# Russia gives the Sims 4 an "Adults Only" rating



## Gahars (May 10, 2014)

After much argument and dis-Putin, the Russia ratings board has designated the Sims 4 to be an "Adults Only" title, completely prohibited for sale to those under 18.

Why? What's so saucy about the Sims? Is it the door-deleting, house-burning gameplay? The vulgar Simlish? Well, actually....



> The Russian Federation has placed an 18+ rating on the upcoming release of The Sims 4, marking the game as "prohibited for children" *due to a controversial law restricting the promotion of same-sex relationships to minors*.
> 
> News of the rating comes via a tweet from the official Sims Russia account, which was later followed up with an explanation to a curious player. "18+ [rating] has been assigned in accordance with the law number 436-FZ 'On the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development,'" the tweet reads (via Google Translate).
> 
> That law, passed in September of 2012, has already drawn widespread controversy around the world for seemingly criminalizing the mere mention of a person's own sexual orientation and encouraging violence against Russia's LGBT community.


Arstechnica
[prebreak]Continue Reading[/prebreak]
"Remember, no homo."

So, yeah, it's Russia being Russia yet again. I never would've guessed that we'd have the Sims, of all things, rated alongside titles like Grand Theft Auto but, hey, there ya go.

Now, let's have a calm, pleasant discussion in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

Appropriate. Nobody should play The Sims 4*.



*With the rare exception of trained professionals who do it for comedy streams, god bless those brave souls who subject themselves to a game that has no "game" in it.


Spoiler








Google it.


----------



## AlanJohn (May 10, 2014)

Doesn't matter really. Nobody cares about age ratings in easturn europe.


----------



## Arras (May 10, 2014)

Eh. When I saw the title I already knew this would be the reason.


----------



## Hop2089 (May 10, 2014)

Piracy will circumvent this problem.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

Hop2089 said:


> Piracy will circumvent this problem.


I don't really see this as a _"problem"_ to begin with - Russia has a conservative stance on same-sex relationships so they rated the game appropriately in regards to their own law. For all intents and purposes, they're actually lenient here since they could've demanded that same-sex relationships are to be removed from the game altogether or else it won't be released at all. Australia and Germany ban ultraviolent games because they go against their social rulesboard, this is the exact same case.


----------



## Celice (May 10, 2014)

man fuck the rest of the world that's not America, am i right


----------



## Reploid (May 10, 2014)

Всё равно это ни на что не повлияет. Meh.


----------



## Super.Nova (May 10, 2014)

I'd still give it "Sadists Only" if it was up to me


----------



## calmwaters (May 10, 2014)

Why is this important again? People are upset their elders won't let them play an adult-only game because they're teenagers? Then again, most older people don't care about what their young people play. At least you have to show a picture ID showing you're over 18 if you want to get into a brothel or a XXX store. Of course, you could always _lie_ by making a fake ID, but that's not acceptable behaviour in most societies. Listen to me, moralizing on a *cough cough* pirates' site.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Why is this important again? People are upset their elders won't let them play an adult-only game because they're teenagers? Then again, most older people don't care about what their young people play. At least you have to show a picture ID showing you're over 18 if you want to *get into a brothel* or a XXX store. Of course, *you could always lie by making a fake ID*, but that's not acceptable behaviour in most societies. Listen to me, moralizing on a *cough cough* *pirates' site.*


Faking ID's is not _"unacceptable behaviour in most societies"_, it's _illegal_, it's a felony. Forgery is punishable by imprisonment. Prostitution isn't legal either in most civilized countries either, both on the provider's and the client's side of things. Your suggestions are literally more illegal than just downloading the game. That, and GBATemp is not a _"pirates' site"_, we haven't dealt with pirated content since the GBA days.


----------



## nl255 (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Faking ID's is not _"unacceptable behaviour in most societies"_, it's _illegal_, it's a felony. Forgery is punishable by imprisonment. Prostitution isn't legal either in most civilized countries either, both on the provider and the client's side of things. Your suggestions are literally more illegal than just downloading the game. That, and GBATemp is not a _"pirates' site"_, we haven't dealt with pirated content since the GBA days.


 
Not necessarily.  For example, in Australia importing a banned game is no different than importing a machine gun or explosives and is quite a bit more illegal than forging an ID.  There are different kinds of felonies (or equivalent) and some are worse than others.  In fact, in some places possession of that game by any means is punishable by death.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

nl255 said:


> Not necessarily. For example, in Australia importing a banned game is no different than importing a machine gun or explosives and is quite a bit more illegal than forging an ID. There are different kinds of felonies (or equivalent) and some are worse than others. In fact, in some places possession of that game by any means is punishable by death.


You misunderstood what I _actually_ said. What I said is that forgery is considered _a felony and a criminal offense_, so is _prostitution_ often times, wheras illegally downloading copyrighted content for personal use _(not distribution)_ is most often considered _petty crime_ or a _minor offense_. You will get into infinitely trouble more commiting the first two in comparison to the latter. That, and you missed the _"civilized countries"_ part of my post - in a civilized country you will not get the death penalty for owning a video game, no matter what that game might be.

As far as Australia is concerned, importing banned goods is not an offense as severe as forgery of officially issued documentation. In the case of video games it ends with seizing the item in question and in the event that the item poses some sort of danger or breaks the Australian law _then_ there might be prosecution involved. This is not the case with video games, so it would probably end with seizing the item, destroying it and dropping the charges.


----------



## Magnus87 (May 10, 2014)

Mabybe with new rating. It could be include more things than "teen stuff"


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 10, 2014)

Well, I could see kids if very young kids (too young to be playing the Sims anyway), played they could get the wrong ideas about how sex is usually performed.


----------



## bluejon (May 10, 2014)

Wow...these laws are just getting so much better...why should a persons orientation determine a damn rating of "Adults Only" like if there isn't gay teens over there or even kids...people need to develop some brain cells...


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 10, 2014)

If only this were what Russians had to be worried about.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

bluejon said:


> Wow...these laws are just getting so much better...why should a persons orientation determine a damn rating of "Adults Only" like if there isn't gay teens over there or even kids...people need to develop some brain cells...


Children don't have a _"sexual orientation"_ - interest in matters of sexuality develops through the process of puberty. For all intents and purposes, a child doesn't have a sexuality to speak of. Sexual orientation does have some biological roots, this much is correct, but it does not surface earlier than puberty.

Again, Russia is a conservative country. Along the rules of behaviourism they believe that _"promoting"_ homosexuality leads to crippling the developing sexuality of minors and as such they consider it inappropriate material... and by _"promoting"_ they understand _"featuring in any shape or form"_. Whether we like it or not, that's their law and they feel comfortable with it.


----------



## bluejon (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Children don't have a _"sexual orientation"_ - interest in matters of sexuality develops through the process of puberty. For all intents and purposes, a child doesn't have a sexuality to speak of. Sexual orientation does have some biological roots, this much is correct, but it does not surface earlier than puberty.
> 
> Again, Russia is a conservative country. Along the rules of behaviourism they believe that _"promoting"_ homosexuality leads to crippling the developing sexuality of minors and as such they consider it inappropriate material... and by _"promoting"_ they understand _"featuring in any shape or form"_. Whether we like it or not, that's their law and they feel comfortable with it.


 
I disagree with your first comment because I know a couple of kids that are not attracted to the opposite sex


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

bluejon said:


> I disagree with your first comment because I know a couple of kids that are not attracted to the opposite sex


No kid is attracted to the opposite or otherwise because they don't have sexual attraction at all - arousal requires hormones that stimulate libido, they are not present in the body in sufficient quantity to trigger it during childhood because the glands that produce them have not matured yet. A child needs to reach sexual maturity to even understand the concept. You can disagree with me, but this is biology - you're arguing against scientific fact.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Prostitution isn't legal either in most civilized countries either, both on the provider and the client's side of things.



Granted we now have to debate what a civilised country is, not to mention the underlying point still stands, but I am not sure of the numbers there. A quick search says the numbers probably skew over 50% in favour of legal
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, a lot of Europe and Japan have some pretty lax laws, I would include the US but it is mainly certain counties within Nevada and it feels a bit like reaching to include the rest of the country.



Ericthegreat said:


> Well, I could see kids if very young kids (too young to be playing the Sims anyway), played they could get the wrong ideas about how sex is usually performed.


You mean you do not fill up an imaginary bar with gifts, persistence and pleasant conversation?.... that would explain a few things.


----------



## bluejon (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> No kid is attracted to the opposite sex or otherwise because they don't have sexual attraction at all - arousal requires hormones which are not present in the body in sufficient quantity to trigger it. A child needs to reach sexual maturity to even understand the concept. You can disagree with me, but this is biology - you're arguing against scientific fact.


 
Still disagree you could like a person without being sexually attracted to them...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

bluejon said:


> Still disagree you could like a person without being sexually attracted to them...


This is not about _"liking"_ someone, the whole conversation is about sexuality. I like cats but I'm not going to marry one.

All around the world _"boys play with boys"_ and _"girls play with girls"_, and that's not because every single child in the world is gay, it's because they have not developed the attraction towards the opposite sex, or any attraction to any sex at all for that matter. They don't play with each other for one main reason- because they see the differences between each other _(boys wear blue, girls wear pink, boys wear trousers, girls wear skirts, boys play with cars, girls play with dolls etc.)_ and consider that to be a symbol of classification into groups that they should stick to _(humans have a natural drive to create collectives on the basis of similarity)_, that is the social construct they live in and it's sort of our fault because we adults created it and maintain it.

It's when biology steps in when this changes and boys become interested in girls and vice-versa, even if they don't quite understand why that's the case. Sure, you get the rare boyfriend-girlfriend kinds of relationship even with really young children, but those are based on emulation of pre-existing relationships they've seen _(playing "house")_ and not sexual attraction, the basis of relationships of older teens and adults.


----------



## bluejon (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> This is not about _"liking"_ someone, the whole conversation is about sexuality. I like cats but I'm not going to marry one.
> 
> All around the world _"boys play with boys"_ and _"girls play with girls"_, and that's not because every single child in the world is gay, it's because they have not developed the attraction towards the opposite sex, or any attraction to any sex at all for that matter. They don't play with each other for one main reason- because they see the differences between each other _(boys wear blue, girls wear pink, boys wear trousers, girls wear skirts, boys play with cars, girls play with dolls etc.)_ and consider that to be a symbol of classification into groups that they should stick to _(humans have a natural drive to create collectives on the basis of similarity)_, that is the social construct they live in and it's sort of our fault because we adults created it and maintain it.
> 
> It's when biology steps in when this changes and boys become interested in girls and vice-versa, even if they don't quite understand why that's the case. Sure, you get the rare boyfriend-girlfriend kinds of relationship even with really young children, but those are based on emulation of pre-existing relationships they've seen _(playing "house")_ and not sexual attraction, the basis of relationships of older teens and adults.



I understand what you're saying but I don't completely agree...There are some that break this "rule" and other factors that play into this besides the basic understanding of what everyone thinks especially what you're stating...you should do your own field research instead of quoting others...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

bluejon said:


> I understand what you're saying but I don't completely agree...There are some that break this "rule" and other factors that play into this besides the basic understanding of what everyone thinks especially what you're stating...you should do your own field research instead of quoting others...


Yes, there are some kids that do play with other kids of the opposite sex and yes, there are kids that play exclusively with kids of their own sex - this is not a black and white distinction, it's a gradable spectrum with numerous variables to it. For example, I would wager that children who have siblings of the opposite sex _(and good relations with them)_ are more keen on integrating with children of the opposite sex in other environments _(at least if peer pressure doesn't stand in the way)_, but I'd have to look for some research on that matter before stating it as fact.

I've got plenty of experience with children, I've had children psychology as a course in university _(I'm on a teacher's programme after all)_ and I've clocked several hours teaching English and Computer Science in my local primary as a part of work experience - I've met a lot of kids, I got to observe what they do on breaks and I know what I'm talking about.

Thing is, you cannot base your claims solely on personal experience - that's circumstancial and anecdotal evidence. Not only that, there's a myriad of development anomalies that can occur which may trigger an early onset of puberty, but those cases are rare and don't really reflect the general rule. You need to have a more all-encompasing look on the matter, read some related literature and delve into the scientific studies, this is a hightly active field in psychology, there's plenty of material to go by. I'm merely giving you the general rule of how this thing works.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 10, 2014)

Hold the phone, people still care about The Sims series? I thought this game had no relevancy and people, you know, moved on to better games? As far as I'm concerned, the less people that have access to this game, the better; we don't need such tripe games. People seem to be willing to trust EA/Maxis after the Sim City fiasco


----------



## calmwaters (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> No kid is attracted to the opposite sex or otherwise because they don't have sexual attraction at all - arousal requires hormones that stimulate libido, they are not present in the body in sufficient quantity to trigger it during childhood because the glands that produce them have not matured yet. A child needs to reach sexual maturity to even understand the concept. You can disagree with me, but this is biology - you're arguing against scientific fact.


