Putin propagates hateful gay stereotype

[Syne]

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.[152]"

"Hypotheses" which "may confer" and "results suggested" are not conclusive. And sexual behavior is not the same as orientation.

Have you even read those papers? If you have, did you miss the scientifically responsible qualifications?

[150]Nongenetic alternative explanations cannot be ruled out.
For example, a homosexual twin could create social
pressure on the other twin to act in a more heterosexual
way and to acquire or declare more partners than they
would otherwise, or growing up with a homosexual twin
could provide an individual with a privileged insight into
the sexuality of the opposite sex, and hence a mating
advantage. However, it is difficult to see how such effects
would explain the genetic correlations between traits as
revealed in our genetic modelling.
Other limitations result from limited statistical power;
although our total sample is large, only a small proportion
(13% of men, 11% of women) reported a nonheterosexual
orientation, and a much smaller proportion (2.2% of men,
0.6% of women) reported an exclusively homosexual
orientation. This afforded limited power to detect any sex
differences that might have been expected in the genetic
influence on sexual orientation and prevented reasonable
statistical tests involving the exclusive homosexuality
phenotype - http://www.matthewckeller.com/Zietsch_HomosexualityEvolution_2008.pdf

[151]The genetic one is not, however, the only explanation for sexual orientation variety; other physiological and environmental effects contribute. As in most aspects of human nature, the behavior phenotype of homosexual orientation should be the result of the interaction of innate factors and experience before and during the lifetime. - http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/homo2009.pdf

[152]We mainly focus on same-sex behavior per se, without
inferring anything about the sexual preference or orien-
tation of individuals engaging in the behavior. Sexual
behavior, sexual preference and sexual orientation are
distinct but often conflated concepts (seeGlossary). Con-
fusion among them can undermine the clarity and accurate
interpretation of scientific research, so here we emphasize
that same-sex sexual behaviors are interactions between
same-sex individuals that also occur between opposite-sex
individuals in the context of reproduction. For example,
many Drosophila studies examine genetic mutations that
affect pheromone receptors (Box 1). Sex-specific phero-
mones and their accurate detection are crucial for sex
recognition in fruit flies, and alterations in sex-recognition
pathways can produce males that court other males,
females that court females, or males that switch from
same-sex to opposite-sex courtship within minutes
[4–13]. In other words, the mutations cause same-sex sexual
behavior. However, this behavior often occurs alongside
opposite-sex courtship as well, with males mating indis-
criminately [8,10,11]. So although they show same-sex
sexual behavior, males might not actually be exhibiting
a preference for one sex over the other (seeBox 1).
Individuals exhibiting a same-sex preference choose to
engage in sexual behavior with a member of the same sex,
when given the option of engaging in sexual behavior with
an opposite-sex individual. Preference implies that the
animal has made a choice. Examples of same-sex prefer-
ences in non-human animals are far more rare than
examples of same-sex behavior. - http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~mzuk/Bailey and Zuk 2009 Same sex behaviour.pdf​

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..

What, so science of the gaps is reasonable when you use it to infer that a solely biological basis for homosexuality is guaranteed, but suddenly verboten when there are already FDA approved drugs that are thought to effect epigenetic changes? Epigenetics is not solely alterable in utero.

What were you saying about choice?

Women also limit who they divulge their sexual identities to, and more often see being lesbian as a choice, as opposed to gay men, who work more externally and see being gay as outside their control. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian#Mental​

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

Who ever said one did?

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

More not so subtle insult.

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.

Again, "I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it." Can you not read plain English?

And you are simply projecting your obvious intimations that I am a pedophile or homosexual onto me, where I have done no such thing. As I explained to MR, ? denotes a question, not an assertion or accusation.

But I will take all this pseudo-righteous evasion as an indication that you, in fact, cannot clearly define the line where sexual behavior becomes inappropriate in front of children. I have no doubt that the question does offend you, as I would be offended as well to find out that I could not readily define such a simple ethical line.

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?

So I can only infer from that that you see nothing wrong with simulating sex in front of children. So we are that much closer to knowing where you would draw the line. And again, I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it.

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

Never happened. You are empirically and demonstrably delusional. Seek help, or just quit your intention trolling with this completely fabricated straw man of yours.

IOW, quit fucking lying.

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.

What, the version you made up? You are the one who made a simple question insulting by twisting what was ACTUALLY ask.

