"Russia moves to enact anti-gay law nationwide"

Russia also banned a lot of US Foods

The issue here isn't about a stance on sexuality

It's obvious the USA participates in eugenics, sterilization and yes there is CAUSATION involved in the rise in homosexuality

population control

Russia is no longer on-board

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by BlowinSmoke

 

Who cares if they can't make babies, we have overpopulation problems anyways, so isn't that a good thing? What if a straight couple doesn't want to make babies, are they a wasted product too? Life isnt built around just making families, there's plenty more to life...

Life isn't built around it, but marriage does build around it. The rights bestowed upon married people are given because of the hope of procreation and nothing else. Just because some people choose not to procreate does not change that basic fact.

As far as rights, the only right gays do not have is to share in work benefits of their partner, ie. healthcare and pensions. Everything else can be taken care of with legal documents without too much burden. Is that what this is all about? Or is more about getting people to accept that gayness is not a mental disorder and is perfectly natural?

reply to post by BlowinSmoke


Your closeted gayness is showing.



Self hate is bad, you might want to try therapy.

Originally posted by chrismarco

when we started to accept homosexuality into the mainstream..

Homosexuality was never accepted in the real mainstream. Society grew complacent and decided not to "police the bedroom", and militant homosexual activists infiltrated everywhere and used those positions to force their deviant behavior onto everyone. How many sicko homosexuals have come out in positions of power or influence since homosexuals declared their perversion "acceptable" and kept repeating it enough times?

How often do they weasel into online forum moderation, newspapers/editorial domains, and other interest groups, to subvert them to the "gay cause"(The Gay Cause or Gay Agenda is the act of trying to trick others into thinking their behavior is normal or not deviant). It was the gay streak to mainstream that killed mainstream entertainment. As soon as TV show after TV show began pushing the gay agenda, or the sick notion that "homosexuality is acceptable", TV died. Look at Stargate. Awesome franchise, till they made the gay agenda a part of the script. People have just been psychologically conditioned into a state of learned helplessness that enables a few homosexual jackals to intimidate and coerce anyone who opposes their immorality.

That conditioning is fading, and I would expect to see similar legislation in the West in half a decade or less. Less if Hispanic illegal and legal immigration is expedited, due o cultural factors(see California State Constitution Amendment that outlawed gay marriage but was illegal overturned by a pro-gay State Supreme Court, lending credence to the hypothetically correlation between psychopaths and homosexuality/bi-sexuality behavior).

Homosexuality is being allowed to "flourish" so that it can work as an acid against existing cultural/social norms. Once things are reshuffled and the refreezing begins, homosexuals will come to believe they live in the "dark ages" again, as most of societies angst over everything will be shuffled onto them.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by BlowinSmoke

 

Who cares if they can't make babies, we have overpopulation problems anyways, so isn't that a good thing? What if a straight couple doesn't want to make babies, are they a wasted product too? Life isnt built around just making families, there's plenty more to life...

Life isn't built around it, but marriage does build around it. The rights bestowed upon married people are given because of the hope of procreation and nothing else. Just because some people choose not to procreate does not change that basic fact.

As far as rights, the only right gays do not have is to share in work benefits of their partner, ie. healthcare and pensions. Everything else can be taken care of with legal documents without too much burden. Is that what this is all about? Or is more about getting people to accept that gayness is not a mental disorder and is perfectly natural?

Don't make the mistake of trying to have a sensible conversation with a homosexual or their supporters. In the end, all they care about is forcing themselves onto others, forcing other people to "accept them". If what they asked people to accept was so acceptable, homosexuals wouldn't have to need for "peer support" and "peer validation". They would simply detach and form communities among-st themselves, but that isn't happening though is it? Instead they are forcing society to tell them that their homosexuality is "OK", because somewhere deep down inside they know it is wrong(except for the full blow psychopathic homosexuals, they have no center of right vs wrong but I digress).

During the cold war, the Russians were afraid of blue jeans and freedom coming out of America. Now they are afraid were gonna turn them all gay?! What the hell happened since the cold war?

reply to post by Skyfloating


I quickly browsed your thread but I didn't see any direct talk about LGBT. Just activists in general being manipulated.

