Putin propagates hateful gay stereotype

[Magical Realist]

Religious conservatives, especially the evangelical ones, often have issues with things like knowing what the difference is between paedophilia and homosexuality. Then of course you have people who are simply too stupid and bigoted to know better, such as people like Putin and those who advocate homophobic decency laws to 'protect the children'.

Fascists are always dragging in the excuse of protecting children to legitimize their tyrranical oppression of minorities. Gays are thus regularly painted as child molesters or spreaders of propaganda to justify their continued persecution and marginalization.

I've taken my kids to the one in Sydney. They still have the rainbow coloured whirly's and slinky's from them.

The people marching and dancing past often have sweets and little toys and stuff they give to kids as they walk past and take photos as well. Kids had an absolute ball. Then again, the one we have here in Sydney have police officers, firefighters, paramedics and members of the defence force marching as well. It's great fun to be honest.

Looks like a blast. Someday I may make it out there and see it.

 

[Magical Realist]

So anything shy of actual sex in front of children is fine, huh? Like adults exposing themselves to children?

Also, most places where adults dance like that are age restricted due to selling alcohol.

We already have laws against that. So again, what are you bitching about?

Actually, I just double-checked. I simply googled "gay pride parade" to find ALL of those images. I did not need to presume nudity in my search.
But wait, are you calling those pictures "sleazy"?

You're the one that posted them to prove gays are all sex perverts. Once again, how does a few pics of a few exposed people at a gay parade make any kind of statement about gays in general? And once again, I could do the same with Mardi Gras and claim the same thing about heterosexuals. But I'm not the one pushing hateful stereotypes.

Again with the attentional bias. Maybe you missed this part of your own quote:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation"​

So yes, if.

Yes..between genes, intrauterine hormones, epigenetics, and combinations of the same, no one is sure why a person develops a particular orientation. But they have definitely ruled out family environment. IOW, it's biologically caused. Let's read it again shall we?

however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

 

[Syne]

We already have laws against that. So again, what are you bitching about?

We also have general laws about indecency, so what are you bitching about? Most municipalities regulate overtly sexual behavior in front of children. Any reason to exempt a gay parade?

You're the one that posted them to prove gays are all sex perverts. Once again, how does a few pics of a few exposed people at a gay parade make any kind of statement about gays in general? And once again, I could do the same with Mardi Gras and claim the same thing about heterosexuals. But I'm not the one pushing hateful stereotypes.

I posted them to show that some laws about public sexual behavior are warranted. Do you disagree?

Yes..between genes, intrauterine hormones, epigenetics, and combinations of the same, no one is sure why a person develops a particular orientation. But they have definitely ruled out family environment. IOW, it's biologically caused. Let's read it again shall we?

however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

A "favored cause" is by no means conclusive, else there would be a consensus (the lack of which you are now omitting from that quote).

 

[Bells]

Why? Do you think they should have a warning?

What "many children"? Does SciForum's lax policy on profanity reflect these children?[/science]
I'm not the one using them as examples of being unfit for children, ignoring the fact that there are minors who post here.

"If" is the language of science, as scientific findings are generally qualified and provisional. Are you calling science homophobic now?

Would be akin to my saying "if you were born heterosexual". Or questioning if you were born that way.

Violence is illegal and should continue to be fully enforced.

When you pass laws that deem homosexuality to be indecent and immoral, then the effects of that is homophobia.

Quite honestly, I am unaware of children posting and reading here. While I am aware that they are allowed to register, if over 13, I would not allow my own children, even over 13, to read or post here unsupervised. SciForums allows profanity and debates/insults here often go beyond what I would have my own children subjected to.

I remember we used to have at least one poster who was 14 years old. We have had several others in the past and probably at the moment.

Then again, all of us who have children also know that what they may be exposed to here is not something they will not have heard in the school ground. You can't surround children in cotton wool. What you can do is educate them.

