Anti-gay Latvian MP becomes head of Latvia's human rights committee.

[Nubclear]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6167562.stm

Is it any coincidence that the anti-Russia bloc within the EU is also the one to habitually spit in the face of human rights? I don't think so

Hence why I move for them to be partitioned between Russia and Germany.

[binTravkin]

Is it any coincidence that anyone important and authoritative who opposes Putin publicly dies or disappears..

Hance why I move for Russia be partitioned between Latvia and Estonia and the russian federal reserve of gold given to Lithuanians as a gift so they don't rush axmen and attack the soft underbelly of new Imperial Democracy of Latvia!

[Solver]

They say Mr Smits will base his judgments not only on Latvian law but also on holy writ, which they say he holds to be a handbook of brotherly love.

Doesn't that last part sound a bit... interesting, given the context ?

[Barnabas]

Isnt that the country in which the dutch embassador was expulsed because he was a homosexual with a black lover?

[Wernazuma III]

Oh, unlike in mother Russia, where police together with skinheads beat up participants of a gay festival and the mayor of the capitol cheers to it by telling us that "In Russia, there still is proper order in moral issues".
Pathetic troll.

[binTravkin]

Isnt that the country in which the dutch embassador was expulsed because he was a homosexual with a black lover?

No you're messing it with Uzbekistan.

[joncha]

brotherly love

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Isnt that the country in which the dutch embassador was expulsed because he was a homosexual with a black lover?

No, he quit himself, but claimed it was due to attacks on him or his lover or whatever. His lover was Cuban, btw

so-called "gay rights" are not necessarily part of so-called "human rights". I don't like this choice, but I see no reason why anti-"gay rights" politicians should support "gay rights".

[Nubclear]

Oh, unlike in mother Russia,

Oh no, I fully admit that Russia is becoming an...unfortunate situation. Putin was correct: The collapse of the Soviet Union was a massive tragedy.

Originally posted by Heresson
so-called "gay rights" are not necessarily part of so-called "human rights". I don't like this choice, but I see no reason why anti-"gay rights" politicians should support "gay rights".

As a Pole, I suppose you wouldn't. Poles have had a long history of being backward, and the fact that they can't seem to recognise that "gay rights" is a subset of "human rights" is unfortunate.
Gay people, being human, would thus be deserving of all "human rights" including equality, dignity, protection from discrimination and violence, etc. Wouldn't you agree?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Oh no, I fully admit that Russia is becoming an...unfortunate situation. Putin was correct: The collapse of the Soviet Union was a massive tragedy.

You're right. Where are those golden times of Stalin, when you were sent off to 5 years of forced labor for being homosexual.

[Heresson]

As a Pole, I suppose you wouldn't. Poles have had a long history of being backward,

Not as long as Russia...
And may I remind You that we've had religious tolerance while the rest of Europe at this time had persecutions and religious wars?

Gay people, being human, would thus be deserving of all "human rights" including equality, dignity, protection from discrimination and violence, etc. Wouldn't you agree?

the right to have one-sex marriage, adopt children and having homosexuality treaten as "normal" a full-right alternative to heterosexualism does not fall into these cathegories.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Heresson

the right to have one-sex marriage, adopt children and having homosexuality treaten as "normal" a full-right alternative to heterosexualism does not fall into these cathegories.

Yes, I'm afraid that it does. You see, if everyone else in society gets to marry someone they love, adopt children, and be treated with dignity....Homosexuals do too Unless you can provide a reason why they should not?

[Heresson]

Marriage is supported by the gouverment due to its main, procreational, function. Gay marriages are per se different in this matter.
Also, calling them "marriages" may suggest that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same good, which may cause to attacks on the church that doesn't accept that -not true- notion.

[Nubclear]

Marriage is supported by the gouverment due to its main, procreational, function.

So should the government refuse to give benefits to people who, say, don't want children? Aren't capable of having children?
And what about the option to adopt? A homosexual couple could easily adopt children, just as an infertile heterosexual couple can....And it isn't as if there is a shortage of children needing adoption. One might say that adoption is even the more moral of the two choices.

Also, calling them "marriages" may suggest that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same good, which may cause to attacks on the church that doesn't accept that -not true- notion.

Well, the Church is backward and bases its opinions off of outdated, illogical, and disproven texts.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not "good" or "bad", and hence are the same the good. A persons morality simply is not affected one way or the other because they are gay or not.

[Heresson]

So should the government refuse to give benefits to people who, say, don't want children?

yes

Aren't capable of having children?

no, they can adopt children

And what about the option to adopt? A homosexual couple could easily adopt children, just as an infertile heterosexual couple can....And it isn't as if there is a shortage of children needing adoption.
One might say that adoption is even the more moral of the two choices.

I think adoption by homosexuals should not be possible until homosexuality is fully accepted by population - AT LEAST. A child brought up by homosexuals is likely to be object of mockery. it is also likely to repeat the behaviour it sees at home, and this may be seen as bad for society.

Well, the Church is backward and bases its opinions off of outdated, illogical, and disproven texts.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not "good" or "bad", and hence are the same the good. A persons morality simply is not affected one way or the other because they are gay or not.

I do not mean that. Heterosexuality is obviously better than homosexuality, because it can lead to procreation