Persecution of Gays

Status
Not open for further replies.
phonemonkey said:
I'm pleased they've started to act. I suspect that it might have something to do with the pressure the international community has placed on Russia in relation to the treatment of LGBT people.
Click to expand...

International pressure? How naive are you? When "international pressure" forced Russia to do anything? What international pressure you even talking about? BBC anchors wearing multi coloured tie? Apart from Obama not coming to sochi to score some political face and a pay back for Snowden there has been no pressure.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Wow. Just wow. This just shows how ignorant you are to the reality of being gay in Russia.
Click to expand...

Pipe down please burnsy and stop gobbling all the media rubbish. My wife is russian. Half her favourite russian tv shows have openly gay tv presenters. You are misinformed.

and 'multiple news sources' - well the entire british media fleet is owned by two conglommerates, I wonder why each paper tells the same story?
 
Last edited:
phonemonkey said:
I'm pleased they've started to act. I suspect that it might have something to do with the pressure the international community has placed on Russia in relation to the treatment of LGBT people.
Click to expand...

phonemonkey, you're starting to sound like the only gay in the village mate. :p
 
schnoodles said:
Are some of her best friends gay? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The point being: if majority of population viciously hates gays it would be impossible for a gay person to become a media personality.

And said point is actually valid as opposed to a logical fallacy that just because someone claims to have minority friends that it means they can not hate said minority.
 
oulton said:
and 'multiple news sources' - well the entire british media fleet is owned by two conglommerates, I wonder why each paper tells the same story?
Click to expand...

I don't read news papers as such. I do read blogs from people with personal experience though.

I started searching and reading them after seeing a documentary from Stephen Fry, but I suppose he's misinformed as well.
 
Sliver said:
I'm only going to address the above point that you made. I'll leave the rest of your post to be dissected by other members.

You clearly don't know your classical history do you ? In ancient Greece, Rome, China just to name three, homosexuality was legal and accepted, normal and natural. The reason people object to it so much today, is mainly down to religion. Before the advent of Judeo Christian theology, being gay wasn't a crime or immoral or illegal. It was, as you like to say, 'natural'. So your assertion that this acceptance of being gay is a modern social event is completely false.

Here's a link explaining just how tolerant ancient civilisations were to gay people and it should shame anyone reading it that thousands of years later we live in a global society that has gone backwards in many countries. ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history
Click to expand...

I never said that there was no homosexuals in history. The point was that there was no homosexual raising children in a family setting in history. Sure there was all sorts of sexual activity, but the family has always been between a man and woman because only a man and a women can reproduce. I am not quite sure how you got the idea from what i said that i said there was no homosexuals in history. I can't believe this even needs clarification.
 
anything I don't mind said:
I never said that there was no homosexuals in history. The point was that there was no homosexual raising children in a family setting in history. Sure there was all sorts of sexual activity, but the family has always been between a man and woman because only a man and a women can reproduce. I am not quite sure how you got the idea from what i said that i said there was no homosexuals in history. I can't believe this even needs clarification.
Click to expand...

You can confidently say that throughout history, a gay person has never raised a child?
 
anything I don't mind said:
I never said that there was no homosexuals in history. The point was that there was no homosexual raising children in a family setting in history. Sure there was all sorts of sexual activity, but the family has always been between a man and woman because only a man and a women can reproduce. I am not quite sure how you got the idea from what i said that i said there was no homosexuals in history. I can't believe this even needs clarification.
Click to expand...

In the Dark Ages, or Roman times, or loads of other periods in history, the fathers barely featured in the lives of their children, as they be off dying in some war somewhere, or getting the natives of whatever country they were invading up the duff.

The father being heavily involved in a child's upbringing is a very recent thing in terms of human timelines.
 
Some people like apple and some people like oranges.

Even a child can tell that an apple and an orange isn't the same thing as two apples or two oranges.

That doesn't pass any judgement on the relative merits of either apples or oranges.
 
krooton said:
Harping on about the 'natural family' as if it is the only option is akin to 'my religion is better than yours'.

This 'natural family' as you coin it is only a recent thing in human history. In fact a more common family settings was all the ladies bringing up all the kids in a communal way, with daddy out getting other women up to duff, hunting, and getting killed. This is still the way with many modern day mammals. Monogomous 2-parent child-rearing is more common with birds than mammals.
Click to expand...

Natural family is not a recent thing at all, it goes back 1000s of years. Two parent upbringing in the way that humans do it is quite unique to the human race and can be attributed to one of the primary factors in why we are more developed compared to other species. ie the reason the human race is so advanced can be attributed to the natural family.

Of course i am not saying that in history there was never any children raised with a single parent. In times of war and similar children would be raised by their mother. But in any civilised society in history the natural family was at the root. Good luck denying that.

Now interestingly what is a relatively "recent thing" is this idea of same sex marriage and raising children as a single parent (not because the father has gone off to war but because the women was so careless and irresponsible) and filled with feminists ideas that the natural family was not important and than a women can raise children by herself.
 
Blazin23 said:
You can confidently say that throughout history, a gay person has never raised a child?
Click to expand...

Of course there is exceptions. But you are clearly missing the point on purpose. Even if 10 gays raised 10 children in history or whatever it would not make the natural family any less important.

Anyway enough from me on this topic, i am sure you all bored of hearing about the natural family.
 
krooton said:
In the Dark Ages, or Roman times, or loads of other periods in history, the fathers barely featured in the lives of their children, as they be off dying in some war somewhere, or getting the natives of whatever country they were invading up the duff.

The father being heavily involved in a child's upbringing is a very recent thing in terms of human timelines.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree, the father played an important role, obviously the father of the past was a lot different than the father of the modern world. But the fathers when present still played an important role.

But i should add this is the typical feminist interpretation of history, where the father was out not doing a thing and the mother did it all. Its the same way they say, "being a mother is the most difficult job in the world." Even in the modern era men rarely get much credit for raising children.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom