Gay couples will have the right to adopt priests

[Dinner]

If you want some more homosexual love from me on this issue take it to another thread

You don't see the connection? Greek politicians are unwilling to tackle any of the hard issues therefor they are attempting to distract you guys with symbolic nonsense like in the OP.

You guys really need to demand better.

[Aeson]

I'm a little tired of answering to obvious hate in Aeson's posts... I think it's obvious who's heart is full of hate here...

Unlike you I wouldn't try to take away your rights and limit you to second class citizen status. Your hate is obvious in your support for treating homosexuals as second class citizens. I don't agree with you, but I'd still support equal rights for you, because it's the right thing to do.

Hmm, let me think. Advertisements work. Education works. Parent's example works. Why do you think specifically gay propaganda will not work, if it may come in a form of advertisement, education or a parent's example? Face it, you're denying the basics of the basics, that's how entire human society works, and you say it doesn't work that way There are also examples of a cultures with a far more widespread homosexual relations, you decided to ignore that thing too.

You are using "gay propaganda" to describe homosexuals getting married and raising children. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing gays to marry changes childrens' sexual orientation, nor is there evidence that allowing homosexuals to adopt children changes childrens' sexual orientation. There is also no evidence that advertising changes childrens' sexual orientation. Or that it's learned in school.

You're just conjecturing that because these things influence some things, they influence others. But you don't have evidence to support hat it actually changes childrens' sexual orientation. It doesn't change someone's eye color, or their height, or their gender. Why should we just assume it changes their sexual orientation?

If you see a guy with his shirt off rubbing up against another guy, does it make you gay?

If you want to expand "gay propaganda" to all influences that pertain to homosexuality, then you're not going to be able to eliminate them without genocide and suppression of free speech. Which are obviously much worse harms than even the worst conjectures you're throwing out about how homosexual marriage and parenting may be harmful.

And i'm sure scientists can explain it somehow? Like they did it with other things about evolution? Please offer us their wisdom on benefits of homosexuality

I'm sure there's many theories, some seem pretty likely ... though nothing seems to be for sure. One of the more likely explanations is that homosexuality allows for more males to coexist without having compete for breeding purposes.

Given crime rates, domestic violence rates, income levels, and various other statistics, it does appear that homosexuals are often better citizens than heterosexuals. (Largely due to how relatively awful heterosexual males are in those regards.)

Evolution also resulted in genetic diseases. So a simple fact alone that evolution resulted in homosexuality doesn't prove that homosexuality is good or desirable. You need to think about some other argument.

It's your argument to claim that evolution determines what is right and wrong, I just pointed out how it doesn't actually support your conclusions. Evolution can result in horrible incentives. It's not a moral or ethical compass for anyone but sociopaths.

Not entire, there is also a probelm of psychological harm to children.

You haven't shown any evidence that there is harm done.

Single parent families is a problem that can't be easily solved (if at all). But there is no need to add another problem by allowing homosexual families.

Homosexual couples can legally be single parent(s). You can't police it any better than you could police single mothers from broken heterosexual relationships.

I may hate Nazi and Nazi supporters, but that's because they're killing people or support killing people because of THEIR hate. And that's about it i think.

And you're promoting hateful rhetoric and supporting oppression that has lead to increased depression and suicide among homosexuals. You are part of the last vestiges of a horribly ugly side of humanity that has hurt many, many people for no purpose other than to hate. I truly hope for your childrens' sake (if you ever have any) that they aren't homosexual, because a father like you would likely lead to terrible problems for them. Though there is an off chance that having someone you care about be homosexual might lead you to understand that homosexuals are deserving of respect and dignity, they aren't second class citizens that should be oppressed due to ignorance and hate.

I am not angry at you. You're just a brainwashed idiot who can't see the truth. Your complete inability to comprehend reality and ugly viewpoint makes you an easy punching bag where no harm is going to be done. I feel sorry for you personally, since such a mind-set is very limiting, but there's nothing that can be done about that. Either you will one day wake up to the truth and realize that homosexuals are deserving of respect and dignity just as much as heterosexuals, or you'll continue to wallow in your hateful view.

