Russia Parliament Passes Anti-Gay Bill ( 434-0 Vote )

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
When I see a unanimous vote involving so many people on a social issue that is so divisive and then see that the vote was in held in Russia; it leaves no doubt in my mind that the vote was rigged and/or members of their parliament were coerced into voting against their true beliefs.

I'll go on a limb and say that I understand Russia a tad better than you, since I was born there and can read article in Russian (which I do).

The Russian Parliament is not really a Parliament. It's a legislative arm, and a part of, of the clique who usurped power. It's just not even coercion, it's the new normal for Russia. Whoever get elected into the Duma knows the rules and is ready to play by them.

reply to post by Jepic


Yes, it is normal.

Just because monotheistic religions came along and said it isn't, doesn't make it so.

Homosexuality had to go hide in a closet after these religions came along for fear of persecution. Just like how many religions also weren't "the flavour of the day" and therefore had to go hide in the closet for fear of persecution.

Hiding in a closet out of necessity does not equate to something being "wrong" and "not normal" particularly when it comes to something that's CONSENSUALLY agreed to by the parties involved.

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by Jepic

 

Yes, it is normal.

Just because monotheistic religions came along and said it isn't, doesn't make it so.

Homosexuality had to go hide in a closet after these religions came along for fear of persecution. Just like how many religions also weren't "the flavour of the day" and therefore had to go hide in the closet for fear of persecution.

Hiding in a closet out of necessity does not equate to something being "wrong" and "not normal" particularly when it comes to something that's CONSENSUALLY agreed to by the parties involved.

edit on 11-6-2013 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)

Before religions even existed right back in the caveman era I can assure, those cavemen weren't going at it with other cavemen but with cavewomen.

Nobody is hiding. The norm was and always will be a man and a woman having sexual relations. Otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place.

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by Jepic

 

Yes, it is normal.

Just because monotheistic religions came along and said it isn't, doesn't make it so.

Homosexuality had to go hide in a closet after these religions came along for fear of persecution. Just like how many religions also weren't "the flavour of the day" and therefore had to go hide in the closet for fear of persecution.

Hiding in a closet out of necessity does not equate to something being "wrong" and "not normal" particularly when it comes to something that's CONSENSUALLY agreed to by the parties involved.

edit on 11-6-2013 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)

Before religions even existed right back in the caveman era I can assure, those cavemen weren't going at it with other cavemen but with cavewomen.

Nobody is hiding. The norm was and always will be a man and a woman having sexual relations. Otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place.

You can assure that poster without any evidence to back up your claim? Are you for real?

Originally posted by Jepic
It is not normal. Time does not make an act normal. What makes something normal is if it is the norm. Homosexuality has never been the norm. As such it is not normal.

Having Green eyes is not normal?
In fact, going by your statement, anyone who doesn't have Brown eyes is "not normal" because Brown is the majority.

1) Blue < Most rare
2) Green
3) Hazel
4) Brown

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
[SNIP: Excessive nested quotes and key inappropriate post removed by staff.]

I say, if your going to enter into a discussion about how unnatural homosexuality is, expect this sort of explicit imagery? The most appropriate outcome, to me, would be for people to agree to disagree and go their separate ways.

edit on 11-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

Or maybe if they can't keep it respectful and civil they shouldn't be on the Internet?

Agree to disagree is always good. It's just sad that somewhere down the line disrespect has to erupt.

reply to post by Jepic


Can you prove that? nope...homosexuality has been around since before we even became homo sapiens, the earliest recorded homosexual couple was in Egypt in 2400 BC, in many cultures it has been seen as normal but only when Christians started spouting that is is wrong has it been deemed un natural, now people are rejecting Old time Religion and waking up, to accept each other for who they are without outdated bigoted views.

Originally posted by Jepic
I say, if your going to enter into a discussion about how unnatural homosexuality is, expect this sort of explicit imagery? The most appropriate outcome, to me, would be for people to agree to disagree and go their separate ways.

edit on 11-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

Or maybe if they can't keep it respectful and civil they shouldn't be on the Internet?

Agree to disagree is always good. It's just sad that somewhere down the line disrespect has to erupt.

No one's disrespecting you, you're just taking offence at the content of the discussion.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Jepic
It is not normal. Time does not make an act normal. What makes something normal is if it is the norm. Homosexuality has never been the norm. As such it is not normal.

Having Green eyes is not normal?
In fact, going by your statement, anyone who doesn't have Brown eyes is "not normal" because Brown in the majority.

1) Blue < Most rare
2) Green
3) Hazel
4) Brown

Originally posted by Jepic
[SNIP: Excessive nested quotes and key inappropriate post removed by staff.]

Or maybe if they can't keep it respectful and civil they shouldn't be on the Internet?

Agree to disagree is always good. It's just sad that somewhere down the line disrespect has to erupt.

This is what it comes down to though, isn't it? The offended homophobes fixate on what two men (and occasionally two women) do in the bedroom, and when that is openly discussed you act all offended and shocked by it? What are you, 12?

If people want to boil down a debate on equality to bedroom antics as a means to attack them, don't pretend to all be shocked and surprised when that is used to make you look stupid.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Jepic
It is not normal. Time does not make an act normal. What makes something normal is if it is the norm. Homosexuality has never been the norm. As such it is not normal.

Having Green eyes is not normal?
In fact, going by your statement, anyone who doesn't have Brown eyes is "not normal" because Brown is the majority.

1) Blue < Most rare
2) Green
3) Hazel
4) Brown

reply to post by Jepic


I have one green eye and a blue one....guess it's the gas chamber for me then.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Jepic

 

Can you prove that? nope...homosexuality has been around since before we even became homo sapiens, the earliest recorded homosexual couple was in Egypt in 2400 BC, in many cultures it has been seen as normal but only when Christians started spouting that is is wrong has it been deemed un natural, now people are rejecting Old time Religion and waking up, to accept each other for who they are without outdated bigoted views.

I can't believe you people are actually trying to argue that homosexuality used to be the norm. No. It was never the norm. The vast majority of people were never homosexual. Not even bisexual. You are the proof.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Jepic
I say, if your going to enter into a discussion about how unnatural homosexuality is, expect this sort of explicit imagery? The most appropriate outcome, to me, would be for people to agree to disagree and go their separate ways.

edit on 11-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

Or maybe if they can't keep it respectful and civil they shouldn't be on the Internet?

Agree to disagree is always good. It's just sad that somewhere down the line disrespect has to erupt.

No one's disrespecting you, you're just taking offence at the content of the discussion.


Assumptions you are making. I have indeed not felt disrespected in this thread.

I was talking about the poster that complained about the visual.