Politics & Stuff

[NishC300 1,865]

  On 29/06/2015 at 18:15, Fulham Broadway said:

Lol that article -David Horowitz. From left wing writer, his parents were Stalinists, to a 180 degree turn where he is now a right wing nut job.

He is a right wing agent provocoteur, but essentially a 'notice me I'm sooooooo controversial' Southern Californian twat. The equivalent in the UK would be Melanie Phillips.

David Horowitz didn't write that article. And even if he did, what the hell does that even matter?

The article simply states what happened in a court case, does it really matter who wrote it? Or is that just a typical technique by progressives to avoid facts?

  On 29/06/2015 at 12:24, CeleryFC said:

I don't know any statistics, but I do know two people with gay parents and they are both amazing individuals, and they both cite their parents as important factors in who they are. The process of adoption, and even surrogacy is often very long and difficult, and gay couples that really want children go through a lot to get them. This would make for incredibly loving parents in most cases. There is NO correlation between child abuse (either sexual or physical) and having gay parents though, and plenty of straight parents abuse their children as it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.htmlthis article while only focussing on lesbian parents is positive though

I'm reluctant to have an opinion against relationships involving consenting adults, (their business is their business) but incestuous and even distant relatives being a couple is really rare where I'm from. Marrying blood relatives isn't allowed here, apart from your first cousin I think, which they only allowed fairly recently. I think the issue with blood relatives is the chances of birth defects if you have children? Entirely not the same vein as not allowing gay people to marry.

But the thing that's concerning is that we've now changed the definition of marriage to just "two people who love each other", all I'm trying to say is this could be easily exploited by many people simply in order to gain benefits. Anyway my original point was more to do with how I'd rather this was legalised by states themselves than through a court.

As for the 1st paragraph which you sent to Fernando, here's an interesting article http://www.truthrevo...me-sex-marriage. I'm not saying all homosexual parents are like this, I'm actually quite sure they're a minority however this is a genuine concern for traditional marriage believers, and regarding the child abuse thing unfortunately there is a staggering amount of evidence that despite being a small minority they do commit a disproportionately large number of offences. Now ofc this is just giving a bad name to most of them, as many just go along with their daily business without interfering in other's lives, however you can fully understand people's like @Fernando, 's concerns.

[Fulham Broadway 17,114]

  On 30/06/2015 at 08:05, NishC300 said:

NishC300, on 30 Jun 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

David Horowitz didn't write that article. And even if he did, what the hell does that even matter?

The article simply states what happened in a court case, does it really matter who wrote it? Or is that just a typical technique by progressives to avoid facts?

Horowitz is an Israeli fascist who uses many media tentacles, including the publication above to spout his conservative bigoted agenda. Theres a high probability the facts are wrong as he has been proven to regularly lie to get his view across.

The twat has previously blamed slavery on the blacks in the US, and said all Arabs are terrorists.

I would advocate 'progressive' is more beneficial to humans than narrowmonded homophobes -the opposite being 'regressive', and hey...ggggggguess what ! Straight parents can be bad

[CeleryFC 373]

  On 30/06/2015 at 08:05, NishC300 said:

David Horowitz didn't write that article. And even if he did, what the hell does that even matter?

The article simply states what happened in a court case, does it really matter who wrote it? Or is that just a typical technique by progressives to avoid facts?

But the thing that's concerning is that we've now changed the definition of marriage to just "two people who love each other", all I'm trying to say is this could be easily exploited by many people simply in order to gain benefits. Anyway my original point was more to do with how I'd rather this was legalised by states themselves than through a court.

As for the 1st paragraph which you sent to Fernando, here's an interesting article http://www.truthrevo...me-sex-marriage. I'm not saying all homosexual parents are like this, I'm actually quite sure they're a minority however this is a genuine concern for traditional marriage believers, and regarding the child abuse thing unfortunately there is a staggering amount of evidence that despite being a small minority they do commit a disproportionately large number of offences. Now ofc this is just giving a bad name to most of them, as many just go along with their daily business without interfering in other's lives, however you can fully understand people's like @Fernando, 's concerns.

Honey, that site very clearly has an agenda (just look at all the words it has highlighted in red... not subtle). Its not that that court case might not be true, but that its not representative. The point is all the gay families that don't abuse their children don't go to court at all, no case, no drama. Four people just don't equate. Bad parents are bad parents, whether they're gay or straight. (I hate accidentally rhyming.)

What is this staggering amount of evidence too? There will always be problems with obtaining a probability sample, so it'll never be accurate or representative in the first place. Data is also often skewed because male-male molestation doesn't mean a paedophiles adult sexual orientation is homosexual, as often they don't have one, and these are the type of perceived homosexuals that won't get married in the first place.

This was quite interesting http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

particularly -

  Quote

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

The reason I don't understand those concerns is because gay people are not any different to the rest of us, and you'd have to think they were to be worried about that shit.