I do hate the ideas you express (and their effects throughout history) and want to clearly show them for how deceitful and ugly they are. Thankfully those ideas are on their way out in many societies around the world. Still a lot of work to do, especially in some backwards nations, but great strides have been made recently in free societies

And they do exist? How can i show problems with something that doesn't exist? You're being unreasonable.

You haven't shown any evidence for any of your claims. All you've offered are bald-faced assertions and outright lies.

[Dinner]

So his claim is that gays are pedophiles out to brainwash children?

What a load of horse ****. Much like how he claims to hate fascists while backing a fascist dictatorship in his own country.

[Bereta_Eder]

You don't see the connection? Greek politicians are unwilling to tackle any of the hard issues therefor they are attempting to distract you guys with symbolic nonsense like in the OP.

You guys really need to demand better.

The issue of gay unions took about 5% of the total public discourse time and was over as quickly as that.

I hope I could say that YOU should demand better... but then, I'm not so sure.

Probably yes

[Ben Kenobi]

Human population has exploded.

Emphasis on has. Worldwide TFR now is about 2.4, and that includes places that still have quite a high death rate. It's possible that worldwide population has already stabilized. Most countries have negative fertility.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

someone is afraid to posts his true thoughts. the banning must have been bad.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

but keeping in the holiday spirits... even though i think you lost something during that last time out.

[IMG]http://sputnikmusic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/****christmascopy.jpg[/IMG]

[The Holy Spirit]

The gentle soul MWHC is right. Ben is a f*ckup.

[Dinner]

MOBIUS or Gibblets or Aeson or who ever that is needs to come up with better DLs.

[Dinner]

The issue of gay unions took about 5% of the total public discourse time and was over as quickly as that.

I hope I could say that YOU should demand better... but then, I'm not so sure.

Probably yes

Well, I did notice that in the middle of this month, with money and the clock ticking down, your PM did belatedly attempt to fill a few of the bailout conditions which he was supposed to have finished and implimented by Jan 1st, 2016. That was good though as usual too little, too late, and not as much as promised.

After sitting on privitizations for a year he finally, ever so slowly and even then only partially, restarted the process after the ECB told him he would get no more money if he kept blocking them. I honestly hope they don't give the next tranche until all of the privitizations are completed as he has proven he won't do a thing without a gun to his head.

[Ellestar]

There's a huge difference between convincing someone that they should tolerate other people's homosexual relationships and actually making someone want to have same sex relationships with their friends.

But as far as i know humans don't have instinctive protection from homosexual relationships, like we have it for incest (Westermarck effect). So i don't see where exactly a "huge difference" will come from if children will be taught or given examples that it's ok. It's true that Westermarck effect only prevents a sexual attraction (so a forming of a relation), but most people have a friendship relation. So what exactly will stop teenagers from converting a "friends" relation to a "friends with benefits" relation with the friends of the same gender, if they'll be taught and shown examples that it's ok?

In any case, your claim doesn't address practical examples of a much more widespread homosexual relations in certain cultures where it's considered ok.

[Aeson]

MOBIUS or Gibblets or Aeson or who ever that is needs to come up with better DLs.

Yah, I wonder who it could possibly be ...

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by a bigotted liar:

"Either it's 100% based on genes, or a same sex propaganda increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship (because it's not 100% based on genes). These are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities, and there is evidence to contrary to the first choice, so second choice is guaranteed to be true."

You are just lying. You very plainly said that if it's not 100% genes than it has to be "same sex propaganda" at work. Your "logic" was that anything not genetic must be "same sex propaganda" because those "are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities". That is obviously false, and you obviously said it, and you are obviously lying about having said it even though it's ridiculously easy for anyone to look at what you said in this thread and see that you did indeed say it.

You're a liar.

Well, given i don't see how my words can be twisted even after my explanation, i guess it's you who are liar, aren't you?

"You very plainly said that if it's not 100% genes than it has to be "same sex propaganda" at work." - exactly. That's exactly what i said, but don't omit the "increases chances" part.

Your "logic" was that anything not genetic must be "same sex propaganda" because those "are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities". - and that is not what i said for obvious reasons - i never said that "same sex propaganda" is the only factor other than genetics that "increases chances of people having a homosexual relationship".