 
I know 12 year old boys that enjoy thumbing through Playboy magazines to look at the hot chicks in there. Just because the glands haven't matured yet doesn't mean they're not there. When you were a child, were you attracted to members of the opposite sex? (Stupid question, sorry) But I highly doubt you'd reached sexual maturity at this point in your life.


----------



## paulfalcon (May 10, 2014)

Well, back when I was a child, I fell into that catergory of hanging out with only boys, even though, there was a girl or two I talked to. But, these days, I see kids getting a bit more weird... wanting girl friends, making their own assumptions about sex, and the like. I never even knew about the word sex at their age but, now, with how our society constantly talks and jokes about sex and these kids are constantly bombarded with it in their early developmental stages, I believe it's only harming a child's growth. Being a guy, this might sound weird but, there is more to life than sex or sexual orientation. So, I agree with Russia, not because of just the gay-implementation but, the fact that kids shouldn't play games that feature sex... or in this case, "Woo-hoo", period.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> I know 12 year old boys that enjoy thumbing through Playboy magazines to look at the hot chicks in there. Just because the glands haven't matured yet doesn't mean they're not there. When you were a child, were you attracted to members of the opposite sex? (Stupid question, sorry) But I highly doubt you'd reached sexual maturity at this point in your life.


Boys enter puberty between the age of 11 and 12 on average, I'm not really surprised that they're pawing through Playboys at that age if given the chance, neither would I be surprised if they were pawing at something else while at it, if you catch my drift. 11-12 is the initial stage, so the glands are very much there and they are active although not fully matured, that's when the interest begins to surface as you say. Show the same material to a 6-7 year old and it's likely that the boy will just be confused _(metaphorical figure, don't do that, it's probably illegal)_.


paulfalcon said:


> Well, back when I was a child, I fell into that catergory of hanging out with only boys, even though, there was a girl or two I talked to. But, these days, I see kids getting a bit more weird... wanting girl friends, making their own assumptions about sex, and the like. I never even knew about the word sex at their age but, now, with how our society constantly talks and jokes about sex and these kids are constantly bombarded with it in their early developmental stages, I believe it's only harming a child's growth. Being a guy, this might sound weird but, there is more to life than sex or sexual orientation. So, I agree with Russia, not because of just the gay-implementation but, the fact that kids shouldn't play games that feature sex... or in this case, "Woo-hoo", period.


The media children have access to are getting more and more sexualized so it's natural that even children who have absolutely no concept of what sex or sexuality is wish to emulate behaviours they've observed. Not only that, science shows that humans as a species enter sexual maturation earlier and earlier with each generation. Whether this kind of behaviour early on in a child's life is good or not is a subject to debate - Russians think it's not so they have law that reflects that.


----------



## paulfalcon (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4: And I agree with that. Kids should be worried about things like doing the math, learning words to better express themselves, and finding out why water is so vital to everyone and the environment. Learning about their sexual organs can come later.


----------



## tofast4u (May 10, 2014)

What people don't understand is being Gay is more of a cultural thing.  People become gay because its in our media and its becoming an accepted thing in the west.  Russian's have a different mind set regarding this, most Russians if you ask them don't accept homosexuals.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

tofast4u said:


> What people don't understand is being Gay is more of a cultural thing. People become gay because its in our media and its becoming an accepted thing in the west. Russian's have a different mind set regarding this, most Russians if you ask them don't accept homosexuals.


_"Being gay"_ is a result of both sociological _and_ biological factors - you can't help it if you're gay, you're just gay. Thing is, Russia tries to nullify the social imprint homosexuality has on the society, fearing that people might start emulating homosexual behaviour, gay acceptance is indeed very low, so I can see why the game would be rated this way if it contains homosexual _"options"_. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time, even in ancient civilizations, the only difference is the level of social acceptance it's met with.


----------



## tofast4u (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> _"Being gay"_ is a result of both sociological _and_ biological factors - you can't help it if you're gay, you're just gay. Thing is, Russia tries to nullify the social imprint homosexuality has on the society, fearing that people might start emulating homosexual behaviour, gay acceptance is indeed very low, so I can see why the game would be rated this way if it contains homosexual _"options"_. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time, even in ancient civilizations, the only difference is the level of social acceptance it's met with.


Don't you think that because of it being socially accepted many people choose to do that?  I know many people that were "gay" and then when they grow up and become a little more mature they aren't anymore.  I also know many girls from high school that wanted to experiment but they weren't really gay because now they aren't.


