Oh gosh. You are sooo wrong. They know what "we" know, they are not stupid. They just have different views on gays than the one you have.
It is also not true that they hate gay people, it is MSM propaganda. They just don't want pro-gay propaganda, like in some schools in US or Canada.
And sorry, what the heck have this website "saviour.com to do with Ortodox Christianity?
Also why do you think that YOU are right and THEY are wrong?
Perhaps they do want to lower HIV infections?
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM))a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.
No, consistently expressing bigoted opinions and/or acting on them is a reflection of someone being a bigot, not calling out such opinions and behavior.It is really obvious that the one who overly reacted all the time and cannot stand even remotely different opinions is the bigot.
I don't think the Russian laws are about that, anyway. And if people believe that "gay propaganda" is dangerous, then yes, I do think they are grossly misinformed about LGBT issues, whether by circumstance or by choice.
Also, there are plenty of kids who are raised without their biological father or biological mother. And also kids who are raised by neither biological parent.
If you've ever had oral sex or sex for the purpose of pleasure and not actually conceiving kids, or sex while on birth control, then - like homosexuals - you are having sexual union that isn't for the purpose of creating offspring. And I don't think I need to tell you that the majority of sexual interactions aren't for the purpose of conception.
I'm talking about the affects on children, but you are talking about sex for pleasure. Isn't that obvious that the bases and the points of interests are totally different from the get go?!
...Toni, I like pie, too! But I love cheese cake the most!
Isn't using statistics of that country the best resource when talking about that country? Why should anyone go considering Africa when people are talking about the United States? As if people don't know about the situation in Africa?[/QUOTE]
Katia brought up HIV/AIDS in the United States to provide reasoning for Russian legislation. I pointed out that her argument was problematic and mischaracterized the risk factors.
The President of the United States was raised for part of his childhood by a single mother and spent some time with his grandparents as well. Many other wonderful kids and adults have been raised in various types of non-traditional families. A child deserves a loving home and good care. Such care does not have to be provided by two heterosexual, cis-gendered, married (to each other) people of the opposite sex.
But you know what, there's no point reasoning with you, because over time you've only gotten more entrenched in your homophobic, narrow-minded views. I don't understand homophobia and I never will, so there is no chance that I will be able to get through to you.
And actually katia, straight women (and more specifically, women of colour) are the fastest growing HIV-infected demographic, not gay men. But, in Russia, educating people about this fact and educating people that HIV isn't a "gay disease" and is something that all demographics can (and do) get, would be "normalizing" gay people and thus gay propaganda.
It's also incredibly rude when people think it's okay to suggest a man will get HIV/AIDS if he's gay... would you go up to Michelle Obama and say, "You'll probably get HIV, because as a woman of colour, your demographic is the fastest growing group of HIV transfers"? It is also naive (and dangerous) to think as a straight person - regardless of gender or race - you are immune from getting HIV/AIDS by virtue of not sleeping with LGBT people.
No, you and I will never reconcile because of your extremely bigoted views in destroying traditional family values.
Or should that child be removed from its parent because they lack a father/mother figure?
And what if a single woman wants to adopt and raise a child on her own or a single father loses his wife and he has to raise a kid... should they be prevented from doing so because the single woman's not that child's biological parent or because there isn't a mother figure in the case of the widowed father?
What is your definition of a "fair, natural environment" for a child? Assuming you think it means the child should be raised by their biological heterosexual father and their biological heterosexual mother, there are millions of families raising millions of kids that don't fit that description (hah, they even have a show for that - appropriately named - Modern Family).
I purposely avoided this thread but just wanted to state a couple little known facts about homosexual orientatin/behavior.
1. brain injury can change much behavior, including orientation to same sex re sexual feelings. It is largely predetermined by hormonal affects to brain.
It is not a choice, so laws against bedroom behavior should not exist in a secular society.
2. hating someone born that way is illogical
3. not enough data exists re influence on kids by gay parents. largely because its a rare situation, difficult to study due to multiple variables
4. children traumatized by same sex sexual molestation, which is common, very tragically, often are attracted to same sex at puberty or later, even if trauma is buried.
Pray for people you might condemn-this is what Christians are asked to do. there but for the grace of god....
We have decided to close this thread, even though it is in the Politics folder, and we don't Moderate Politics, because it has run its course and has become repetitive.
Thank you skateluvr, for ending it on a better note.
Last edited by dorispulaski; 10-30-2013 at 04:42 PM.