[Aeson]

You're just continuing to lie and backpeddle from your obviously wrong statements. Just accept that your claim that, "These are two mutually exclusive choices that cover 100% of possibilities" was false. You don't have to lie, just accept reality.

The reality is that if genetics doesn't fully explain homosexuality, that doesn't determine if there is a "gay propaganda" component, because any non-genetic component could be explained by many other potential factors. You actually have to show that "gay propaganda" does affect sexual orientation if you want to support your statements that it does. You haven't done this, instead you just keep making bald-faced assertions even though your logic you first used to try to support them is clearly faulty.

[Ellestar]

You are using "gay propaganda" to describe homosexuals getting married and raising children. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing gays to marry changes childrens' sexual orientation, nor is there evidence that allowing homosexuals to adopt children changes childrens' sexual orientation. There is also no evidence that advertising changes childrens' sexual orientation. Or that it's learned in school.

So we have 3 ways to handle the issue: forbid propaganda, test it on live children to see if it's a problem or it isn't or ignore possible danger altogether (which in effect is exactly the same as testing on live children). I choose to forbid propaganda so not to endanger children, you choose to ignore the possible danger and so effectively test it on live children. You think your standing has a higher moral ground.

You're just conjecturing that because these things influence some things, they influence others. But you don't have evidence to support hat it actually changes childrens' sexual orientation. It doesn't change someone's eye color, or their height, or their gender. Why should we just assume it changes their sexual orientation?

Let me think, if campfire can cause burns, gas fire can cause burns, petrol fire can cause burns, will plastic fire cause burns? I would say there is a high chance that it will In the same way, if advertisements, parent's example and education works, then why it shouldn't work in the case of gay propaganda. I'm not sure why you force me to explain things that are obvious even to little kids...

If you see a guy with his shirt off rubbing up against another guy, does it make you gay?

Well, i saw gay sex on internet, and it didn't make me gay. But surprisingly, watching 18+ videos is restricted to 18+ people, so perhaps that may lead people with brains (requirment that excludes US citizens, i guess) to think that things related to sex may have different psychological effects on people of different ages.

If you want to expand "gay propaganda" to all influences that pertain to homosexuality, then you're not going to be able to eliminate them without genocide and suppression of free speech. Which are obviously much worse harms than even the worst conjectures you're throwing out about how homosexual marriage and parenting may be harmful.

Again that "free speech" mantra. There are enough of examples when other issues take priority over free speech, so it's not an argument.
And genocide claim is just laughable, current status quo is good enough.

I'm sure there's many theories, some seem pretty likely ... though nothing seems to be for sure. One of the more likely explanations is that homosexuality allows for more males to coexist without having compete for breeding purposes.

If there is a problem that alpha males get several females, and other males can't find a normal family, and that explains homosexuality... Then we need harems too And yeah, harems actually make sense, unlike homosexuality.

It's your argument to claim that evolution determines what is right and wrong, I just pointed out how it doesn't actually support your conclusions. Evolution can result in horrible incentives. It's not a moral or ethical compass for anyone but sociopaths.

You haven't shown any evidence that there is harm done.

As i said, i'm not a big fan of experimenting on children. But i given enough evidence of problems in similiar situations.

Homosexual couples can legally be single parent(s). You can't police it any better than you could police single mothers from broken heterosexual relationships.

It's easy enough to deny adoptions. And i wouldn't want to take their own children away from homosexual families, that's too extreme.

And you're promoting hateful rhetoric and supporting oppression that has lead to increased depression and suicide among homosexuals. You are part of the last vestiges of a horribly ugly side of humanity that has hurt many, many people for no purpose other than to hate. I truly hope for your childrens' sake (if you ever have any) that they aren't homosexual, because a father like you would likely lead to terrible problems for them. Though there is an off chance that having someone you care about be homosexual might lead you to understand that homosexuals are deserving of respect and dignity, they aren't second class citizens that should be oppressed due to ignorance and hate.

Oh come on, humanity lived with arranged marriage for thousands of years, i would argue that a number of problems related to families has increased with abolishing of arranged marriage practice. Even homosexuals can make a normal family, just like they did it for all that time before that homosexual panic.