And marriage is still seen as two people that romantically love each other, not just love. I know you think it might, but honestly people aren't going to try and marry their sister for marriage benefits just because the gays can. I'm sorry, but I feel like that argument is a cop out. All these people that are now going to start exploiting marriage? Forget all the those green card marriages that already happen. Straight marriage is the only way marriage can be recognized because everyone and their fence/shed/car/dog are gunna get married now a man and a man, and a woman and a woman can declare their love for each other. Its just a ridiculous notion.

As said already, it was ruled to be constitutional, a federal matter not a state one.

[NishC300 1,865]

  On 30/06/2015 at 09:00, CeleryFC said:

Honey, that site very clearly has an agenda (just look at all the words it has highlighted in red... not subtle). Its not that that court case might not be true, but that its not representative. The point is all the gay families that don't abuse their children don't go to court at all, no case, no drama. Four people just don't equate. Bad parents are bad parents, whether they're gay or straight. (I hate accidentally rhyming.)

What is this staggering amount of evidence too? There will always be problems with obtaining a probability sample, so it'll never be accurate or representative in the first place. Data is also often skewed because male-male molestation doesn't mean a paedophiles adult sexual orientation is homosexual, as often they don't have one, and these are the type of perceived homosexuals that won't get married in the first place.

This was quite interesting http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

particularly -

The reason I don't understand those concerns is because gay people are not any different to the rest of us, and you'd have to think they were to be worried about that shit.

And marriage is still seen as two people that romantically love each other, not just love. I know you think it might, but honestly people aren't going to try and marry their sister for marriage benefits just because the gays can. I'm sorry, but I feel like that argument is a cop out. All these people that are now going to start exploiting marriage? Forget all the those green card marriages that already happen. Straight marriage is the only way marriage can be recognized because everyone and their fence/shed/car/dog are gunna get married now a man and a man, and a woman and a woman can declare their love for each other. Its just a ridiculous notion.

As said already, it was ruled to be constitutional, a federal matter not a state one.

Well we are kind of starting to drift off the original topic now haha, I was merely voicing the concerns of traditional marriage believers. As for the final line, I still disagree. I still believe it is a state matter.

As for the agenda, well I could argue that almost all media outlets have an agenda too

  On 30/06/2015 at 08:57, Fulham Broadway said:

Horowitz is an Israeli fascist who uses many media tentacles, including the publication above to spout his conservative bigoted agenda. Theres a high probability the facts are wrong as he has been proven to regularly lie to get his view across.

I would advocate 'progressive' is more beneficial to humans than narrowmonded homophobes -the opposite being 'regressive'

Horowitz is an Isreali fascist? lololololololol I guess that's why he believes in freedom of expression and thought, unlike politically correct progressives. So anyone that wishes to protect traditional marriage is a homophobe? Wonder who's the fascist here.....

Anyway speaking of Israel, the following news emerged yesterday

"Four hurt after shots fired in West Bank Terrorist Attack" (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Three-hurt-after-shots-fired-in-possible-West-Bank-terrorist-attack-407534)

Another outlet claims that

"The terrorist who carried out the attack, identified as 20-year-old Bethlehem resident Misun Musa, confessed under interrogation that her intention was to kill an IDF soldier."

No real talk about this on the MSM......

[CeleryFC 373]

  On 30/06/2015 at 09:14, NishC300 said:

Well we are kind of starting to drift off the original topic now haha, I was merely voicing the concerns of traditional marriage believers. As for the final line, I still disagree. I still believe it is a state matter.

As for the agenda, well I could argue that almost all media outlets have an agenda too

So now the constitution doesn't matter?

And yeah, true I guess, but it doesnt take a genius to differentiate an agenda based on hate.

[Fulham Broadway 17,114]

  On 30/06/2015 at 09:14, NishC300 said:

Well we are kind of starting to drift off the original topic now haha, I was merely voicing the concerns of traditional marriage believers. As for the final line, I still disagree. I still believe it is a state matter.

As for the agenda, well I could argue that almost all media outlets have an agenda too

Anyway speaking of Israel, the following news emerged yesterday

"Four hurt after shots fired in West Bank Terrorist Attack" (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Three-hurt-after-shots-fired-in-possible-West-Bank-terrorist-attack-407534)

Another outlet claims that

"The terrorist who carried out the attack, identified as 20-year-old Bethlehem resident Misun Musa, confessed under interrogation that her intention was to kill an IDF soldier."

No real talk about this on the MSM......

Lol I think, really you know that Israel is a bullying state inflicting holocaust on the Palestinians, slaughtering women and children with high tech weaponry

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 28/06/2015 at 14:31, NishC300 said:

Yes I am aware that the judicial branch of government merely 'interprets' the constitution, as for what you say in paragraphs 1-3, I recommend you read Justice Scalia's statement which I pasted earlier in spoilers as that sums up a lot of what I wanted to say and if you still have something to attack then you can respond.