...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)

Quit fucking lying.

 

[Syne]

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?

Most, if not all, of those are inappropriate for children.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hypotheses" which "may confer" and "results suggested" are not conclusive. And sexual behavior is not the same as orientation.

Definitely better than any hypothesis or results you have suggested with your crackpot family environment myth. And the quote WAS talking about homosexuality as an orientation and a predisposition. You really should read more carefully the Wiki articles you cherry pick your ignorant bullshit from. Here it is again:

"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]

Have you even read those papers? If you have, did you miss the scientifically responsible qualifications?

I didn't need to. I read their conclusions in the Wiki paragraph you conveniently left out hoping to establish a conclusion opposite from the one the studies came to.

And as for your new theory that sexual behavior doesn't arise out of sexual orientation but happens for animals out of some kind of moment of free preferenceless choice, I won't even dignify that with a polemical response. Except maybe for this one: LMAO!

What, so science of the gaps is reasonable when you use it to infer that a solely biological basis for homosexuality is guaranteed, but suddenly verboten when there are already FDA approved drugs that are thought to effect epigenetic changes? Epigenetics is not solely alterable in utero.

Tell us then what FDA drugs exist now that can epigenetically change a person's sexual orientation. That IS the basis for your assertion that epigenetics now makes sexual orientation a matter of choice isn't it?

What were you saying about choice?

Women also limit who they divulge their sexual identities to, and more often see being lesbian as a choice, as opposed to gay men, who work more externally and see being gay as outside their control. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian#Mental

Do you have anything other than the self-reports of some late coming out lesbians showing sexual orientation is a matter of choice? Perhaps your own personal experience of one day deciding to be attracted to women instead of men? lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

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?

Again, "I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it." Can you not read plain English?

Get this everyone. When Syne asks you if you think simulated sex in front of or with children is acceptable, he's not actually asking you if you'd do it. As if a person could possibly view it as morally acceptable for others but not for oneself. And so goes the skillful art of backpeddling to cover your own ass...

 

[Bells]

Who ever said one did?

When you argue that it is a choice Syne. Nice try trying to dodge though.

More not so subtle insult.

And yet you do not think it is insulting to ask people if they find it acceptable to simulate sex in front of children or with people who look underage.

This has become an issue for you. Why, I do not know.

Again, "I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it." Can you not read plain English?

Really..

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?

How else is one supposed to take those questions Syne?

As I said at the time, when you started once again commenting about sex with children, whether this is something you ask complete strangers or people in general? Because this is what you are doing here. Each time a discussion about homosexuals arose in the last few weeks, you have asked questions and inferred that homosexuality is harmful to children and you have put in terms that leave little doubt as to your meaning.

You asked me if simulated sex acts in front of my children is acceptable and then, asked whether simulated sex acts with someone who looks underage would be acceptable. Please tell me what this has to do with homosexuals or homosexuality?

Because you keep repeating this argument about paedophilia and its risks to children each time we discuss homosexuality and this has been constant with you over the last few weeks.

And you are simply projecting your obvious intimations that I am a pedophile or homosexual onto me, where I have done no such thing. As I explained to MR, ? denotes a question, not an assertion or accusation.

Take from it what you will. After witnessing this revolting display from you once again, to me, you are nothing more than a creep.

But I will take all this pseudo-righteous evasion as an indication that you, in fact, cannot clearly define the line where sexual behavior becomes inappropriate in front of children. I have no doubt that the question does offend you, as I would be offended as well to find out that I could not readily define such a simple ethical line.

That's the thing Syne. I can readily define such an ethical line.

What I do not do, however, unlike you, is liken and compare anything "homosexual" with morally corrupting children. And frankly, it is embarrassing that someone could appear to be as intelligent as you appear to be and still have such vile and disgusting prejudices and beliefs.

So I can only infer from that that you see nothing wrong with simulating sex in front of children. So we are that much closer to knowing where you would draw the line. And again, I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it.

Yes, because I find your question and your comparing homosexuality and homosexuals with somehow morally corrupting children and paedophilia to be downright stupid, you have suddenly decided that I see nothing wrong with simulating sex in front of children or with people who look like children. Good job you perverted creep.

Never happened. You are empirically and demonstrably delusional. Seek help, or just quit your intention trolling with this completely fabricated straw man of yours.