So if you ARE aware of children actually posting and reading here, the question is if YOU consider those images to need a warning?

I don't find homosexuality offensive, so I don't think the images need a warning.

You, on the other hand, have been prancing those images about and declaring them or the behaviour in the images unfit for children, but you see fit to just keep posting them over and over again ignoring the minors who do use this site.

There is only so long that we can laugh at you before we point out your hypocrisy, to be honest.

Actually, I just double-checked. I simply googled "gay pride parade" to find ALL of those images. I did not need to presume nudity in my search.

That's funny. I google gay pride parade and I get this:

And more like it.

In fact, the images you posted aren't even there under "gay pride parade".

So I don't know what you have been looking at which resulted in "gay pride parade" having those images when you googled it. Didn't for me at all.

:shrug:

Again with the attentional bias. Maybe you missed this part of your own quote:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation"

So yes, if.

Which means there is also no consensus as to why you are straight, if you are born straight that is.

---

Fascists are always dragging in the excuse of protecting children to legitimize their tyrranical oppression of minorities. Gays are thus regularly painted as child molesters or spreaders of propaganda to justify their continued persecution and marginalization.

I tend to find that those who protest so much are usually closet homosexual.

Looks like a blast. Someday I may make it out there and see it.

It's great fun. And they tend to start in the early evening because so many people do bring their children. Most importantly, they also work in conjunction with many charities to help raise money for those charities. Such as the "Blooming" charity, which is the cancer council fund raiser which coincides with the Mardi Gras and they plant flowers everywhere and you can buy blooms and stuff to wear to the parade and generally raise money, and also the AIDS charities and charities helping homeless kids. It's great. And it has become absolutely huge.

 

[Syne]

I'm not the one using them as examples of being unfit for children, ignoring the fact that there are minors who post here.

And I have corrected that.

Would be akin to my saying "if you were born heterosexual". Or questioning if you were born that way.

Heterosexuality is an evolutionary necessity for the perpetuation of our species, so the science is much more conclusive.

When you pass laws that deem homosexuality to be indecent and immoral, then the effects of that is homophobia.

No, homophobes may use them as an excuse for their behavior, but such laws do not make more people homophobes nor directly encourage such violence.

I don't find homosexuality offensive, so I don't think the images need a warning.

You, on the other hand, have been prancing those images about and declaring them or the behaviour in the images unfit for children, but you see fit to just keep posting them over and over again ignoring the minors who do use this site.

There is only so long that we can laugh at you before we point out your hypocrisy, to be honest.

Really? Posting those images a grand total of TWICE is "prancing those images about"? Whatever. Again, I have already added a warning, on your say that minors do read and post here.

So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable? Where do you draw the line? What about simulated sex with someone who appears underage?

That's funny. I google gay pride parade and I get this:

And more like it.

In fact, the images you posted aren't even there under "gay pride parade".

So I don't know what you have been looking at which resulted in "gay pride parade" having those images when you googled it. Didn't for me at all.

All of those images come up for a search of "gay pride parade", and two of them even come up if I have the explicit content filter enabled.

Which means there is also no consensus as to why you are straight, if you are born straight that is.

No, it does not automatically follow that no consensus on one necessarily means no consensus on the other. Again, evolution necessitates heterosexuality for the perpetuation of our species. No heterosexuality, no perpetuation of a gender binary species.

 

[Bells]

And I have corrected that.

*Chortle*

Ah man, that's gold!

Heterosexuality is an evolutionary necessity for the perpetuation of our species, so the science is much more conclusive.

But you are born heterosexual. The same applies to those who are born homosexual.

No, homophobes may use them as an excuse for their behavior, but such laws do not make more people homophobes nor directly encourage such violence.

When you have such laws created and then promoted by Governments that cannot tell the difference between consensual sex between adults and an adult raping a child, then it is clear that such laws are promoted to the public to try to educate them on the supposed horrors of 'they're coming fer ye children'.. In short, when you sell such laws with a message of 'they are corrupting your children because of how they have sex', then people are going to wrongly believe that they are coming for their children. And so, they will attack homosexual people. If you create a moral panic because you are homophobic, then you are at fault for the violence that continues, especially if the Government condones such violent acts, like they do in Russia.