Also finally the main point here isn't whether you agree with this or not, it's how all of a sudden the SCOTUS is a becoming a threat to Federalism which protects the autonomy of states. This matter should never be decided by a court but within the respective states.

That's not really answering the points, to be honest. You'd of thought that if Scalia thinks that the justice system and the way the supreme court works is an "attack on democracy" he would not have become a judge...

Anyway, let's stop pretending it's about how it happened because there is a very clear fear in your posts that make it evident that it is not. Whether it is fear of the unknown or due religious beliefs or some other reason I do not know but it is very irrational.

  On 28/06/2015 at 14:31, NishC300 said:

Human rights? Were homosexuals being discriminated like the African American community in the US? This is why I fail to understand why it is compared to the Civil Rights Movement (which is even more ironic as MLK was firm believer in traditional marriage).

Yes they have and continue to be although I really don't understand why that needs to be a 'prerequisite' to them getting their human rights. They are humans and humans have the right to equality under the law and the right to marry. Hence their human rights were being violated prior to the ruling on Friday(?).

  On 28/06/2015 at 14:31, NishC300 said:

The point isn't that straight couples can still marry in peace, it's the fact that now you have redefined an age old definition of marriage which was the union between a man and a woman. By claiming that it's the union between two people who love each other you cause some severe confusion, should we now call two sisters who live together marriage as well? I love my parents, is that marriage as well? Do you not see how others could easily exploit this for their benefit? Those sisters might as well ask for the benefits the state bestows on married couples too.

No, that's incest and that has nothing to do with homosexuality as you can easily replace that example with a brother and sister. Incest is illegal and will remain so because because it is not a human characteristic. No one is born incestuous, a lot of people are born homosexual. That is a scientific fact.

Anyway, that is some incredible piece of fear-mongering. What you are scared of literally has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. What happens now that gay marriage is legal? Well it really doesn't take a fortune teller to answer that, just look at the TENS of countries that have long since legalized it. I'm happy to tell you that the sky has not fallen in any of them.

The rest of the post is more of the same along with victimizing homphobes, so let me try to make it very simple:

If you are interested only in a 'traditional marriage' then gay marriage does not affect that in any possible manner. That is simply a fact. You're calling the continued brutal attack on the rights and freedom of LGBT people a 'defense of traditional marriage' even though traditional marriage literally and demonstrably has nothing to do with this. I'm sorry that those homophobes don't get to persecute and marginalize this minority that they are so used to abusing and mistreating, but if we are to live in democratic states based on equality then that it simply not possible.

No one can be 'brainwashed' into homosexuality. Unless you are born with that sexual orientation you can't be 'talked into it'. That is a scientific fact. Kids are being 'brainwashed' to accepting homosexuals for what they were born as in hopes that the abuse they get decreases. Too radical, I know...

Usually in controversial 'issues' there are valid points for both views. This is NOT one of those issues. There simply is NO case for preventing a minority from practicing their basic human rights that do not affect you, your rights and freedom in any possible way just because it doesn't conform with your version of morality.

So please STOP.

[Fernando 6,537]

Well there's other problems that bother me.

If I don't believe in gay marriage then how does it feel when they teach this as Okay in the school for kids?

This leads no choice but to go to some private school or home school since public schools are teaching things that go against my belief.

So that thing annoys me already.

[CeleryFC 373]

  On 30/06/2015 at 11:00, Fernando said:

Well there's other problems that bother me.

If I don't believe in gay marriage then how does it feel when they teach this as Okay in the school for kids?

This leads no choice but to go to some private school or home school since public schools are teaching things that go against my belief.

So that thing annoys me already.

Its pretty simple, if you have a child and they are straight they won't get gay married anyway, and if you have a child and they are gay, it doesnt matter what school they do or don't go to, they'll still be gay, and you probably shouldn't be a parent if you can't love that kid all the same.

Learning about tolerance doesn't mean all the straight kids on the block are gunna start questioning their sexuality.

[Stingray 9,441]

A lot of you are talking complete and utter crap. It has nothing to do with being progressive. If you say we should stick to facts, you should as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

The proportion of heterosexual to homosexual pedohiles is about 11:1

Other research suggested homosexuality is in a degree mutually exclusive

"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/666571/

Edit: more research suggests a 20:1 ratio, others drop down to a 2:1 ratio. Still, no evidence Gay = more pedophiles.

[Dion 2,476]

What I never understood about people who are against gay marriage is how does gay marriage affect them negatively? I just can't see it. How can someone be against something that doesn't directly affect them negatively in any way? And one that means a lot to the people who are denied from it. Both in regards to legal rights but also emotionally speaking. But again, I was never really good at understanding people.

