Yes, they do all the time.
Putin propagates hateful gay stereotype
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No one's "pushing" gay marriage on anybody because quite frankly it's no one's business whether two people marry or not. It's solely up to the couple themselves. Did YOU need to consult anybody when YOU got married? No.. So why is what two gay people do relevant to you at all? They already have sex in Russia in the privacy of their own bedrooms. What possible difference will allowing them to marry make?
That's fine. Russia just takes a little longer than some of the western states.
No one is forced to marry someone of the same sex.
None. They should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals do.
Yep. Just like it turns out we don't need slavery, and we don't need to oppress women. Those are pretty recent as well.
As for Russia interfering with the affairs of others look no further then the Ukraine today!
Sure, but if the citizenry re-institute slavery, or mass genocide of a minority, etc, should the world just sit back and accept it as their right?
So? what does time have to do with it? Does an older tradition somehow have more value then a younger one? Should Russia bring back the Czar instead of this newer democracy, or at the very least go back to older communist rule?
Why was eradicating slavery, female rights, racial equality forced on everyone? Because it is a universal moral good, homosexuals deserve equal treatment under universal human rights.
How would that be reverse discriminate? It's not special privilege to grant any two people marriage, granting marriage to only heterosexual couples is a special privilege.
Society thousands of years ago consisted of small clans of less then 150 people, holding territory, finding and killing neighboring clans, stealing the women, raping the women, eating them, etc, etc, modern society with laws and order is something totally new and generally better in quality of life. Anyways the problem you describe is single mothers, is very different from two parents be it gay or straight.
Sure, but if the citizenry re-institute slavery, or mass genocide of a minority, etc, should the world just sit back and accept it as their right?
So? what does time have to do with it? Does an older tradition somehow have more value then a younger one? Should Russia bring back the Czar instead of this newer democracy, or at the very least go back to older communist rule?
Why was eradicating slavery, female rights, racial equality forced on everyone? Because it is a universal moral good, homosexuals deserve equal treatment under universal human rights.
How would that be reverse discriminate? It's not special privilege to grant any two people marriage, granting marriage to only heterosexual couples is a special privilege.
Society thousands of years ago consisted of small clans of less then 150 people, holding territory, finding and killing neighboring clans, stealing the women, raping the women, eating them, etc, etc, modern society with laws and order is something totally new and generally better in quality of life. Anyways the problem you describe is single mothers, is very different from two parents be it gay or straight.
Could you refresh some incidents, and be specific as to who are all ?
Here you are implying as the homosexuals have a different gender
Are you comparing Russian culture to USA culture ? in regard slavery or women oppression ? for your information that was taken care during Soviet revolution.
Nope.
In a way, yes. We have a few more freedoms than Russia does. The history of freedom has shown a slow but steady progression towards more freedom, and I have faith that Russia will get there eventually.
Perhaps gay rights will get taken care of during the next revolution? Or perhaps it won't take that much violence.
If you were taught sex-ed in grade school, all the more reason why it should not have sexually stimulated you. Why do you think explaining sexual stimulation would necessitate arousal? Perv. Nothing about sex-ed promotes public overt sexual behavior.
Are you really this dense? The inherent qualities of an object are just that, but having nothing to do with sex, any sexualizing of those qualities is not inherent to the object. IOW, genitals, and often secondary sexual characteristics, are inherently sexual.
You are delusional. You are the only one talking about arousal, titillation, and stimulation. Perv.
Oh, you mean the context of celebrating sexuality? Nah, nothing sexually about sexuality. :bugeye:
Either ignorance or a lie. The whole subject of child arousal is your straw man, perv. You really are sick.
Bells
Staff member
Please excuse Syne.
He has taken to calling people who disagree with him "perverts" because I called him a creepy pervert after he obsessively and repeatedly asked me if sexually abusing my children was acceptable.
And thus, he feels that my saying he was a creepy pervert for his repeatedly inferring that I sexually abused my children and repeatedly asking me if it was acceptable for me to show my children people simulating sex or if I thought it was acceptable to simulate sex with people who look like children, is an open door for him calling people who disagrees with his earlier arguments of homosexuals threatening children's morals because of their sexuality perverts and perve's.
He has taken to calling people who disagree with him "perverts" because I called him a creepy pervert after he obsessively and repeatedly asked me if sexually abusing my children was acceptable.
And thus, he feels that my saying he was a creepy pervert for his repeatedly inferring that I sexually abused my children and repeatedly asking me if it was acceptable for me to show my children people simulating sex or if I thought it was acceptable to simulate sex with people who look like children, is an open door for him calling people who disagrees with his earlier arguments of homosexuals threatening children's morals because of their sexuality perverts and perve's.
Will the information assimilation issues never end?
:shrug:
Sounds like you are both equally justified in calling each other perverts.
Sorry. You've lost me with that comment.
It looks to me like you're making the following argument:
Some civil rights parades became violent and the excuse given was that the violent people were merely protesting against oppression of their race. And similarly, some gay rights parades are "overtly sexual", but those gay people try to justify that on the grounds that gay people suffer discrimination. Both violence and overt sexuality are bad and so such parades are inappropriate.