Really? Posting those images a grand total of TWICE is "prancing those images about"? Whatever. Again, I have already added a warning, on your say that minors do read and post here.

Posted and referred to how many times as examples of your beliefs?

So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable?

May you never EVER watch a rugby scrum.

Jokes aside, does this happen often? Do you often ask complete strangers if they simulate sex in front of their children?

Where do you draw the line? What about simulated sex with someone who appears underage?

Okay.

I need to ask.

You have gone down this path several times now, for no reason whatsoever. And for some even more bizarre reason, you keep going back to sex with children when it comes to any discussion about homosexuality. What is with this obsession of yours with children and sex?

Can you tell the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia? Do you believe gays are having sex with children or simulating sex with children at gay pride parades? You keep coming back to this, even when there is no reason to. Why? Why do you keep asking about sex with children? Because frankly, it's getting a bit creepy the way you are doing that.

All of those images come up for a search of "gay pride parade", and two of them even come up if I have the explicit content filter enabled.

Not for me.

Perhaps you were searching for gay porn beforehand and it is now cached on your computer?

No, it does not automatically follow that no consensus on one necessarily means no consensus on the other. Again, evolution necessitates heterosexuality for the perpetuation of our species. No heterosexuality, no perpetuation of a gender binary species.

Read the words:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation"​

There is no consensus why a person develops a particular sexual orientation. Notice how they do not define which one?

But the evidence seems to point away from choice.

 

[Capracus]

So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable? Where do you draw the line? What about simulated sex with someone who appears underage?------

What, are you worried that 5-year-old Dick is going to knock up 4-yeay-old Jane?

Don’t let children see you take prescription drugs, drive a car, or shoot a gun; otherwise they might get the idea that those too are acceptable activities for children.

Again, evolution necessitates heterosexuality for the perpetuation of our species. No heterosexuality, no perpetuation of a gender binary species.

In reality evolution necessitates everything that exists, including heterosexual activities such as masturbation, contraception, abortion, war, murder and genocide, none of which make a positive contribution to the perpetuation of our species. On the other hand most homosexual men and women are quite capable of engaging in the direct or indirect process of insemination for the purpose of procreation.

 

[Magical Realist]

We also have general laws about indecency, so what are you bitching about? Most municipalities regulate overtly sexual behavior in front of children. Any reason to exempt a gay parade?

I wasn't aware people at gay parades WERE exempt from indecency laws. Do you have some evidence for this? Or you just bitching about gay people for the fun of it?

I posted them to show that some laws about public sexual behavior are warranted. Do you disagree?

I have no objection against laws about sexual behavior. How did you assume I did?

A "favored cause" is by no means conclusive, else there would be a consensus (the lack of which you are now omitting from that quote).

Science knows the cause is biological and not family environment or childhood experiences as you have ignorantly argued for in the past. Is it really so hard to admit you're wrong?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Putin says that some of his best friends are gay.

 

[Magical Realist]

 

[Syne]

Heterosexuality is an evolutionary necessity for the perpetuation of our species, so the science is much more conclusive.

But you are born heterosexual. The same applies to those who are born homosexual.

No, it does not automatically follow that no consensus on one necessarily means no consensus on the other. Again, evolution necessitates heterosexuality for the perpetuation of our species. No heterosexuality, no perpetuation of a gender binary species.

Read the words:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation"​

There is no consensus why a person develops a particular sexual orientation. Notice how they do not define which one?

But the evidence seems to point away from choice.

Read more:

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006:

"Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual."​

​

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#General​

There is a preponderance of heterosexuals, even raised by gay and lesbian parents, and this fact is validated by evolutionary necessity, where homosexuality only has tenuous hypotheses for an evolutionary use.