Can you elaborate some more?

reply to post by BlowinSmoke


Look if you don't think intimacy is a part of love, and that it's void of emotion, then you're not qualified to make moral judgement on equality issues.

reply to post by korathin

People have just been psychologically conditioned

Indeed.

We must all be very cognizant of this possibility.

Whether you live in the US or Russia or anywhere.

Are you somehow exempt from the concern?

Everyone is inundated by others beliefs. Oceans of beliefs. Tradition is a strong force. That's why thinking outside the box is such a great thing.

Don't make the mistake of trying to have a sensible conversation with a homosexual or their supporters.

Ironically this approach creates a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. You assume you can't have a conversation, andso you don't have one.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Can you elaborate some more?

This is what some former KGB agents have testified to. As far back as 1983 for instance, Yuri Bezmenov (KGB defector) said this:

"All of a sudden we see a homosexual… 15 years ago he did his job and nobody cared. Now he makes it a political issue. He demands recognition, respect, human rights, and he rallies a large group of people and there are violent clashes between him and police, his group and ordinary people. No matter what. It’s black against white, yellow against green. Doesn’t matter where this division line goes. As long as these groups come into antagonistic clashes, sometimes militantly, sometimes with firearms, that is the destabilization process. The sleepers, many of whom are simply KGB agents, become leaders of the process of destabilization"

Putins dislike for homosexuals may have something to do with him being former KGB.

Originally posted by penninja
Russia also banned a lot of US Foods

The issue here isn't about a stance on sexuality

It's obvious the USA participates in eugenics, sterilization and yes there is CAUSATION involved in the rise in homosexuality

population control

Russia is no longer on-board

I completely agree

Russia simply won't go with the Banking Neocon Zionist agenda to destroy family values,

Gay rights is foot in the door

take a look who supports all that "teach your kids about gays" and picture gets a lot clearer.

If you are Gay, I do not hate you, but keep your sex in your home and bedroom.
Don't push it into my kids face.




Now if you will excuse me, I need to google some gay porn LLLLOOOOOLLLL

I AM KIDDING, come on guys, grow a sense of humor will ya

PS: I am against porn too, hetero or gay, porn is vile

I really don't get it. This kind of thing baffles me, yet I am the person that believes everyone deserves the same rights. (Of course that opinion changes for the incarcerated and pedophiles, but that's a whole other argument)

Being someone who would be affected by this, I don't know what I would think. The only thing I can keep saying to myself is that at least all I have to deal with is a bunch of bible-thumpers wailing that it's wrong over being killed or imprisoned for my love. Of course, being killed for being in the LGBT community in America still happens, but at least there it's frowned upon.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this may be one of those up-the-ante trading points with Obama when the Russians and US strike a long anticipated deal. Obama referenced gay rights in his address yesterday, and the marriage thing is on his Supreme Court nominee agenda. Russia is going against the general trend with this law, so it is a puzzler.

Originally posted by BlowinSmoke
Why do gay people need rights? Keep your sexual affairs where they belong: in the bedroom. Who cares that you're "gay". It HARDLY makes you "special". Gay people want to be treated differently, and given special rights. I've TRIED to "accept" it....but HONESTLY, it looks sooooooo UN-NATURAL; against nature. Men and women were designed to reproduce, and sorry to say, but men and men can't reproduce; neither can women with women. So, how "natural" can it be?

smoke- I could not agree with you more, you hit the nail on the head with this one, my sister is a lesbian and I told her if she kisses another girl in-front of my 8 year old daughter ever!!! I will disown her!! and I would!

Regards Jamie

reply to post by JewAgainstZionism

If you are Gay, I do not hate you, but keep your sex in your home and bedroom.

Or if you're hetero.

In most public settings other people don't want to see a random couple having sex.