Bigots and homophobes often try to weasel their way out of their arguments.

Lets face it, you have a clear problem with homosexuals and homosexuality. Your repeatedly bringing up children, even in discussions where it makes no sense to, and applying the 'think of the children rule' to the point where you stereotyped homosexuals to suit your beliefs says more about you than you may wish to convey.

IOW, quit fucking lying.

You asked me if simulated sex acts in front of my children is acceptable. Then you asked what I thought about simulated sex acts with people who looked underage. Because I take my children where this happens? Where do you think I expose my children to these things Syne?

What, the version you made up? You are the one who made a simple question insulting by twisting what was ACTUALLY ask.



Quit fucking lying.

When you ask someone who has children such a question Syne, it pretty much comes across as though you are asking that person if they simulate sex in front of their children or alternatively, they would allow their children to witness something like that. Because you know, my children live in my home and under my roof. So where the fuck else do you think they would be spending time to witness simulated sex acts. Understand now?

I don't even understand how or why the fuck you would apply such a standard repeatedly to discussions pertaining to homosexuals and homosexuality, but this is a repeated pattern with you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Syne : chalk it up as yet another information assimilation issue with bells.
:shrug:

 

[Bells]

Get this everyone. When Syne asks you if you think simulated sex in front of or with children is acceptable, he's not actually asking you if you'd do it. As if a person could possibly view it as morally acceptable for others but not for oneself. And so goes the skillful art of backpeddling to cover your own ass...

Well of course.

People who propagate such stereotypes, like Syne repeatedly applying the 'think of the children rule' about anything regarding homosexuality, do so because of their own personal bigotry.

Look at the images that he keeps linking, you know, to show that homosexuals are indecent and somehow corrupting our children. Worse still, the tacit support the decency laws in discussions about Russia's homophobic laws about homosexuals and homosexuality. No, really. Russia is joining some of the African countries for the most revolting laws against homosexuals. The result of these laws and the constant message that Syne keeps repeating here, that our children are somehow in danger, results in pure hatred being spewed and people being beaten up and killed, with little to no punishment to those who commit such crimes. An example of the vitriol in support of Russia's laws and just how far people are going in the 'think of the children' rule about decency laws and it came from Ivan Okhlobystin:

Ivan Okhlobystin is a priest and actor who stars in Russia's version of "Scrubs" and voiced a character in 2012's "Snow Queen." On Sunday, he made homophobic statements during a "spiritual talk" in Siberia's Novosibirsk, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

"I would have them all stuffed alive inside an oven. This is Sodom and Gomorrah, as a believer, I can not remain indifferent to this, it is a living danger to my children!" he said, according to a Huffington Post translation of a local news report from NGS.Novosti.

"I don't want my children thinking that being a faggot is normal," he continued. "This is gay fascism! If a man can not choose an appropriate person of the opposite sex for reproduction -- that is a clear sign of mental abnormality, then he needs to be deprived of that right to choose."

After news of his vitriolic anti-gay comments made headlines around the world, Okhlobystin took to Twitter to defend himself. The 47-year-old, who previously discussed becoming president, showed no remorse.

"The meaning was rendered correctly," he said, per The Guardian. "Everyone has the right to express their opinions."​

And what does Syne do, comment about homosexuality being a choice, before commenting on children and homosexuality and what they are supposedly being exposed to, posting images that he claims is from a search of "gay pride parade", which when I searched, none of those images came up - and this is without parental control in place, before asking me, because I don't have a problem with gay pride parades or homosexuals, if I think simulating sex in front of my children is acceptable or if I think simulated sex with people who look like children is acceptable.. Because I am supposed to take this kindly? 'Pfft, I don't mean you silly! I mean would you find it acceptable for people to simulate sex in front of your children, obviously you would not do it yourself!'..

But notice one important factor. Syne's concern for children stop short of homosexual children.

If the name "Occupy Paedophilia" seems familiar, it's because the group has made headlines all summer with their brutal and violent tactics directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth.

---

Weeks after government officials passed Russia's anti-gay "propaganda" law, videos surfaced that documented members of this group luring LGBT teens through online dating sites, then subjecting them to brutal humiliation and torture.