The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Evolutionary_perspectives​

And from your link:

Rice's model still needs to be tested on real-life parent-offspring pairs, but he says this epigenetic link makes more sense than any other explanation, and that his team has mapped out a way for other scientists to test their work.

"We've found a story that looks really good," he says. "There's more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically. This can be tested and proven within six months. It's easy to test. If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order." - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay​

And if it does prove to be epigenetic:

Drescher is skeptical that scientists will ever uncover a single biological basis for homosexuality—he suspects the root causes are more varied and complex—and suggests that it’s the wrong question to ask in the first place. ... If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.

That’s a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ty_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html​

Epigenetics could provide the strongest option for choice.

So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable?

Jokes aside, does this happen often? Do you often ask complete strangers if they simulate sex in front of their children?

Seems to be an evasion of the question. I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it.

Where do you draw the line? What about simulated sex with someone who appears underage?

Do you believe gays are having sex with children or simulating sex with children at gay pride parades? You keep coming back to this, even when there is no reason to. Why? Why do you keep asking about sex with children? Because frankly, it's getting a bit creepy the way you are doing that.

You keep evading the question of where you draw the line on sexual behavior appropriate in front of children. That you feel you need to make unseemly innuendo to continue doing so may illustrate your own moral/ethical flexibility on the issue. IOW, it says more about you to evade the question than it does of me using extreme examples to provoke an answer (to what should be a very simple ethical issue).

And nowhere have I equated pedophilia with homosexuality, not even mentioning sex with children.

Not for me.

Perhaps you were searching for gay porn beforehand and it is now cached on your computer?

Really? So instead of answering ethically pertinent questions you choose to imply that I may be a pedophile or homosexual?

Again, evolution necessitates heterosexuality for the perpetuation of our species. No heterosexuality, no perpetuation of a gender binary species.

In reality evolution necessitates everything that exists, including heterosexual activities such as masturbation, contraception, abortion, war, murder and genocide, none of which make a positive contribution to the perpetuation of our species. On the other hand most homosexual men and women are quite capable of engaging in the direct or indirect process of insemination for the purpose of procreation.

A reductionist view is not a foregone conclusion in science.

We also have general laws about indecency, so what are you bitching about? Most municipalities regulate overtly sexual behavior in front of children. Any reason to exempt a gay parade?

I wasn't aware people at gay parades WERE exempt from indecency laws. Do you have some evidence for this? Or you just bitching about gay people for the fun of it?

Yes, you do seem to have repeated trouble distinguishing a question from an assertion. Here is a hint > ?

I posted them to show that some laws about public sexual behavior are warranted. Do you disagree?

I have no objection against laws about sexual behavior. How did you assume I did?

Again > ?

A "favored cause" is by no means conclusive, else there would be a consensus (the lack of which you are now omitting from that quote).

Science knows the cause is biological and not family environment or childhood experiences as you have ignorantly argued for in the past. Is it really so hard to admit you're wrong?

So "favored cause" is now conclusive scientific fact? :bugeye:

 

[Tiassa]

Welcome to Fremont, Blame it on Rio

Sure, because nothing about gay parades could possibly be seen as inappropriate for children.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When the police tried to crack down on nude bicyclists and other "shocking" behavior at the Solstice Parade, the people of Seattle did object. The Solstice Parade is a great event for the kids, in many parents' minds, and what would be objectionable was not the nude bicyclists and spangly hedonism, but the idea of their kids seeing cops chasing down naked hippies on bicycles.

Tell it to Seattle, then. Better yet, blame it on Rio.

 

[Magical Realist]

We also have general laws about indecency, so what are you bitching about? Most municipalities regulate overtly sexual behavior in front of children. Any reason to exempt a gay parade?

I wasn't aware people at gay parades WERE exempt from indecency laws. Do you have some evidence for this? Or you just bitching about gay people for the fun of it?Yes, you do seem to have repeated trouble distinguishing a question from an assertion. Here is a hint > ?

