If they live a dissent life not grabbing arsh or dick of anybody they are not going to be attacked. Aguy does to a bar to pick a woman to lay and the woman is a transvestite , how do you think he will feel , I would not be surprised he will kick the shit of the transvestite , Would that be an legitimate attack ?
How will gay marriage change the world?
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
If they live a dissent life not grabbing arsh or dick of anybody they are not going to be attacked. Aguy does to a bar to pick a woman to lay and the woman is a transvestite , how do you think he will feel , I would not be surprised he will kick the shit of the transvestite , Would that be an legitimate attack ?
So you love your partner As I said before there is nothing wrong love a person Platonically great good for you. I said before I come from a society that man kisses an other man as a greeting I am used to that
Unreal. Ignorance on top of ignorance.
Bells
Staff member
Why do you think you have more right to marry than he does? Is it children? He and his partner/spouse can have children if they so choose.
So why do you believe that you have more rights to marriage and he should be denied those rights? Why do you think marriage means more to you than it does to him?
Why did you sign a commitment to your spouse? You don't think he should be allowed to sign the same commitment to his spouse?
Because this is what it comes down to. You believe you should have more rights than others based solely on your sexuality. They are not asking for any thing more than others. They are asking to be treated the same and be given the same rights and protections you seem to feel you deserve and need.
There is one member who had also an experience and he said " one grabbed his baddox and he slept him in his face " I had my experience . and you will tell me ignorance , well you are the ignorant in my view.
They should marry an other woman because they are a male , same for lesbian .
They are treated the same way as other in the society . What kind of protection do they need ? they are male and female or are they something else, which they are not.
Matthew Shepard lived a decent life. He was beaten and murdered because he was gay. Thus you are wrong.
Pretty stupid!
Nope. He'd probably spend the next few years in jail. Which is the way it should be.
Who's Sergei?
What I don't get about Pravda articles on American culture is the idea that they have any relevance to reality. I mean, if Sergei Vasilenko actually had any idea what he was going on about, the article might be a useful glimpse inside a Russian mind. We should not take that glimpse as anything representative of Russian society in whole, largely because Vasilenko's ignorance and dishonesty.
To wit, I would challenge Vasilenko to find any one person who was discharged from, or merely investigated by, the U.S. armed forces for disclosing his heterosexuality. That was the underlying problem of DADT, as it maintained a supremacist ideology.
But something also might be getting lost in translation. To wit, the next paragraph in the article makes no sense syntactically, unless it's describing some hypothetical fantasy:
But it seems clear that Vasilenko is more comfortable in centuries past—
—which would explain why he is so disconnected from the realities of the twenty-first century:
I mean, perhaps Vasilenko missed it, but the U.S. is trailing its neighbors in the gay marriage discussion.
But what it really comes down to is that Vasilenko is just another hatemonger:
Frankly, I would point out that we already legalize serious crimes against public morality, else Vasilenko would not be accessible in the U.S.:
I don't know, Sergei, maybe among all that extinction and degradation, some gay couples might adopt the children whose heterosexual parents don't want them. You know, the over one hundred thousand American children known to need permanent homes and family structures? So, you know, why don't the heterosexual traditionalists stop having so many damn babies?
One wonders at the sort of depraved mind that looks to morons like Mr. Vasilenko for sympathetic expression. To the other, though, Vasilenko does, in fact, successfully demonstrate a problem with American values: Freedom of speech is not weighed down by any obligation to actually have a clue what one is talking about, a point very neatly exploited by the Russian author.
It's bad enough that Americans taking part in the public discussion of gay rights actually need to be reminded of the historical record. It's even worse when some foreign author looking to pick a bone with Americans tries to capitalize on that ignorance in order to float useless biscuits like that.
And the sad sort of bigot who seconds such excrement? Well, birds of a feather soil the park together, I guess.
____________________
Notes:
Vasilenko, Sergei. "How will gay marriage change the world?" Pravda. February 27, 2013. English.Pravda.ru. February 28, 2013. http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/27-02-2013/123915-gay_marriage-0/
What I don't get about Pravda articles on American culture is the idea that they have any relevance to reality. I mean, if Sergei Vasilenko actually had any idea what he was going on about, the article might be a useful glimpse inside a Russian mind. We should not take that glimpse as anything representative of Russian society in whole, largely because Vasilenko's ignorance and dishonesty.
In late December 2010, Barack Obama signed a controversial document, that abolished the previous law signed by Bill Clinton. The essence of the document is as follows. A serviceman, being a representative of sexual minorities, has an unconditional right to serve in the U.S. Army, but he should not disclose his orientation to other servicemen. In turn, officers have no right to take an interest in this issue among their subordinates.
To wit, I would challenge Vasilenko to find any one person who was discharged from, or merely investigated by, the U.S. armed forces for disclosing his heterosexuality. That was the underlying problem of DADT, as it maintained a supremacist ideology.
But something also might be getting lost in translation. To wit, the next paragraph in the article makes no sense syntactically, unless it's describing some hypothetical fantasy:
In this case, Obama was, as they say, in the wake of sexual minorities that considered the laws hypocritical as it obliged them to conceal the true nature of their feelings. This time, the U.S. president goes even further to equalize the rights of the supporters of both conventional and gay marriage. As soon as the new law is enacted, gay people in all American states, not just nine of them (New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Maine, Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, Iowa, Vermont that legalized gay marriage a while back) will have the right to conclude marriage.
But it seems clear that Vasilenko is more comfortable in centuries past—
It can also be directly connected to new influences that decay the morals of modern society. Trendy views, freedom of expression, have been replacing human values lately. All this and many other things show a devastating impact on traditional human, family and personal values of the modern civilization. The U.S. is no exception.