Other Russian citizens not necessarily affiliated with "Occupy Paedophilia" have also attacked openly LGBT individuals in public spaces, with onlookers doing nothing to prevent the violence from happening. Government officials have denounced and degraded LGBT people both on television and in the media, fostering international speculation about the impact of continuing to hold the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.
​

When he praises "decency laws", you know, to protect children, he ignores the social affect such laws have and he also deliberately ignores their effects on gay children who are being tortured and beaten and even killed. Those children do not matter for the likes of Syne.

The world’s pundits are busy questioning how the law will affect sports stars, presenters and visitors at this year’s Winter Games. But what is it like for LGBT youth in Russia today? “After the new law was passed, repression really kicked in,” said 17-year-old Guryanov. “People would give us weird looks. They were wild. They looked at us as if we were animals.”

In a new documentary, Young and Gay in Putin’s Russia, to be released by Vice and gay rights campaigning group Stonewall, Guryanov and other LGBT Russians come together to warn the world that they do not feel safe.

They warn that the “brutal” laws have led to an increase in homophobic violence, arrests, suicides and the proliferation of vigilante groups in Russia, who want to hunt out LGBT people online.​

While he praises decency laws for, you know, saving the children, he openly chooses to ignore that those very decency laws and the propaganda, such as what he is trying to spread here, is leading to children being beaten and tortured. But that's okay, because it's only gay kids being tortured and beaten.

Think of the children indeed.

No, instead, Syne prefers to continue with the ridiculous stereotype.

In other words, Syne's argument has come down to 'if you don't have an issue with homosexuals, then you clearly don't have an issue with someone simulating sex in front of children or even with children. Ergo, it seems when Syne thinks homosexual, he thinks paedophilia and harming and corrupting children. One only has to look at his defense of his sexuality, that you know, heterosexuality is normal and needed in nature to have children..

Where have I heard his arguments before... Ah yes, Putin.. Let us compare Syne's argument and Putin's arguments, shall we?....

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

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140470-Putin-propagates-hateful-gay-stereotype&p=3154288&viewfull=1#post3154288

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered new assurances to gay athletes and fans attending the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics next month. Yet he defended Russia's anti-gay law by equating gays with pedophiles and said Russia needs to "cleanse" itself of homosexuality if it wants to increase its birth rate.​

---

First, if gays are born such, why are gays from one country inherently different from gays in another? OMG, could it be that the difference is in the decency laws of said countries?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140470-Putin-propagates-hateful-gay-stereotype&p=3154247&viewfull=1#post3154247

Putin refused to answer a question from the BBC on whether he believes that people are born gay or become gay. The Russian law, however, suggests that information about homosexuality can influence a child's sexual orientation.

The law has contributed to growing animosity toward gays in Russian society, with rights activists reporting a rise in harassment and abuse.
​

---

So you think children are just naturally rotten? Again, no real surprise considering your lifestyle.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?138419-God-is-quot-dead-quot&p=3145999&viewfull=1#post3145999

There is nothing "homophobic" about surmising that someone whose lifestyle does not readily avail itself to procreation may not have the best outlook on children.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?138419-God-is-quot-dead-quot&p=3146071&viewfull=1#post3146071

He said the law was aimed at banning propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia, suggesting that gays are more likely to abuse children.
​

Interesting, isn't it?

 

[Capracus]

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.

I simply noted the inadequacy of your premise in regards to the behavioral contributions and detriments of the aforementioned constituents of humanity. It’s an obvious scientific fact that heterosexuals can decimate and homosexuals can procreate.

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

Most, if not all, of those are inappropriate for children.

What specifically about depictions of sexual behavior is more damaging to the psyches of children than other depictions of adult behavior?

 

[Magical Realist]

Good post Bells. You thoroughly confirm the violent effects of this ongoing attempt by homophobes to link gay people to pedophilia. I wonder if Syne would object to children being exposed to gay protesters being bashed with rocks and pummeled with fists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8qeSVTOMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znp8kTGyRx0

And I had forgotten about Syne's out of the blue accusation against me of being a child abuser because of my gay "lifestyle". I guess I'm supposed to be one of those exhibitionists at gay parades he always posts pics of. It was in a thread where we weren't even talking about homosexuality, and yet suddenly Syne personally attacks my orientation just to get the upper hand in a debate. I reported his tactics along with more insults he hurled at me, at which point he attempted to ban me for a week. Thankfully Tiassa intervened and let me back in. But it makes me wonder if being a bigot is really suitable to the task of being a good moderator. Time will tell I guess..