Do I have you right?
Please excuse Bells.
Please excuse Bells.
She has taken to calling people who disagree with her "perverts" because I simply tried to ascertain what she considered inappropriate for children and she insisted on evading the question until she could fabricate a reason to simply deflect with insult.
And thus, she feels that my saying she is a pervert for her inability to simply define what was inappropriate is an open door for her calling people who disagree with her perverts.
Please excuse Bells.
She has taken to calling people who disagree with her "perverts" because I simply tried to ascertain what she considered inappropriate for children and she insisted on evading the question until she could fabricate a reason to simply deflect with insult.
And thus, she feels that my saying she is a pervert for her inability to simply define what was inappropriate is an open door for her calling people who disagree with her perverts.
You seem to have got general the gist. But I only condemn the indecent/violent behavior. Just like the parade for gay/civil rights does not justify the indecency/violence, neither does the indecency/violence necessarily reflect or condemn the entirety of such parades. The question, arduously avoided by many, is what defines indecency.
Bells
Staff member
You want my definition of indecency?
Members of these groups, who go by the names of Occupy Paedophilia and Parents of Russia, have one thing on their mind - punishment and ultimately humiliation of anyone who is gay, lesbian or transgender.
Anti-LGBT activists say their treatment is justified because it helps prevent paedophilia and preserve Russia's family rights.
In footage to be aired on British TV broadcaster Channel 4 this week, the brutal way anti-LGBT activists deliberately attack gay people is exposed.
In the documentary Hunted investigative journalist Liz Mackean travels to Russia to interview members of these groups.
She uncovers gay people who live in fear of their safety after several attacks on gay people across Russia.
One man can be heard saying: "A hunting season has opened, and we are the hunted". Another says gays should be hanged and burned and "this is Russia, they need to get used to it".
"We filmed these groups with their knowledge, and what I found shocking afterwards was that only a few asked to have their faces disguised. They all believe they are doing the right thing," Ms Mackean told The Guardian .
"Occupy Paedophilia has groups in more than 30 cities. They operate with impunity and under the cover of the remarks [Vladimir] Putin has made suggesting that children are at risk from homosexuals."
Sadly these groups are not uncommon and this treatment is far from rare.
In September last year, the BBC revealed more shocking treatment at the hands of the ultranationalist group.
In its footage, one man is forced to drink urine and put his head in the toilet before he has a metal bucket put over his head.
He is then whacked across the head with heavy truncheon like objects and is accused of being a paedophile.
The group say they are dishing out justice and their supposed aim is to cure people of homosexuality.
In the clip posted online, a woman can be seen armed with a gun and dressed in army fatigues, joking that she's going hunting for gay people and paedophiles.
The woman, named as Yekaterina, heads up St Petersburg's Occupy paedophilia movement and she tells the BBC exactly what the movement is about.
"Our priority is uncovering cases of pedophilia," she says.
"But we're also against the promotion of homosexuality. And if - along the way - we encounter people of non-traditional sexual orientation, we can kill two birds with one stone."
Anti-LGBT activists say their treatment is justified because it helps prevent paedophilia and preserve Russia's family rights.
In footage to be aired on British TV broadcaster Channel 4 this week, the brutal way anti-LGBT activists deliberately attack gay people is exposed.
In the documentary Hunted investigative journalist Liz Mackean travels to Russia to interview members of these groups.
She uncovers gay people who live in fear of their safety after several attacks on gay people across Russia.
One man can be heard saying: "A hunting season has opened, and we are the hunted". Another says gays should be hanged and burned and "this is Russia, they need to get used to it".
"We filmed these groups with their knowledge, and what I found shocking afterwards was that only a few asked to have their faces disguised. They all believe they are doing the right thing," Ms Mackean told The Guardian .
"Occupy Paedophilia has groups in more than 30 cities. They operate with impunity and under the cover of the remarks [Vladimir] Putin has made suggesting that children are at risk from homosexuals."
Sadly these groups are not uncommon and this treatment is far from rare.
In September last year, the BBC revealed more shocking treatment at the hands of the ultranationalist group.
In its footage, one man is forced to drink urine and put his head in the toilet before he has a metal bucket put over his head.
He is then whacked across the head with heavy truncheon like objects and is accused of being a paedophile.
The group say they are dishing out justice and their supposed aim is to cure people of homosexuality.
In the clip posted online, a woman can be seen armed with a gun and dressed in army fatigues, joking that she's going hunting for gay people and paedophiles.
The woman, named as Yekaterina, heads up St Petersburg's Occupy paedophilia movement and she tells the BBC exactly what the movement is about.
"Our priority is uncovering cases of pedophilia," she says.
"But we're also against the promotion of homosexuality. And if - along the way - we encounter people of non-traditional sexual orientation, we can kill two birds with one stone."
This is what happens when the State sanctions fear and hatred and feeds people who equate paedophilia with homosexuality, and those who think homosexuals corrupt children by supposed indecent acts.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
YOU'RE complaining about people calling YOU a pervert? Really? Lead by example then..