----------



## nl255 (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You misunderstood what I _actually_ said. What I said is that forgery is considered _a felony and a criminal offense_, so is _prostitution_ often times, wheras illegally downloading copyrighted content for personal use _(not distribution)_ is most often considered _petty crime_ or a _minor offense_. You will get into infinitely trouble more commiting the first two in comparison to the latter. That, and you missed the _"civilized countries"_ part of my post - in a civilized country you will not get the death penalty for owning a video game, no matter what that game might be.
> 
> As far as Australia is concerned, importing banned goods is not an offense as severe as forgery of officially issued documentation. In the case of video games it ends with seizing the item in question and in the event that the item poses some sort of danger or breaks the Australian law _then_ there might be prosecution involved. This is not the case with video games, so it would probably end with seizing the item, destroying it and dropping the charges.


 
Wrong.  Importing any contraband item, from a video game to high explosives violates Australian law and is punishable by 10 years in prison.  Do not confuse unwillingness to prosecute with what the law actually says.  Oh, and mere possession of such games does violate Australian law in several places there.  so the question is can you get 10 years for forging an ID card?  If not then it is actually more illegal to import (and importation does include piracy, btw) than to forge your ID.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 10, 2014)

tofast4u said:


> Don't you think that because of it being socially accepted many people choose to do that?



You can have one sexuality and practice another (see also various religious orders that practice celibacy), however it rarely makes for the best results in psychological terms. To that end yeah increased social acceptance probably saw more people become practising homosexuals, and that is a good thing.


Anyway back to laughing at silly laws of places all around the world and their knockon effects.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

nl255 said:


> Wrong. Importing any contraband item, from a video game to high explosives violates Australian law and is punishable by 10 years in prison. Do not confuse unwillingness to prosecute with what the law actually says. Oh, and mere possession of such games does violate Australian law in several places there. so the question is can you get 10 years for forging an ID card? If not then it is actually more illegal to import (and importation does include piracy, btw) than to forge your ID.


I would argue whether or not piracy could be considered import, but that's besides the point.

Maximim penalties for forgery of documents is 10 years, for possessing equipment used for forging identification documents is 7 years, for possession of forged documents is another 10 years and on top of possession you would also face prosecution due to the use of your false documents in order to purchase an item that would normally be illegal for you, which is fraud on top of forgery. Here's a monograph: http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/public...raphs-1/research-monograph-37/Monograph37.pdf


tofast4u said:


> Don't you think that because of it being socially accepted many people choose to do that? I know many people that were "gay" and then when they grow up and become a little more mature they aren't anymore. I also know many girls from high school that wanted to experiment but they weren't really gay because now they aren't.


Social acceptance allows more people to come out of the closet. It _could_ have a negative impact on those who are still developing their sexuality _(due to the social influence, but proving this would require medical trials, I have not seen reaserch that conclusively proves or disproves this)_, but those who are long past puberty and are gay are just gay and there's nothing they can do about it other than either conceal it or accept it.


----------



## calmwaters (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Boys enter puberty between the age of 11 and 12 on average, I'm not really surprised that they're pawing through Playboys at that age if given the chance, neither would I be surprised if they were pawing at something else while at it, if you catch my drift. 11-12 is the initial stage, so the glands are very much there and they are active although not fully matured, that's when the interest begins to surface as you say. Show the same material to a 6-7 year old and it's likely that the boy will just be confused _(metaphorical figure, don't do that, it's probably illegal)_.


Oh yeah, a six year old won't get as much interest out of a Playboy as a 12 year old; their level of sexuality hasn't grown to that point. And going back to your earlier statement about no kid being attracted to the opposite sex: a 6, maybe even a 4 year old boy loves his mother. Love, attraction, pretty much synonyms, if you get my meaning. But then that kid develops a social life (e.g. kindergarten) and comes into contact with other girls. Awwww...  and some boys develop crushes on those little girls.  But the point in a boy's life when he wants to start *having* sex with those girls starts around puberty and that feeling stays with him for pretty much the rest of his life.


----------



## DinohScene (May 10, 2014)

I honestly thought Russia would at first ban the sale of the Sims 4.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> I honestly thought Russia would at first ban the sale of the Sims 4.


I thought so too. _"Promoting homosexuality"_ is downright illegal there, they're being terribly lenient this time around.


----------



## DinohScene (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I thought so too. _"Promoting homosexuality"_ is downright illegal there, they're being terribly lenient this time around.


