doesn't want anything", well nature isn't a sentient being, but nature has rules that if broken result in imbalances and extinctions.

We could legally rape our wifes and beat them if we felt like it not too long ago. Good times, good times.

I hate nonsense like this. You know most wifes weren''t 16 year old girls from eastern europe in western european brothels, right? They had sons, brothers and fathers that could stand up for them.

[Deleted]

We could legally rape our wifes and beat them if we felt like it not too long ago. Good times, good times.

Dude its not the 90's anymore

[Elegiac]

Everyone except the few at the top have been treated as cattle all throughout history. You know how the Ottomans called the non muslims in the Balkans? They called us râya which litterally means cattle.

The point still stands most societies where the survival of the family was important didn't tolerate gay people. Even the laughable example that homosexuallity exists in nature is not backed up by actual facts. 100% homosexual animals do not exist, that is a real fairytale.

A poster said earlier that "Nature doesn't want anything", well nature isn't a sentient being, but nature has rules that if broken result in imbalances and extinctions.

Chattel. Not cattle. Chattel.

Neither do 100% homosexual humans. Well, they exist, but they are very rare. Homosexuality's toleration has varied across times and cultures, even its definition has. Considering intolerance towards homosexuals has not actually done anything to decrease its occurence, it's safe to say that nature can handle a few queers.

[IRunSoFarAway]

I'm not sure why anyone cares at all, it doesn't affect you in any way at all, it's just miserable people trying to makes others miserable. In Japan, people can marry their pillow, enough said.