I posted them to show that some laws about public sexual behavior are warranted. Do you disagree? I have no objection against laws about sexual behavior. How did you assume I did?

Again, where did I say gay parades should be exempt from decency laws OR that some laws about sexual behavior are not warranted? And why did you even post those pics in a thread about propagating hateful stereotypes about gay people? Are you saying Putin was right and that gay people are a threat to children? Aside from a few pics of exposed gay people in parades, what studies do you have to support this claim?

So "favored cause" is now conclusive scientific fact?

It certainly beats your touted myth that people are turned gay by their parents or early childhood experiences.

 

[Magical Realist]

The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...y_perspectives

Syne once again cherry picks one sentence out of a Wikipedia paragraph to prove its opposite meaning. Here's the rest of what it said:


"They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[150] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[151]

A review paper by Bailey and Zuk looking into studies of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals challenges the view that such behaviour lowers reproductive success, citing several hypotheses about how same-sex sexual behavior might be adaptive; these hypotheses vary greatly among different species. Bailey and Zuk also suggest future research needs to look into evolutionary consequences of same-sex sexual behaviour, rather than only looking into origins of such behaviour."

Epigenetics could provide the strongest option for choice

So homosexuality is a choice because epigenetics might one day, in the remote future, concoct a cure for it? What? Are they going to consult the fetus on its preference for sexual orientation? lol! Hey, maybe they'll find a cure for homophobia by then too. That is, if homophobia ISN'T a choice. I'm pretty sure it is though..

If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.

Even if it's viewed as a defect, discrimination against gay people would still be bigotry. Just like with dwarfism or lefthanders or albinos or twins. People don't go around saying THESE people need to be fixed. The fact that such would even be thinkable for gay people betrays the old bias of homophobia once again. Gays as defective subhumans. Flashback to the 1950's where they were viewed as monstrous perverts and even insane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcy_6anmVUc

 

[Bells]

Read more:

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated in 2006:

"Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual."​

​

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#General​

There is a preponderance of heterosexuals, even raised by gay and lesbian parents, and this fact is validated by evolutionary necessity, where homosexuality only has tenuous hypotheses for an evolutionary use.

The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Evolutionary_perspectives​

And from your link:

Rice's model still needs to be tested on real-life parent-offspring pairs, but he says this epigenetic link makes more sense than any other explanation, and that his team has mapped out a way for other scientists to test their work.

"We've found a story that looks really good," he says. "There's more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically. This can be tested and proven within six months. It's easy to test. If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order." - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay​

And if it does prove to be epigenetic:

Drescher is skeptical that scientists will ever uncover a single biological basis for homosexuality—he suspects the root causes are more varied and complex—and suggests that it’s the wrong question to ask in the first place. ... If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.

That’s a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. - http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ty_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html​

Epigenetics could provide the strongest option for choice.

Even what you are linking and quoting shows that one does not simply wake up one day and decides to be homosexual.

Seems to be an evasion of the question. I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it.

It's not an evasion tactic. It is an honest response to this slight obsession you seem to be developing.

You keep evading the question of where you draw the line on sexual behavior appropriate in front of children. That you feel you need to make unseemly innuendo to continue doing so may illustrate your own moral/ethical flexibility on the issue. IOW, it says more about you to evade the question than it does of me using extreme examples to provoke an answer (to what should be a very simple ethical issue).

Do I look like the type to rape children Syne?

No, seriously, you are whining because I am questioning your obsessive compulsion to question myself and others if we simulate sex in front of children or simulate sex with people who look underage? Tough luck. Your question to me was offensive in every way possible. You were pretty much asking me if I was a paedophile. I don't understand why you feel the need to question if people simulate sex acts in front of children or with people who look like children. Perhaps you are trying to make a point about decency laws. What you are simply demonstrating is the effect of the moral panic about homosexuals and children that Russia is now in the grip of and which has seen many people beaten or murdered.

