Gay Travel to Sochi, Russia or Yemen

[Nelyubin 0]

DanG

Quote

Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

My heterosexual marriage has produced no offspring, nor can it. So same-sex relationships are equivalent to my relationship. Should I not be allowed to talk about my marriage in front of children?

You then an exception that proves the rule.

[Andy9o8 0]

Nelyubin

Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

In view of adoption (among other things), your statement is patently idiotic. In any language.

[DanG 1]

Quote

You then an exception that proves the rule.

That phrase makes to sense in this context.

There are many, many, heterosexual unions which don't produce offspring (older people, infertile people, people who've had vasectomies or tubal ligations, people who just don't want kids). If the moral superiority of heterosexual union comes from making babies, why isn't it illegal in Russia to discuss those kinds of unions?

- Dan G

[Nelyubin 0]

Thus you don't consider that heterosexual marriages have a superiority over the same-sex.
Did I get you right?

[normiss 622]

Your reading comprehension could use some improvements.

[Nelyubin 0]

Excuse but you didn't ask.
That to say no in essence, hold the jokes for snotty girls.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Thus you don't consider that heterosexual marriages have a superiority over the same-sex.

No, nor do I consider it any business of the government.

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

I have no clue what that means.

[Nelyubin 0]

Then why do you think a valid superiority propaganda same-sex relationships?

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Nelyubin

Then why do you think a valid superiority propaganda same-sex relationships?

So let me get this straight...either a hetrosexual relationship is superior to a homosexual one, or a homosexual relationship is superior to a hetrosexual one?

They can't be say....equal in superiority (or inferiority)?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Then why do you think a valid superiority propaganda same-sex relationships?

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase it?

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

Nelyubin

Thus you don't consider that heterosexual marriages have a superiority over the same-sex.
Did I get you right?

Look above in the thread and this follows - I'd say, I don't care as long as people get to decide for themselves and don't tell me what to think or do for myself (or others for that matter)

- it seems some are ok with that
- others want me to care one very sternly in way or the other or I'm not evolved enough (or devolved enough depending on whether my stern opinion agrees or disagrees with them)

meh

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rickjump1 0]

Andy9o8

***Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

In view of adoption (among other things), your statement is patently idiotic. In any language. Perhaps he was saying that same-sex relationships do not procreate or produce offspring. It's a biological impossibility. Nothing idiotic here, and not all couples, regardless of sexual orientation , qualify to adopt.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Stumpy 256]

rickjump1

******Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

In view of adoption (among other things), your statement is patently idiotic. In any language. Perhaps he was saying that same-sex relationships do not procreate or produce offspring. It's a biological impossibility. Nothing idiotic here, and not all couples, regardless of sexual orientation , qualify to adopt.

Its a biological impossibility for a number of heterosexual couples to procreate as well, yet no-one is aiming to prevent those people from marrying.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rickjump1 0]

Stumpy

*********Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

In view of adoption (among other things), your statement is patently idiotic. In any language. Perhaps he was saying that same-sex relationships do not procreate or produce offspring. It's a biological impossibility. Nothing idiotic here, and not all couples, regardless of sexual orientation , qualify to adopt.

Its a biological impossibility for a number of heterosexual couples to procreate as well, yet no-one is aiming to prevent those people from marrying. That's true, but it's the heterosexual couples that can procreate that do keep the human race going.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Stumpy 256]

rickjump1

************Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

In view of adoption (among other things), your statement is patently idiotic. In any language. Perhaps he was saying that same-sex relationships do not procreate or produce offspring. It's a biological impossibility. Nothing idiotic here, and not all couples, regardless of sexual orientation , qualify to adopt.

Its a biological impossibility for a number of heterosexual couples to procreate as well, yet no-one is aiming to prevent those people from marrying. That's true, but it's the heterosexual couples that can procreate that do keep the human race going.

So do you think those that can't procreate should be prevented from getting married?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Nelyubin 0]

Gone far from the topic.
Shortly.
If the purpose of the trip visiting the Olympics, there is not any problems.
If the purpose of the trip public demonstration and campaigning for sexual orientation, the problems will be.
Good or bad, is another question.

[davjohns 1]

DanG

Quote

Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

My heterosexual marriage has produced no offspring, nor can it. So same-sex relationships are equivalent to my relationship. Should I not be allowed to talk about my marriage in front of children?

Well...not your own.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Stumpy

***************Same-sex relationships do not give offspring.

In view of adoption (among other things), your statement is patently idiotic. In any language. Perhaps he was saying that same-sex relationships do not procreate or produce offspring. It's a biological impossibility. Nothing idiotic here, and not all couples, regardless of sexual orientation , qualify to adopt.

Its a biological impossibility for a number of heterosexual couples to procreate as well, yet no-one is aiming to prevent those people from marrying. That's true, but it's the heterosexual couples that can procreate that do keep the human race going.

So do you think those that can't procreate should be prevented from getting married?

Personally, I'm looking around at those who have procreated in the US recently. Any claim of superiority is lost amidst the screaming in my mind...

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

OH! Look at that! Nigeria has now passed anti-gay legislation. With that bastion of freedom against it, it must be bad, right?

And the rest of their society is so Utopian that the legislators had nothing better to tinker with than what people do in their bedrooms.

Wow.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Nelyubin 0]

In USA only last year to repeal the law against gays. And already started to teach others what they should do.

[davjohns 1]

I have long been against legislating what people are allowed to do in their bedrooms.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

In USA only last year to repeal the law against gays. And already started to teach others what they should do.

It was not illegal to talk about being gay in the US.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

Stumpy

So do you think those that can't procreate should be prevented from getting married?

What do you mean by 'married'

1 - just the ceremony or act of becoming partners? (I don't care one bit about that at all)

2 - the government set of benefits that we all have to pay for or support as a matter of law that's been attached to #1 (this is the only thing really that people should worry about)


as for #2:
the solution is easy - If the government wants to meddle in people's lives and give benefits that accrue to child bearing relationships......(which I also think is none of their business)....

they should skip the middle step (social manipulation) of giving benefits to couples that may or may not produce children, and only give those benefits to couples that ACTUALLY HAVE PRODUCED CHILDREN.

You want kids in society, then the money follows the kids, not the parents (or the schools, etc etc etc).

This is the problem with how idiots approach social agendas - they do things by inference, rather than reality. (i.e., if we fiddle with A, then maybe via things that will then happen to B, C and D, maybe our problem with E might be fixed - in the meantime BCD get rich or screwed.

I'm a bigger fan of just going after E directly. You want these benefits? too bad, just getting married won't do it, you actually have to procreate first)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

It was not illegal to talk about being gay in the US.

"This" deprived parts of the rights and freedoms on the basis of sexual orientation.