 

[dumbest man on earth]

“We have no ban on the nontraditional forms of sexual intercourse among people,” Putin said in remarks carried by the Interfax news service. “We have the ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia. I want to stress this: propaganda among minors. These are two absolutely different things: a ban on certain relations or the propaganda of such relations.”

One more question: Why, a volunteer asked, do Russia’s Olympic uniforms contain the colors of the rainbow, the rainbow being a symbol of gay rights?

Don’t ask him, the president said. “I didn’t design the uniform.”===http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f8c47e-7f7d-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

In the OP Putin was quoted as stating :

“We have the ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia.

I did not read, in the OP, nor in the article Linked in the OP, that Putin stated anything along the lines of pedophile homosexuals or homosexual pedophiles.

Putin seems, to me at least, to be referring to homosexuality and pedophilia as two separate types of :

"certain relations or the propaganda of such relations.”

I myself neither detected, nor perceived any :

— with its intimation that gays might prey on children —

 

[Magical Realist]

This message is hidden because dumbest man on earth is on your ignore list.


View Post.


Remove user from ignore list

 

[Syne]

And the quote WAS talking about homosexuality as an orientation and a predisposition. You really should read more carefully the Wiki articles you cherry pick your ignorant bullshit from. Here it is again:

Lol. Cherry-pick? Oh, you mean like relying on a brief wiki quote in lieu of the actual papers? You really should read more carefully the actual papers.

Have you even read those papers? If you have, did you miss the scientifically responsible qualifications?

I didn't need to. I read their conclusions in the Wiki paragraph you conveniently left out hoping to establish a conclusion opposite from the one the studies came to.

Of course. Your bias would be far too threatened to read the actual papers quoted on a wiki page. Funny how you insist on using quotes you have not studied and refuting quotes from those exact same sources.

And as for your new theory that sexual behavior doesn't arise out of sexual orientation but happens for animals out of some kind of moment of free preferenceless choice, I won't even dignify that with a polemical response. Except maybe for this one: LMAO!

Not my theory, a direct quote from the same papers you are cherry-picking through brief wiki quotes.

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?

What, so science of the gaps is reasonable when you use it to infer that a solely biological basis for homosexuality is guaranteed, but suddenly verboten when there are already FDA approved drugs that are thought to effect epigenetic changes? Epigenetics is not solely alterable in utero.

Tell us then what FDA drugs exist now that can epigenetically change a person's sexual orientation. That IS the basis for your assertion that epigenetics now makes sexual orientation a matter of choice isn't it?

Never said there was one, but if homosexuality is epigenetic, and since we do have some epigenetic-altering drugs already, it is not a huge leap to assume we may have a pharmaceutical choice in the no so distant future. Where did you read any implication that we had such a thing currently? Oh right, the same delusional reading Bells suffers from.

Or we could take a page from Bells' playbook and simply abort fetuses we find have this epigenetic "defect". I mean people who have children might want legit grandchildren, right? According to Bells, fetuses deserve no right to life, much less a right to any choice.

Do you have anything other than the self-reports of some late coming out lesbians showing sexual orientation is a matter of choice?

All data on personal sense of choice in the matter is self-reported.

Get this everyone. When Syne asks you if you think simulated sex in front of or with children is acceptable, he's not actually asking you if you'd do it. As if a person could possibly view it as morally acceptable for others but not for oneself. And so goes the skillful art of backpeddling to cover your own ass...

Delusional lies. Never said "with children". Bells considers herself pro-life in her personal choices but advocates pro-choice for others, so it seems she could find one thing generally acceptable while not finding it personally so. Exactly what you are, here, being incredulous about.

When you argue that it is a choice Syne. Nice try trying to dodge though.

Delusional. Not only have I never implied that homosexuality was a simple choice, I have actually said it is likely a complex interaction between environment, experience, and possibly inherent factors.

And yet you do not think it is insulting to ask people if they find it acceptable to simulate sex in front of children or with people who look underage.

Why is that question so incredibly difficult for you to answer? And why would you find it insulting? The only reason I can fathom for you to infer insult would be because you do find it acceptable and that you think such an admission would weaken your arguments.

So you are forced to throw up a smoke screen of thinly-veiled insult.

Also, I did not ask "if they find it acceptable to simulate sex in front of children", I asked "So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable". I wonder if you can even tell the difference. Hint, the latter does not assume the person being questioned has anything to do with the simulated sex.