I ran across this article this morning : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/mary-helen-sears-michigan-gop_n_4740426.html
The "rant", referenced in the ^^above quoted^^ is here : http://schoolcraftrepublican.info/end-of-the-GOP/
It would appear that a Politician who ACTUALLY and LITERALLY STATED A CONNECTION between Homosexuality and Homosexuals preying on children (Pedophiles?), is free to do so in the U.S. state of Michigan.
Could it be said that this Politician "propagates hateful gay stereotype"?
Does this Politician deserve the same or worse treatment than was proffered toward Putin?
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/mary-helen-sears-michigan-gop_n_4740426.htmlAshley Woods/huffingtonpost.com said:
The "rant", referenced in the ^^above quoted^^ is here : http://schoolcraftrepublican.info/end-of-the-GOP/
It would appear that a Politician who ACTUALLY and LITERALLY STATED A CONNECTION between Homosexuality and Homosexuals preying on children (Pedophiles?), is free to do so in the U.S. state of Michigan.
Could it be said that this Politician "propagates hateful gay stereotype"?
Does this Politician deserve the same or worse treatment than was proffered toward Putin?
Mary Helen Sears is an Asshole; Vladimir Putin is an Asshole and President of Russia
Ask me again the day she becomes President of Russia.
More to the point, though, who gives a rat's left buttock? That is to say, the LGBTQ community and their sympathetic heterosexual, ambisexual, pansexual, paraphiliac, and asexual neighbors are all chuckling into their drinks. We adore any example that provides itself. It's funny, in a way, because even the idea of county party vice-chair being such an idiot actually puzzles some people I know; there is a side discussion to be had, there, about the role of a dialectic of neuroses in historical discourse, but the more practical consideration is that for whatever reasons, ranging from reasonable presupposition of brand identity to outright naïveté, there are many who are puzzled that someone like Ms. Sears could reach even that minor prominence.
Of course her outlook is despicable. And, yes, it is entirely worthy of scorn. But, at the same time, she's just another petty, squeaking voice in a thundering debate. Putin is the president of Russia; people are out actually hunting homosexuals, and the president of Russia is encouraging them by silencing the protest. Mary Helen Sears of Houghton County might be an asshole, but she doesn't have the power to maintain a quiet pogrom. She doesn't have the power to cleanse Yooptopia of th'Gay.
That is, an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. But the Houghton County GOP is fighting for votes among a general population of under thirty-seven thousand, in a heirarchy bound by laws that prevent the sort of thing that the president of Russia is aiding and abetting.
The difference is clear: Mary Helen Sears of Houghton County is an asshole. Vladimir Putin is a tyrant on a pogrom.
It's a matter of priorities.
Dumbest Man on Earth said:
Ask me again the day she becomes President of Russia.
More to the point, though, who gives a rat's left buttock? That is to say, the LGBTQ community and their sympathetic heterosexual, ambisexual, pansexual, paraphiliac, and asexual neighbors are all chuckling into their drinks. We adore any example that provides itself. It's funny, in a way, because even the idea of county party vice-chair being such an idiot actually puzzles some people I know; there is a side discussion to be had, there, about the role of a dialectic of neuroses in historical discourse, but the more practical consideration is that for whatever reasons, ranging from reasonable presupposition of brand identity to outright naïveté, there are many who are puzzled that someone like Ms. Sears could reach even that minor prominence.
Of course her outlook is despicable. And, yes, it is entirely worthy of scorn. But, at the same time, she's just another petty, squeaking voice in a thundering debate. Putin is the president of Russia; people are out actually hunting homosexuals, and the president of Russia is encouraging them by silencing the protest. Mary Helen Sears of Houghton County might be an asshole, but she doesn't have the power to maintain a quiet pogrom. She doesn't have the power to cleanse Yooptopia of th'Gay.
That is, an asshole is an asshole is an asshole. But the Houghton County GOP is fighting for votes among a general population of under thirty-seven thousand, in a heirarchy bound by laws that prevent the sort of thing that the president of Russia is aiding and abetting.
The difference is clear: Mary Helen Sears of Houghton County is an asshole. Vladimir Putin is a tyrant on a pogrom.
It's a matter of priorities.
Bells
Staff member
As I noted in the Gay Fray thread, many Republicans are falling over themselves trying to distance themselves from her. Even her post on the Republican site was given a pre-amble to declare she does not represent the views of other Republicans.. And as I noted in the Gay Fray thread, it was sad that the Admin-Note on the article posted on the Republican site did not warn readers of the utter rubbish they were about to read.
This did not stop her from saying what she said.
Are these people not vetted? Are they not questioned about such beliefs? Did no one think to tell her 'no, sorry, your views do not represent us, so you cannot run as one of us'? While she does not have the power that Putin has, I also go by the belief that everything starts small. This dumbass of a woman should not have any political clout or any say in the Governance of anything at all.
This did not stop her from saying what she said.
Are these people not vetted? Are they not questioned about such beliefs? Did no one think to tell her 'no, sorry, your views do not represent us, so you cannot run as one of us'? While she does not have the power that Putin has, I also go by the belief that everything starts small. This dumbass of a woman should not have any political clout or any say in the Governance of anything at all.