Ukraine takes aim against 'gay propaganda'

[UglyPug]

I didn't call you a f*ggot because I think you're a ****sexual, I called you one because you're a male who's acting like a female right now getting so up in arms about something as simple as a word.

Besides, you flip flopped in this thread multiple times already so I fail to see what the implications of me using the word has on you. In your first post you came out in defense of Ukraine's stance to ban any positive depictions of ****sexuals, therefore indirectly you've alligned yourself with the position that ****sexuals are not positive people or somehow unworthy of being depicted positively in the media.

In short - You've been acting like a total f*ggot.

That's the problem - using the term "f-ggt" against somebody because they are "feminine". Or using it for any other reason to put somebody down. This perpetuates the stereotype.

I have not flip flopped on anything. I said that Ukraine has the right to prohibit gay propaganda. I never said anything about positive depictions of ****sexuals - Is said PROPAGANDA. There's a difference.

The discussion turned to the argument of gay people, being gay as a "legal status" worthy of scrutiny in the same regard that racial discrimination, or discrimination based on sex is, and the right of private businesses to refuse service to gay people. Arguing from strictly a legal perspective, I said I think private businesses should be able to, simply because "being gay" is not analogous to discriminating on the grounds of sex, or race. If somebody has affiliated their company with their religion, and their religion does not approve of ****sexuality, it's their freedom of religious expression to refuse them business.

I said my personal opinion is that it's ignorant to refuse service to somebody becuase they are gay, and it's ignorant not to allow gay people to get married.

I then went on to say that I think the best way we can help gay people achieve a better social status, and stop the bullying, and negative stereotyping of gay people, is to stop using words like "f-ggt" to insult people (ESPECIALLY if it's not for actually being gay). We first need to stop acting like being gay is wrong, or even anything important at all.

Nothing I have said been contradictory. I've simply discussed the issue in a legal perspective, as well as a personal one. And more importantly, nothing I've said has in anyway indicated that I don't like gay people, or I think there's something bad about being gay. Only the feeble-minded would draw such a conclusion.

[ßringer]

I have not flip flopped on anything. I said that Ukraine has the right to prohibit gay propaganda. I never said anything about positive depictions of ****sexuals - Is said PROPAGANDA. There's a difference.

How many times must I repeat myself here? The article said that it was to ban positive depictions of ****sexuals in the media (Making it a crime to even reference ****sexuality). You agreed with the ban therefore alligning yourself with that position.

Jesus Christ I expected more brain power from a supposed law student.

Need further proof of how ******ed the Ukranians are?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...204737552.html

That's right : Spongebob teaches kids to be ****sexuals.

[T.Horton]

Quit trying to play admin, f*ggot.

Tell that phaggot!

[!! Shawn]

Ah, yes, the case you're referring to is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US. The commerce clause (found in Article 1 of the constitution) was interpreted in this case only in a way that would prevent businesses which effect intrastate commerce from discriminating based on the civil rights act of 1964. . . The civil rights act of 1964 includes only race, religion, ethnicity, and sex, and says nothing of gay people.

The other argument raised, was that the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery, and was further interpreted to outlaw anything that "smacks" of slavery, or involuntary servitude. This amendment has nothing to do with being gay. The clear intent of the enactment of this amendment was to deal with the after-effects of the abolishment of slavery, especially in the southern United States.

Neither of these were interpreted in a way by the Supreme Court to apply to "gay people."

None of the rulings nor the amendment specified blacks or womens or any other groups. They were intentionally written broadly to protect all minority groups.

You are going to be a terrible lawyer if you don't understand these basic principles that have been the foundation of the US legal system for well over 50 years.

[Bossy]

It's pathetic that people still debate and feel they have the right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot love. People should just mind their fuking business and worry about real crimes in the world.


Making love a criminal offence in a world full of hate.

Mind = blown.

[!! Shawn]

It's pathetic that people still debate and feel they have the right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot love. People should just mind their fuking business and worry about real crimes in the world.


Making love a criminal offence in a world full of hate.

Mind = blown.

To be fair, there are some people who it should be a criminal offense for.

Like this.

[Bossy]

To be fair, there are some people who it should be a criminal offense for.

Like this.

You don't have to fuk or feed her so who cares?

To each there own, isn't it?

Why people spend so much time criticising others for their choice in partners is beyond me.

Look at Chris Brown and Rihanna, both attractive people, successful and things ... he beat the **** out of her ... that is a fuking crime.

If someone wants to love a man, woman, black, white, purple, fat, thin who cares as long as they are in a happy stable relationship.

Society is so fuked up with ideals, we spend so much time focusing on what other people tell us we should want that most people are absolutely miserable.

What kind of life is that to have?

[Underboss]

****s want to be treated equally like normal human beings now?

They shouldn't have chosen to be gay...its just too much trouble.

They don't choose to be gay, blame the female hormones developing more than their male ones.

[Underboss]

You don't have to fuk or feed her so who cares?

To each there own, isn't it?

Why people spend so much time criticising others for their choice in partners is beyond me.

Look at Chris Brown and Rihanna, both attractive people, successful and things ... he beat the **** out of her ... that is a fuking crime.

If someone wants to love a man, woman, black, white, purple, fat, thin who cares as long as they are in a happy stable relationship.

Society is so fuked up with ideals, we spend so much time focusing on what other people tell us we should want that most people are absolutely miserable.

What kind of life is that to have?

and yet she's still wanting to go back with him .

smuts will always be smuts.

[Bossy]

and yet she's still wanting to go back with him .

smuts will always be smuts.

I didn't say she was intelligent

I'm just saying, people do a lot worse to each other than simply loving someone from the same sex.

It wasn't all that long ago that 'race mixing' was punishable by death.