- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Same with the Westboro Baptist Church and their outrageous demonstrations that most people, even Christians like them, would object to.
Just because they "claim Christianity" doesn't mean they ARE.
Same with the Westboro Baptist Church and their outrageous demonstrations that most people, even Christians like them, would object to.
Just because they "claim Christianity" doesn't mean they ARE.
I agree with this interpretation.It's interesting: most people define "taking the name of the Lord in vain" as using His name to cuss. Since September 11, I have realized that people who do foul things in the name of God (in whatever religion they claim) are the ones taking His name in vain. I think that cesspool of a so-called church, Westboro, probably qualifies for that definition. They certainly can't be defined as Christians.
You keep missing the point: even if The Book was so influential and everyone followed it to a T, why is it a bad thing? The goal was to advocate for acceptance and equality for gay people at a time when there was a lot of bias and discrimination against them - this is a worthy goal. As I explained earlier, the only way advocating for that kind of change becomes some kind of eeeeevil propaganda is if you believe that gay people deserve to be treated poorly unless they are totally closeted. Which sadly appears to be your belief.OK, let's take a step back, say it might not be the source of this profound campaign method change. Let's just assume that. Hasn't this book reflected perfectly the mindset, the logics, and the reasonings behind them?
Like you, they have offered no scientific evidence to support their discriminatory policies. Passing anti-gay laws does not make you more caring about children, though I have seen that argument being made as part of this debate. As for the population decline, in that case, why not make it easier rather than harder for more people - that is, LGBT people - to form stable, loving families? If families and children are so important in Russia, why do so many languish in orphanages rather than be adopted, in or outside the country? Is it better for a child to grow up in poor conditions in an orphanage rather than in a country that has more liberal gay rights? That's not caring about children at all.I believe the Russians have explained the reasons of having this law many times. Acceptance and allowing it to spread are two different things. Considering the Russian population decline, also considering the Russian's traditional moral values that the vast majority of their people hold, it fits in their country.
Because once you decide to host the Olympics, your domestic business becomes the world's business. Don't like it? Don't apply to be host city to begin with.Could you please count how many threads have been opened just for this one law in here? And it is not even your country's law. Why don't you step back instead of jumping into their domestic affair, and let the Russians decide what they want to do to their country?
(meaning they probably need lots more support before there is nationwide acceptance here in the U.S. for equal rights such as same-sex union).
You keep missing the point: even if The Book was so influential and everyone followed it to a T, why is it a bad thing? The goal was to advocate for acceptance and equality for gay people at a time when there was a lot of bias and discrimination against them - this is a worthy goal.
Congratulations to you and Mrs. Mathman on your long (and happy, I hope ) marriage. I know that there are posters here who can now marry their partners, or whose children can now marry their partners, and I hope some day they will be able to say the same about how their marriages are perceived.Time is on their side. When my wife and I got married our marriage was illegal in 17 states. Now, no one blinks an eye.
Time is on their side. When my wife and I got married our marriage was illegal in 17 states. Now, no one blinks an eye.
If families and children are so important in Russia, why do so many languish in orphanages rather than be adopted, in or outside the country? Is it better for a child to grow up in poor conditions in an orphanage rather than in a country that has more liberal gay rights? That's not caring about children at all.
Time is on their side. When my wife and I got married our marriage was illegal in 17 states. Now, no one blinks an eye.
"Sochi 2014: Vladimir Putin says Russia needs to ‘cleanse’ itself of homosexuality"
http://www.thestar.com/sports/sochi...needs_to_cleanse_itself_of_homosexuality.html
Wow. If calling for the "cleansing" of homosexuals isn't some crazy Hitler-esque rhetoric, I don't know what is. :disapp:
How would people react if he replaced "cleansing of homosexuals" with "cleansing of Jews"/"cleansing of blacks"? :scowl:
Sort of but not really. There are indeed states that have sodomy laws on the books, prohibiting various sexual acts (I don't want to go into details here). However, in 2003, the US Supreme Court has found those to be unconstitutional - meaning that from that point on, they are unenforceable, even if they are still technically on the books.Putin accused the United States of double standards in its criticism of Russia, pointing to laws that remain on the books in some U.S. states classifying gay sex as a crime.
Is it true?
Sort of but not really. There are indeed states that have sodomy laws on the books, prohibiting various sexual acts (I don't want to go into details here). However, in 2003, the US Supreme Court has found those to be unconstitutional - meaning that from that point on, they are unenforceable, even if they are still technically on the books.
Actually sodomy laws have been repealed in all states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
But it's a stupid argument anyways to say "You persecute your citizens, so why can't we be allowed to persecute ours and not have people say anything?"
Sort of but not really. There are indeed states that have sodomy laws on the books, prohibiting various sexual acts (I don't want to go into details here). However, in 2003, the US Supreme Court has found those to be unconstitutional - meaning that from that point on, they are unenforceable, even if they are still technically on the books.
even if they're struck down by court order.