How else is one supposed to take those questions Syne?

As I said at the time, when you started once again commenting about sex with children, whether this is something you ask complete strangers or people in general? Because this is what you are doing here. Each time a discussion about homosexuals arose in the last few weeks, you have asked questions and inferred that homosexuality is harmful to children and you have put in terms that leave little doubt as to your meaning.

You asked me if simulated sex acts in front of my children is acceptable and then, asked whether simulated sex acts with someone who looks underage would be acceptable. Please tell me what this has to do with homosexuals or homosexuality?

Because you keep repeating this argument about paedophilia and its risks to children each time we discuss homosexuality and this has been constant with you over the last few weeks.

What you do not seem capable of comprehending is that this question has nothing to do with pedophilia, just indecency in general. Here, let us see if you can manage to answer this question.

Do you find Miley Cyrus rubbing her ass on Robin Thick's crotch appropriate for children to watch?

Maybe disassociating it from homosexuality will finally manage to short-circuit your hysterical pedophilia obsession/paranoia.

That's the thing Syne. I can readily define such an ethical line.

What I do not do, however, unlike you, is liken and compare anything "homosexual" with morally corrupting children. And frankly, it is embarrassing that someone could appear to be as intelligent as you appear to be and still have such vile and disgusting prejudices and beliefs.

I am talking about indecency in general. You are the one who keeps making this about "homosexuals corrupting children".

And you have STILL yet to define the line you claim readily capable of defining. Maybe if we could get SOME sense of what you think is indecent, we could actually have some semblance of a productive discussion.

When you ask someone who has children such a question Syne, it pretty much comes across as though you are asking that person if they simulate sex in front of their children or alternatively, they would allow their children to witness something like that. Because you know, my children live in my home and under my roof. So where the fuck else do you think they would be spending time to witness simulated sex acts. Understand now?

Maybe you allow your children to watch television without restriction. I have no idea, hence asking a question to ascertain.

Syne : chalk it up as yet another information assimilation issue with bells.

Obviously, and MR as well.

What specifically about depictions of sexual behavior is more damaging to the psyches of children than other depictions of adult behavior?

Ask parents of pregnant teens. Sex has repercussions, including the possibility for STDs. While most normal and public adult behavior does not have as serious of consequences, sexual behavior is not the only potential ethical lessons.

And I had forgotten about Syne's out of the blue accusation against me of being a child abuser because of my gay "lifestyle".

Another delusional lie.

 

[Magical Realist]

Lol. Cherry-pick? Oh, you mean like relying on a brief wiki quote in lieu of the actual papers? You really should read more carefully the actual papers.

Hey you're the one that had to scan and cherry pick the actual papers for lone statements suggesting conclusions opposite from those cited. I'm totally satisfied with the real conclusions as 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. One hypothesis proposes that while genes
predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them.
However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin
sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically
masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual
partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences
common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do
heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest 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."

"There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217-2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males."

Never said there was one, but if homosexuality is epigenetic, and since we do have some epigenetic-altering drugs already, it is not a huge leap to assume we may have a pharmaceutical choice in the no so distant future. Where did you read any implication that we had such a thing currently?

But then again that has nothing to do with homosexuality being a choice now does it? Why you even mention epigenetics, which in fact proves homosexuality is biological and NOT a choice, was stupid to begin with. Unless you think any sentence with the word choice in it somehow mysteriously confirms your ludicrous and baseless claim that it is a matter of choice. Let's read that paragraph again that you seem to always forget:

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

Not my theory, a direct quote from the same papers you are cherry-picking through brief wiki quotes.

So why did you quote it if you weren't citing it as something you agree with. Are you in the habit of cherry-picking quotes you DON'T agree with?

Delusional lies. Never said "with children".

Yes you did:

''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?''

So once again you're implying pedophilia not only for people who participate in gay parades but for anyone who even supports gay parades like me and Bells.

 

[Magical Realist]

What you do not seem capable of comprehending is that this question has nothing to do with pedophilia, just indecency in general. Here, let us see if you can manage to answer this question.

Bullshit it doesn't. You're insinuating anyone who even just supports gay parades would engage in simulated sex with underage minors. Why would someone engage in simulated sex with minors if they weren't expressing a desire to have sex with those minors?