Sex is just one part of sexual orientation. This is a quick bit from Wiki:

Sexual orientation describes an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these

Sex should stay in the home. But attraction itself shouldn't have to be hidden and shamed from public. We don't with heterosexuality, so yes it is an equality issue here. Kissing your partner, lover, date, on the lips in public shouldn't be viewed as "shoving ones orientation in your face". But it sounds like you view it that way when it's from homosexuals and not heterosexuals. Why? It's not sex...

When it comes to gay-rights I think like that:

Being gay isn´t a real choice (my standpoint). All people should have the same human rights BUT when it comes to mariage and raising children, I take a different standpoint.

I met a view homosexual people in my life, due to being close friend to a girl that outed herself when she was about 16 years old. I got in some discussions with them about marriage and raising children.

Let me start with the financial benefits of marriage. If you marry someone, from traditional viewpoint (where marriage comes from, be reminded) you get benefits because you are just about to start a family and act as a whole financially.

Homosexual couples do not have the option to start a family, as a family consists of two generations at least, because naturally, a women can´t get pregnant from another women and vice versa. Of course they can act as a whole financially.

So, yes they should be allowed to marry but it should be denied to "generate" children. Someone said, a lesbian women can still get pregnant because to find a men is no problem. I´m shocked by that, really. It shows, how the persons that go this way to get a child, use men as a reproductive tool to get their needs fullfilled, even if they are disgusted by the act itself.
Besides that, I´ve generally no problem when homosexuals would raise a child. There are several examples on the internet where "son´s" and "daughters" stood up and told the world they received everything they needed and got well. I applaud that.

But there is a little issue to me that bothers me, though.

It still is "unnormal" and that´s the very right word for it, because nature(or whoever) designed us like that, to have a heterosexual relationship because that´s the way life goes. There should be a father and a mother. It balances the progress how the child is raised up.

Now we could argue, a child does not miss his father when he never had one and the need for it is not waked by seeing other children with fathers. This argument is wrong. Because we live in a heterosexual world and there will be such a situation. I was raised by my mom alone because my dad died at work when I was two years old, we two lived with another women, a child-friend of my mother together in a house till I was 11, only one who could took a fatherly role was my uncle. He did his best, I feel, to make this so. Still, I missed and miss things other children got through and from their fathers. Im about to get 25 this year.

So I grew up with a mom and a partially mom and a part-time-dad who wasn´t mine.
I miss having a father and this is something you can´t deny a child beforehand.
So, even I have lesbian friends, I accept them and they accept my view of the situation when I explained this to them. So you see, I was surrounded by femininity all my life. I go get out with the two, there were several situations were I thought, OMG.

I can say without regret that 100% of the lesbian girls I met (except my long standing friend), whenever it came about boys or men, they said things like
"men (in common) are disgusting animals, how can´t you see that"
whenever I visited a place with my friends where homosexuals were grouped, I was more intimidated by them then from men, when I got to disco or such. Excessivly. When I answered, "oh, don´t be confused I like boys" most of them said insulting things like "ah hetero why are you here then? Go you´re not one of us" or trying to spin me on an instant.

These experiences let me to my believe, in favor of the child, most homosexuals I met are not mature enough to have a child and raise it without pressing them in one direction. If its teaching a daughter that all men are assholes or if its teaching a son that all girls are just out for the money and bitches.

Because of that I say no to homosexual families and yes to homosexual marriage.
Adopting? Well, I go the way saying, before you have NO parents at all, its better to have two of one sort at least.
But then, the child should be in an age where it can comprehend homosexual relationships and decide if it wishes to have two moms or dads or not.

Originally posted by StareDad

These experiences let me to my believe, in favor of the child, most homosexuals I met are not mature enough to have a child and raise it without pressing them in one direction. If its teaching a daughter that all men are assholes or if its teaching a son that all girls are just out for the money and bitches.

Why not just deem them immature and wait until you meet others to judge them?

Here is a link to the thread I posted in about gay parenting. It addresses what you've mentioned:

Gay Marriage and Raising Children: the elephant in the room

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


There were even 40s that said things like that. It´s not like I visited only "16-21 lesbians". I probably had more in deep discussions with homosexuals then you, I don´t know how old you are but I´m really certain.
Whatever, I don´t get your message and by time you replied, are you sure you understood the wot I posted?