And nowhere have I equated pedophilia with homosexuality, not even mentioning sex with children.

That you have repeatedly responded to any thread about homosexuality with comments about children and insinuating somehow damaging children with simulated sex acts and resorting to those images and making comments about homosexuals doing things in front of children which would be inappropriate... Who do you think you are trying to fool here? Now you up the ante and ask if I simulate sex in front of children? And you are offended that I question your recent obsession with sex and children?

Really? So instead of answering ethically pertinent questions you choose to imply that I may be a pedophile or homosexual?

You mean like you asked me if I simulated sex with people who looked underage or simulated sex in front of children?

Each time a discussion about homosexuality has cropped up recently, you have entered it and posted like a homophobe, commenting on the children and made spurious and insulting comments to homosexuals and heterosexuals because you seem to have developed an obsession with the subjects of sex and children while commenting on decency laws.. In short, you are trying to insert a moral panic about 'think of the children', the very same tactic is being used by many in Russia and has resulted in people dying and being beaten up for being gay.

Your question wasn't pertinent because not only has it been answered before, but it is also fucking insulting and rude to ask such questions.

I get it, you have a bee up your butt about children and sex. I don't particularly give a crap. No one here has even discussed doing stuff like this to children or in front of them - probably because no one here is a paedophile and out of the blue you come out and ask people if they perform simulated sex acts in front of children or with people who look underage (ie with children) - and you seem to be doing it in threads discussing homosexuality. And the message is very clear. You are deliberately trying to insinuate that homosexuals are paedophiles. Perhaps you do it without realising, which would make you a creepy fuck, or you do it on purpose, which would just make you a stupid creepy fuck. But enough is enough with insinuating that homosexuals somehow corrupt or violate children.

Does that answer the question enough for you?

 

[Syne]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When the police tried to crack down on nude bicyclists and other "shocking" behavior at the Solstice Parade, the people of Seattle did object. The Solstice Parade is a great event for the kids, in many parents' minds, and what would be objectionable was not the nude bicyclists and spangly hedonism, but the idea of their kids seeing cops chasing down naked hippies on bicycles.

Tell it to Seattle, then. Better yet, blame it on Rio.

That is simply an argument for State and local municipalities to retain some autonomy, which we largely enjoy in the US. Although not for long if federal judges keep overturning popular vote.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When the police tried to crack down on nude bicyclists and other "shocking" behavior at the Solstice Parade, the people of Seattle did object. The Solstice Parade is a great event for the kids, in many parents' minds, and what would be objectionable was not the nude bicyclists and spangly hedonism, but the idea of their kids seeing cops chasing down naked hippies on bicycles.

Tell it to Seattle, then. Better yet, blame it on Rio.

It seems that some people can't enjoy themselves without exposing their genitals.
My view is "Keep your meat and veg to yourself. I don't want to see it."

 

[Gage]

Description
English (en): Blood Donation policies for men who have sex with men
Men who have sex with men may donate blood; No deferral
Men who have sex with men may donate blood; Temporary deferral
Men who have sex with men may not donate blood; Permanent deferral
No Data

Outline: The outlined color indicates a policy that has not yet gone into effect. The color inside the outline indicates the current policy.

Northern Ireland: The map does not show a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Both countries have the same policy.

Date 23 December 2013, 15:07:55

Now how does Russia allow "Men who have sex with Men" to donate blood??

 

[Magical Realist]

Although not for long if federal judges keep overturning popular vote.

Thank god for federal judges who can overrule when the civil rights of minorities are voted away by the popular vote. Case in point: gay marriage.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."--The 14th Amendment

 

[James R]

So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable? Where do you draw the line? What about simulated sex with someone who appears underage?

Are these acceptable for children?

Where do you draw the line, Syne?

Is it only homosexuality that you have a problem with? Or is it nudity that is the problem, regardless of sexual orientation? Or what?