Ofcourse this is a pattern for you. Like when you asked if I was an aspie and I took offence at such a question and refused to even dignify it with a response which you then took as evidence that I WAS an aspie. IOW, you insult people by insinuating they are a certain way, and then feign surprise when they are offended by it. THEN you re-insult them by claiming their refusal to justify your insulting question with an answer as evidence they ARE that way. You are one piece of work aren't you?

I am talking about indecency in general. You are the one who keeps making this about "homosexuals corrupting children".

No you weren't. You posted the gay parade pics right after I posted the OP about Putin telling gays to "leave the children alone." That isn't indecency in general. That is direct support for Putin's claim that gay people are a threat to children. You were making a statement about gay people. Quit lying to cover your ass..

 

[billvon]

you do not seem capable of comprehending . . . Bullshit it doesn't. . . .a desire to have sex with those minors . . .this is a pattern for you . . .you insult people by insinuating they are a certain way . . .You are one piece of work . . Quit lying to cover your ass..

Do you two even know what you're arguing about any more?

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you two even know what you're arguing about any more?

Try reading the entire posts instead of randomly snipped phrases from them.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

From what I have come to understand of the new law in Russia, is that it targets Homosexual and Pedophile propaganda towards children. The new law, it seems, will punish, by fine, speaking openly about Homosexuals and Pedophiles while among young people or the use of propaganda about Homosexuality and Pedophilia directed towards young people.

If the law that is being discussed was instead about Robbery and Murder propaganda, would we see Threads Titled : "Putin propagates hateful Robber stereotype" - or : "Putin propagates hateful Murderer stereotype" ?!

Would indeed there be any Threads//discussions/arguments about whether or not Robbers being stereotyped as Murderers was wrong?

Would indeed there be any Threads//discussions/arguments about whether or not Murderers being stereotyped as Robbers was wrong?

Just because a Journalist prefers to intentionally link the Two Separate Items : Homosexuality and Pedophilia, whether to sell more Media Product or to advance some agenda to paint Putin or Russia in a bad light, does not mean that that "journalistic link" must be accepted as fact.

*** NOTE I have not been able to access or view "the new law" that is referenced, nor do I presuppose that I would be able to fully agree or disagree with it. It just seems, to me at least, that a lot of "jumping to conclusions" have been utilized in the thought processes of many of the Pundits that have spoken on "the new law". NOTE ***

 

[billvon]

Try reading the entire posts instead of randomly snipped phrases from them.

Not much better. Reading the whole posts reveals that you claim that he said that you think that he said that he claimed that homosexuals weren't . . . something. Any original meaning has long been lost in your exchange of personal attacks.

 

[brucep]

From what I have come to understand of the new law in Russia, is that it targets Homosexual and Pedophile propaganda towards children. The new law, it seems, will punish, by fine, speaking openly about Homosexuals and Pedophiles while among young people or the use of propaganda about Homosexuality and Pedophilia directed towards young people.

If the law that is being discussed was instead about Robbery and Murder propaganda, would we see Threads Titled : "Putin propagates hateful Robber stereotype" - or : "Putin propagates hateful Murderer stereotype" ?!

Would indeed there be any Threads//discussions/arguments about whether or not Robbers being stereotyped as Murderers was wrong?

Would indeed there be any Threads//discussions/arguments about whether or not Murderers being stereotyped as Robbers was wrong?

Just because a Journalist prefers to intentionally link the Two Separate Items : Homosexuality and Pedophilia, whether to sell more Media Product or to advance some agenda to paint Putin or Russia in a bad light, does not mean that that "journalistic link" must be accepted as fact.

*** NOTE I have not been able to access or view "the new law" that is referenced, nor do I presuppose that I would be able to fully agree or disagree with it. It just seems, to me at least, that a lot of "jumping to conclusions" have been utilized in the thought processes of many of the Pundits that have spoken on "the new law". NOTE ***

Get a clue. You just tried to link homosexuality with robbery and murder while Putin links homosexuality with pedophilia. Both of you are intellectually dishonest cretins.

 

[Magical Realist]

Not much better. Reading the whole posts reveals that you claim that he said that you think that he said that he claimed that homosexuals weren't . . . something. Any original meaning has long been lost in your exchange of personal attacks.

I can't be held accountable for your lack of reading comprehension. If I could draw a diagram here I would. But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't help you either. Guess you should stick to simpler threads..