—which would explain why he is so disconnected from the realities of the twenty-first century:
The adoption of such a revolutionary law in one of the world's leading powers may trigger similar processes in many other countries of the world that look up to the United States. Swinging the pendulum of moral decay, American policy-makers will not be able to control it afterwards. Such an embarrassment has already occurred to America before and continues to haunt the world. It goes about the chain of democratic revolutions in the East, which the U.S. State Department initiated. The process went out of control and embraced even the states loyal to the U.S. regime.
I mean, perhaps Vasilenko missed it, but the U.S. is trailing its neighbors in the gay marriage discussion.
But what it really comes down to is that Vasilenko is just another hatemonger:
Giving a "green corridor" to gay marriage once, the world may have serious and perhaps insurmountable, problems in the future. The legalization, and thus recognition of such families on the state level will expose many people, who have been hiding their orientation from others. This will make the homosexual society grow. Some activists may then wish to legalize more serious crimes against public morality.
Frankly, I would point out that we already legalize serious crimes against public morality, else Vasilenko would not be accessible in the U.S.:
Family, in the common sense of the word, is a cell of a healthy society that leads to the appearance of new generations, thus providing the domination of births over deaths. What can same-sex marriage offer? Extinction and degradation?
I don't know, Sergei, maybe among all that extinction and degradation, some gay couples might adopt the children whose heterosexual parents don't want them. You know, the over one hundred thousand American children known to need permanent homes and family structures? So, you know, why don't the heterosexual traditionalists stop having so many damn babies?
The behavioural example that parents show to their children is an important factor in the educational process of personality. Mankind may face the problem of cultivating homosexuality among the children, whose parents share a "non-traditional" orientation. Every fifth gay couple or family in the U.S. has either children born from previous heterosexual marriage, or adopted children. In total, we are talking about more than two million human lives. What kind of people will they be? Today, the United States of America is a state of democratic freedom and economic stability, where dreams come true. The American way of life excites modern world consciousness, causing cultural revolutions, regime changes and social upheavals. The U.S. largely serves as an example for other countries and their citizens. It is highly important that this example should be positive ...
One wonders at the sort of depraved mind that looks to morons like Mr. Vasilenko for sympathetic expression. To the other, though, Vasilenko does, in fact, successfully demonstrate a problem with American values: Freedom of speech is not weighed down by any obligation to actually have a clue what one is talking about, a point very neatly exploited by the Russian author.
It's bad enough that Americans taking part in the public discussion of gay rights actually need to be reminded of the historical record. It's even worse when some foreign author looking to pick a bone with Americans tries to capitalize on that ignorance in order to float useless biscuits like that.
And the sad sort of bigot who seconds such excrement? Well, birds of a feather soil the park together, I guess.
____________________
Notes:
Vasilenko, Sergei. "How will gay marriage change the world?" Pravda. February 27, 2013. English.Pravda.ru. February 28, 2013. http://english.pravda.ru/society/family/27-02-2013/123915-gay_marriage-0/
I must have missed that arauca was simply copy-pasting from another source, rather than providing his own thoughts. Though now I see he says in a later post he was simply "seconding" the text. I suppose it's a reliance on such bigoted propaganda that results in the belief that gays are only attacked if they go out harassing straight folks. It's not excuse, but at least now we know where arauca gets his ignorant, disgusting ideas from.
Why he's allowed to peddle them here, I'll never know.
Why he's allowed to peddle them here, I'll never know.
Jesus effing Christ arauca, if you want to have sex with males just do it and stop making other people *justify* your preferences for you.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I forward you to Bells' questions below.
Why do you keep adding the word "platonic" in there? It's not platonic; Platonic means without sex. We do have sex. But the relationship is not based purely on sex. Our relationship is based on feelings of mutual love, trust, giving, compassion, affection, dedication, assistance, humor, guidance, and yes, even physical and sexual attraction as well.
Your posts make me wonder if you have even in fact ever been in love with anyone. If not, then trying to get you to fully understand love is next to impossible, regardless of the genders involved.
I bow down to you, kind sir! Good points!
I really have a hard time not telling you to go fuck yourself.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
lmao!!!
They are same as I and I am not asking to change the law to accommodate me . We all, male and female have the same protection under the law and they been male and female they fall under the same protection and there should not be a special group, with additional protection.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
What special group? What addiditonal protection? You're still not getting it, are you? You are telling me that because I am a guy that is in love with a guy, that me wanting the SAME right to marriage that you have is somehow ADDITIONAL rights?
It is additional to what I am already permitted. But it is NOT additional to what you are garaunteed. YOU, as a heterosexual, are garaunteed the right to marry the person you love. I, as a homosexual, am not garaunteed the right to marry the person I love. Therefore, our rights are NOT equal.
Now replace the word heterosexual with "white" and the world homosexual with "black". How is that type of discrimination ANY different from what you are voicing here?
I'm fairly certain this will be the LAST post I will make in this thread. Good day to you, sir.
Very simple you should hear the other side. As you know for every action there is a reaction.
I believe in traditional biblical marriage:
one man and his dead brother's wife
one man and one woman and her servants
one man and his rape victim
one man and many women
one man and 700 women and 300 concubines
one man and one woman and her slaves
one soldier and his virgin prisoners
...just not one man and one man
or one woman and one woman
THAT would be immoral.
one man and his dead brother's wife
one man and one woman and her servants
one man and his rape victim
one man and many women
one man and 700 women and 300 concubines
one man and one woman and her slaves
one soldier and his virgin prisoners
...just not one man and one man
or one woman and one woman
THAT would be immoral.
We are in the 20 century that was probably 1300 bce , Remember your Jewish law have been modified sense the return from Babylon, an your elders did not wanted to accept Yashua for additional modification.
Which part of the New Testament says all those other forms of marriage are wrong?