News Stories

[konart]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

They aren't doing gay parade for the fun, they do it to show people they exist and as such laws should evolve to make them enter in our society.

for example mariage here is considered as the vow between a man and a woman, it's the law, as such homosexual can't marry. Morality and ethnicity evolves by far faster than laws, if they simply wait nobody's going to give them a single care.

People know that they exist. People know it since ancient times, bible, Rome etc. It's not something that appeared just some years ago.

"As such homosexual can't marry" - and many people agree that this is how it should be.

And to say ti's socially wrong is quite arguable, just watch the evolution of homoseuxality between 60' and today, it passed from "an illness/deviance" to "is tolerable".

Just watch the evolution of homosexuality between ancient Rome and 60'. It passed from "is common thing" to "an illness/deviance".

I personally don't see in what way trying to have the same rights as the others is BAD. But the only valable reason I can see is you disgusting them?

Homosexuality is bad from demografic pov, from ethical pov, from social pov etc.
They ALREADY have all the same rights - they can work, serve in army, express their point of view... The only thing they can't do is marriage, which is not a big deal if you ask me.

And no, I do not have any hard feelings about gay people, I have hard feelings about people who make a fuss about being somewhat different and that's why they need more rights.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by konart

I'm saying that they can fuck each other, love each other etc. - nobody can or even trying to stop them. Making a scene because of this is BAD.

Recognise what? A mental disease*? An awful mistake of nature?

Step back in human rights? Where? As I already said - nobody is trying to make them be straight or something.

Not to mention that many people find the very fact of homosexual relations disgusting.

*Homosexuality was officially removed from the Russian list of mental illnesses in 1999 (after endorsing ICD-10).

I would prefer that they didn't have to "make a scene" because people would no longer consider being homosexual as "a mental disease" or "an awful mistake of nature". It's neither of the sort, it's just a different way to feel love and in my mind there's nothing wrong with it.

Oh but it doesn't promote the continuation of the species you would say? I don't care! Homosexual acts have been known in several species of animals and not just humans and even it it were just in humans we are already reaching dangerous levels of population worldwide, something that trims that growth down a bit isn't going to do any harm.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

The corollary for me is: I may not be an homosexual myself but I'll defend their right to express their views to the death.

[ganbaru]

Insight: Big Food girds for California GMO fight
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87F15X20120816

[konart]

Originally Posted by Dextro

I would prefer that they didn't have to "make a scene" because people would no longer consider being homosexual as "a mental disease" or "an awful mistake of nature". It's neither of the sort, it's just a different way to feel love and in my mind there's nothing wrong with it.

Oh but it doesn't promote the continuation of the species you would say? I don't care! Homosexual acts have been known in several species of animals and not just humans and even it it were just in humans we are already reaching dangerous levels of population worldwide, something that trims that growth down a bit isn't going to do any harm.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

The corollary for me is: I may not be an homosexual myself but I'll defend their right to express their views to the death.

>I don't care!

Well, I do.

>Homosexual acts have been known in several species of animals

Yeah, because the nature made them that way due to a certain reasons. There are also species that can change their gender. But we are humans, not some Bolbometopos muricatum

>we are already reaching dangerous levels of population worldwide

This problem is pretty much contrived. The real problem is that we consume too much and at the same time we don't use even 70% of production(oh irony, right?).

But okay, I can take this as a good reason to keep gay people, not to promote homosexuality even further.

Btw, child adoption is much better reason in that case, if someone needs one.

The corollary for me is: I may not be an homosexual myself but I'll defend their right to express their views to the death.

Once again: I'm not against them having their rights or them expressing their views. I(and many other people) am against the way they do this.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by konart

People know that they exist. People know it since ancient times, bible, Rome etc. It's not something that appeared just some years ago.

"As such homosexual can't marry" - and many people agree that this is how it should be.

And "many people" have agreed with the institution of slavery. Views change.

Just watch the evolution of homosexuality between ancient Rome and 60'. It passed from "is common thing" to "an illness/deviance".

And back again. Your point?

Homosexuality is bad from demografic pov,

Use that argument again when we're 0.5 billion people. In the meantime, shelve it.

from ethical pov, from social pov etc.

How so? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Well, intolerance and prejudice makes me uncomfortable.

They ALREADY have all the same rights - they can work, serve in army, express their point of view... The only thing they can't do is marriage, which is not a big deal if you ask me.

If it's not a big deal, give it to them.

And no, I do not have any hard feelings about gay people, I have hard feelings about people who make a fuss about being somewhat different and that's why they need more rights.

They want the right to build their lives with the people they love, to raise families, which is something the government acknowledge and supports through marriage.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by konart

>I don't care!

Well, I do.

>Homosexual acts have been known in several species of animals

Yeah, because the nature made them that way due to a certain reasons. There are also species that can change their gender. But we are humans, not some Bolbometopos muricatum

Let me complete that: "in some species of animals (including plenty of mamals)".

Originally Posted by konart

>we are already reaching dangerous levels of population worldwide

This problem is pretty much contrived. The real problem is that we consume too much and at the same time we don't use even 70% of production(oh irony, right?).

But okay, I can take this as a good reason to keep gay people, not to promote homosexuality even further.

Btw, child adoption is much better reason in that case, if someone needs one.

And yet plenty of people would claim that they shouldn't have the right to adopt because they are morally bankrupt, yada, yada, yada (I don't claim to know all the arguments spouted by bigots).

Originally Posted by konart

Once again: I'm not against them having their rights or them expressing their views. I(and many other people) am against the way they do this.

And why should you care? Are they forcing you to watch? Are they forcing you to take a part in their parades? No so keep your intolerance to your self or, better yet, learn to understand the other party and ditch your preconceived notions of "morality".

And btw have you noticed how the "evolution of homosexuality between ancient Rome and 60'" goes hand in hand with the evolution of the catholic church? Yhep, there isn't a major force shoving their morals down the populations' throat. Nope, nothing to see here guys.

[konart]

And why should you care? Are they forcing you to watch? Are they forcing you to take a part in their parades? No so keep your intolerance to your self or, better yet, learn to understand the other party and ditch your preconceived notions of "morality".

Why? The same reason I would care if they turned electricity off in my house as a sign of protest. It bothers me, it makes me inconvinient. So if I met them in the streets, while their are marching during their parade - I should take another route or turn my eyes off them? No.

so keep your intolerance to your self

Tolerance sounds as a synonim of indifference for me, and I think it's a bad thing.

hand in hand with the evolution of the catholic church

Good thing we found a common enemy

[aohige]

Tolerance is the same as indifference, and therefore it's bad?


That is the dumbest statement I have ever read on this forum. Ever.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by konart

Why? The same reason I would care if they turned electricity off in my house as a sign of protest. It bothers me, it makes me inconvinient. So if I met them in the streets, while their are marching during their parade - I should take another route or turn my eyes off them? No.

Inconvenience is indifference. Tolerance is acceptance.

When you make the argument that people arguing for civil rights shouldn't do it because it inconveniences you, I hope you also realize that one day it could be you trying to argue for a better life while people condemn what you are doing because it inconveniences them.

When you're complaining about being inconvenienced, what you're really saying is that you couldn't care less. Apathy is never a good thing, it only encourages the loss of liberty. Today it is homosexuals, tomorrow it is religions, until eventually there is no one left to listen when it swings around to what you care about. If you're lucky, it's just because they'd be inconvenienced. If you're not lucky, it could be much worse.

[Sumeragi]

Food for thought: Did the people on the march apply for it? Technically you're supposed to at least notify the authorities before going on such actions. Any argument ignoring this on the basis of fighting for civil rights is basically invalidating itself by going against the fundamental rules of a civilized society.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Food for thought: Did the people on the march apply for it? Technically you're supposed to at least notify the authorities before going on such actions. Any argument ignoring this on the basis of fighting for civil rights is basically invalidating itself by going against the fundamental rules of a civilized society.