I´m not judging, I came to a conclusion.
Reading comprehension please: "...most... I met in my life..."
That´s far away from judging every homosexual just to say. A fast shoot from you.

I´m good friend with a "lesbian". She, btw thinks a little bit the same. I know this because she kind of defended my position and she would not do that just because we are friends.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Here is a link to the thread I posted in about gay parenting. It addresses what you've mentioned:

Gay Marriage and Raising Children: the elephant in the room

edit on 22-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

My point is this: To date, most if not all serious discussion of gay marriage has revolved around the rights of gay people. There has been very little talk about how it might impact children. It may turn out that it would not impact them at all. But before we go tinkering with the fundamental structure of the family, its a question that needs to be asked, and a debate that needs to be had. The glaring silence on this issue is the proverbial "elephant in the room."

You´re right and I say, as a prime example: I miss having a father.

Edit: I like to add, maybe this is the reason for that I have a little problems when it comes to boys. I´m not lesbian but as you read, I mostly was surrounded by women and there you have it. I bet, if I had a father, I would have learned to understand men better then now.


You see my avatar? Wonder why I choose this? StareDad, a meme of a father that isn´t the ideal picture of a dad. Just think about it.


Last edit, I promise:

From your link:

Let me give you a somewhat-related example. In the 1960s and 70s, single motherhood, formerly a rare thing, became much more common. The debate at the time was framed in terms of the rights of feminist women, rather than possible obligations to children. Then as now, the issue of the long-term effects on children (and society by extension) was shoveled under the carpet. But after a time, it became clear that children were being deeply impacted by this "lifestyle choice":

...as a social scientist, I can also say that the academic research paints a much more complicated picture of the impact of family structure on children than does my life story...Hetherington, who like Roiphe embraces changing family structures, also was honest enough to admit that divorce tends to double a child’s risk of a serious negative outcome. Specifically, she found that “twenty-five percent of youths from divorced families in comparison to 10 percent from non-divorced families did have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems.” Other research suggests that the children of never-married single parents tend to do somewhat worse than children of divorced single parents. Take two contemporary social problems: teenage pregnancy and the incarceration of young males. Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father. But daughters depend on dads as well. One study by Bruce Ellis of the University of Arizona found that about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood. This dramatic divide was narrowed a bit when Ellis controlled for parents’ socioeconomic background—but only by a few percentage points. The research on this topic suggests that girls raised by single mothers are less likely to be supervised, more likely to engage in early sex, and to end up pregnant compared with girls raised by their own married parents.

There you have it, I don´t know the credibility of that article but it rings true.

reply to post by StareDad

Originally posted by StareDad
I probably had more in deep discussions with homosexuals then you, I don´t know how old you are but I´m really certain.

"deep" would be hard to compare wouldn't it? Not that I am wanting to compare. Apparently you feel the need right now. Are we assessing who's more qualified or something?

Whatever, I don´t get your message

All I was implying was that there are a lot of gay people in the world and they are as diverse and eclectic as heterosexuals. One should be cautious to lump them together, it's mostly done in error.

are you sure you understood the wot I posted?

I did. And if you post it in that other thread I linked (it's more on topic there) I will reply to the whole post. It's just a suggestion of course.

I´m not judging, I came to a conclusion.

I don't understand peoples aversion to the word 'judgement'. Yes that is a judgement. It's apparently also a conclusion. That's unfortunate.

Reading comprehension please

*makes strange face* You said this right after...

because of that I say no to homosexual families and yes to homosexual marriage.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. You were not clear.

reply to post by StareDad


That quote was not from me. I didn't make that thread, I was just a regular poster in it. I encourage you to give the whole thread a read as it does address all the things you mentioned.

My wife's uncle is a homosexual.
He doesn't believe in gay marriage either. Niether does his "partner".
He doesn't act like a panzy either.

Matter of fact, the guy believes that marriage is a partnership between male and female and believes it should stay that way.
-I think he has it right.