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 30/06/2015 at 11:20, CeleryFC said:

Its pretty simple, if you have a child and they are straight they won't get gay married anyway, and if you have a child and they are gay, it doesnt matter what school they do or don't go to, they'll still be gay, and you probably shouldn't be a parent if you can't love that kid all the same.

Learning about tolerance doesn't mean all the straight kids on the block are gunna start questioning their sexuality.

True point.

But tolerance.....would you apply tolerance for religious belief as well?

How do you react when someone says that they believe in the bible and it says homosexuality is a sin?

Surely the bible believer will not have tolerance preach at but be label a hater under discrimination....

So if we are to learn about tolerance then we must truly mean it for beliefs and lifestyle.

Not get fined for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay weeding because you don't hold the same beliefs.....

[Dion 2,476]

  On 30/06/2015 at 13:06, Fernando said:

True point.

But tolerance.....would you apply tolerance for religious belief as well?

How do you react when someone says that they believe in the bible and it says homosexuality is a sin?

Surely the bible believer will not have tolerance preach at but be label a hater under discrimination....

So if we are to learn about tolerance then we must truly mean it for beliefs and lifestyle.

Not get fined for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay weeding because you don't hold the same beliefs.....

If you think homosexuality is a sin you're free to be heterosexual while allowing others to be whatever they want and leaving it to God to punish them later if it comes to that. Because homosexuals aren't harming anyone by being attracted to people of the same gender.

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 30/06/2015 at 13:40, Dion said:

If you think homosexuality is a sin you're free to be heterosexual while allowing others to be whatever they want and leaving it to God to punish them later if it comes to that. Because homosexuals aren't harming anyone by being attracted to people of the same gender.

That's the thing.

I have no problems with this.

But that's not what's happening is it?

I already brought about cases where business owners are getting harassed and fined because they don't want to cater to gay weddings.

[Dion 2,476]

  On 30/06/2015 at 13:44, Fernando said:

That's the thing.

I have no problems with this.

But that's not what's happening is it?

I already brought about cases where business owners are getting harassed and fined because they don't want to cater to gay weddings.

I was not saying you, Fernando, just a hypothetical person who believes it is a sin.

As they should. If business owners are refusing to perform gay weddings simply because they are gay weddings they should be taken to court, just like if they were refusing to perform weddings between blacks or any other sort of stupid reason people will find to discriminate.

By the way, doesn't the Bible say God is the only judge or something like that? If that is so, religious people should abide to that and treat everyone equally and let the sinners burn in hell later or whatever. Anyhow I find the argument of sin very silly because I don't see any laws that prohibit eating competitions or people becoming obese despite gluttony being one of the seven deadly sins. I could spend all day listing sins that are not as frowned upon as homosexuality. It just strikes me as a strange reasoning really.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

The gay wedding cake what the fuck?. If the geezer didn't want to bake it all he had to say was sorry i'm to busy you'll have to go elsewhere. What is there to object to it's a fucking cake!.His business is now suffering and as a baker i'm sure he knead's the dough (sorry about that one). But what did he actually object to that it had a couple of plastic men or women on the top?. But it's almost beyond parody a gay wedding cake did he object that he couldn't get hold of enough pink colouring. I'm pretty sure if someone said it's my mate's birthday male or female i want the cake in the shape of a cock and balls he would have done it.

It's his business and he can run it how he likes but with all the negative media he's getting he's not exactly a visionary is he?.

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 30/06/2015 at 13:49, Dion said:

I was not saying you, Fernando, just a hypothetical person who believes it is a sin.

As they should. If business owners are refusing to perform gay weddings simply because they are gay weddings they should be taken to court, just like if they were refusing to perform weddings between blacks or any other sort of stupid reason people will find to discriminate.

By the way, doesn't the Bible say God is the only judge or something like that? If that is so, religious people should abide to that and treat everyone equally and let the sinners burn in hell later or whatever. Anyhow I find the argument of sin very silly because I don't see any laws that prohibit eating competitions or people becoming obese despite gluttony being one of the seven deadly sins. I could spend all day listing sins that are not as frowned upon as homosexuality. It just strikes me as a strange reasoning really.

But see you can't put the same category of black and homosexual. Black is out of racism, homosexuality is out of religions beliefs.

However you point to a great fact. That is that people tend to treat the sin of homosexuality as the greatest which is wrong.

A sin is a sin. No difference then lying, cursing, pre marital sex, adultery and such.

So yes there is a lot of hypocrisy there.

[DavidEU 2,023]

  On 30/06/2015 at 14:38, Fernando said:

But see you can't put the same category of black and homosexual. Black is out of racism, homosexuality is out of religions beliefs.

It's nothing to do with religious beliefs. It's to do with some people in this world just being fucking stupid.