I guess that's because the Russian authorities wouldn't have allowed it anyway in the first place. But yes, ideally demonstrating your good will is always important.

[konart]

Originally Posted by Solace

Inconvenience is indifference. Tolerance is acceptance.

When you make the argument that people arguing for civil rights shouldn't do it because it inconveniences you, I hope you also realize that one day it could be you trying to argue for a better life while people condemn what you are doing because it inconveniences them.

When you're complaining about being inconvenienced, what you're really saying is that you couldn't care less. Apathy is never a good thing, it only encourages the loss of liberty. Today it is homosexuals, tomorrow it is religions, until eventually there is no one left to listen when it swings around to what you care about. If you're lucky, it's just because they'd be inconvenienced. If you're not lucky, it could be much worse.

Inconvenience can't be indifference by it's nature - when you feel inconvinient, you make a move to do something to alter things.
Tolerance means you accept things as they are which is indifference.

When you make the argument that people arguing for civil rights shouldn't do

Once again: i AM NOT against them having their rights to get married or to adopt kids. If anything I'm totally okay with this.

I'm against THE WAY they do it.

I believe you can tell the difference here, right?

[Ridwan]

I said it myself that demonstration of good will is a plus, but it still remains that the attitude of Russian LGBT activists presented here is easily a symptom of how Russia treats their sexual minorities in general.

[Zakoo]

Ok I think I understand you,.

So do you have any idea how they can ask for the same right as us without 'showing" themselves? Going on the parlement? Waiting for the world's end?

If people don't go outside to shout, nobody is going to listen to them. No matter how much I do understand homo, I personally don't give a single damn about them, but because they do their gay parade I know they exist and I understand their will to have the right to adaopt children or marry.

For some it works, for others it doesn't, but seems like the gay march is the best way they found so far. For the best or the worst.

[Dextro]

For anyone who actually believes that gay parades (and other similar events) shouldn't be held because it's a nuisance:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemöller

[SeijiSensei]

People take to the streets when there are no other legitimate methods for changing public policies. Perhaps the Western media downplay the existence of effective means for democratic change in Russia, but from here it looks like those channels are either non-existent or ineffective. I see a fundamentally authoritarian regime with some trappings of democratic processes to provide cover for Mr. Putin and his cronies.

As I recall, the Russia of today is the successor to a regime created by people taking to the streets through a process called the "Russian Revolution." There were also, as I recall, a lot of people on the streets after Yeltsin dissolved the Duma and more recently in response to the tainted legislative elections. I'm pretty sure those involved some inconvenience as well. Did you oppose those protest efforts, too, or is it just protests by homosexuals to which you object?

Ruling out public protest as a legitimate way of expressing opinion seems to run contrary to the very underpinnings of the contemporary Russian state.

[DonQuigleone]

What's wrong with indifference? I can't care about everything.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Dextro

For anyone who actually believes that gay parades (and other similar events) shouldn't be held because it's a nuisance:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemöller

I remember a funny conversation long time ago with someone about this quote, and when asked what he makes of the quote, he said "if you're not a commie or in a union, you must be a Jew." I burst out laughing.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by konart

Once again: i AM NOT against them having their rights to get married or to adopt kids. If anything I'm totally okay with this.

I'm against THE WAY they do it.

I believe you can tell the difference here, right?

Understood, but people "take to the streets" when they lack a more civil way of encouraging change. From all appearances, a more civil way either doesn't exist or is suppressed by intransigent power structures.

[Ithekro]

I've noticed an opinion that comes up from time to time when various groups call for civil rights in America at least. "More rights"

The conservatives tend to be the ones that see homosexuals or ethnic groups in the recent decade (Not back in the 60s) as "wanting more rights than the rest of us to feel special". This is the argumnt I tend to get because in conservative logic "They already have all the rights I have...why should they get more rights? What makes them superior to warrent more rights than anyone else in this country?"

At least that is how it tends to be presented by the non-religious conservatives.