 
A bit to lenient, seeing it is Putin we're talking about ._.
Putin finally came to its senses?
Or is he secretly planning to pump the profits from the sales into the Ukraine crisis?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> A bit to lenient, seeing it is Putin we're talking about ._.
> Putin finally came to its senses?
> Or is he secretly planning to pump the profits from the sales into the Ukraine crisis?


Putin will never _"come to his senses"_ because I don't think he's ever _"left"_ them - he's simply thinking in completely different categories to those common in western culture. I don't think he's stupid, I think he simply has a strong inclination towards establishing dictatorship _(or rather "maintain it"_,_ judging by the Russian political scene)_.


----------



## Gahars (May 10, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> A bit to lenient, seeing it is Putin we're talking about ._.
> Putin finally came to its senses?
> Or is he secretly planning to pump the profits from the sales into the Ukraine crisis?


 

Well, let's not pretend that Putin has anything to do with this particular decision. He's focused on more... pertinent matters.


----------



## DinohScene (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Putin will never _"come to his senses"_ because I don't think he's ever _"left"_ them - he's simply thinking in completely different categories to those common in western culture. I don't think he's stupid, I think he simply has a strong inclination towards establishing dictatorship _(or rather "maintain it"_,_ judging by the Russian political scene)_.


 
Maintaining it would be the better term indeed.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Oh yeah, a six year old won't get as much interest out of a Playboy as a 12 year old; their level of sexuality hasn't grown to that point. And going back to your earlier statement about no kid being attracted to the opposite sex: a 6, maybe even a 4 year old boy loves his mother. Love, attraction, pretty much synonyms, if you get my meaning. But then that kid develops a social life (e.g. kindergarten) and comes into contact with other girls. Awwww...  and some boys develop crushes on those little girls.  But the point in a boy's life when he wants to start having sex with those girls starts around puberty and that feeling stays with him for pretty much the rest of his life.


Of course a little boy loves his mom - it's his mom, that has nothing to do with her being a woman, she might as well be an elephant, really. As far as kindergarden is concerned, I touched upon that - it's emulation of pre-existing patterns, it's playing house more so than actual relationships. To conclude on my end, the life of a boy is divided into a few basic sections with titles as follows: _"I don't know what a boner is", "I have a boner but I don't understand why", "I have a boner and I understand why", "I have a boner and I have to do something about it immediately", "I have a boner and you should do something about it, baby" _and_ "I don't have boners anymore... maybe it's for the better, my back pain is killing me... stop bothering me, whipper-snapper!"._


----------



## bluejon (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes, there are some kids that do play with other kids of the opposite sex and yes, there are kids that play exclusively with kids of their own sex - this is not a black and white distinction, it's a gradable spectrum with numerous variables to it. For example, I would wager that children who have siblings of the opposite sex _(and good relations with them)_ are more keen on integrating with children of the opposite sex in other environments _(at least if peer pressure doesn't stand in the way)_, but I'd have to look for some research on that matter before stating it as fact.
> 
> I've got plenty of experience with children, I've had children psychology as a course in university _(I'm on a teacher's programme after all)_ and I've clocked several hours teaching English and Computer Science in my local primary as a part of work experience - I've met a lot of kids, I got to observe what they do on breaks and I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Thing is, you cannot base your claims solely on personal experience - that's circumstancial and anecdotal evidence. Not only that, there's a myriad of development anomalies that can occur which may trigger an early onset of puberty, but those cases are rare and don't really reflect the general rule. You need to have a more all-encompasing look on the matter, read some related literature and delve into the scientific studies, this is a hightly active field in psychology, there's plenty of material to go by. I'm merely giving you the general rule of how this thing works.



Regardless you could be Einstein for all I know but like I said some don't fall into it and when you said "Rare" I lost interest in this convo. ..


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

bluejon said:


> Regardless you could be Einstein for all I know but like I said some don't fall into it and when you said "Rare" I lost interest in this convo. ..


That's... not really my fault. I'm definitely not Einstein, I'm merely giving you my stance on the matter and supporting my argument. Besides, I've already said what I had to say, hence the post above. The only advice I gave you was to look into the research side of things rather than assuming on the sole basis of personal experience.


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> That's... not really my fault. I'm definitely not Einstein, I'm merely giving you my stance on the matter and supporting my argument. Besides, I've already said what I had to say, hence the post above. The only advice I gave you was to look into the research side of things rather than assuming on the sole basis of personal experience.


 
Can't be helped if some people refuse to listen either


----------



## calmwaters (May 10, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Of course a little boy loves his mom - it's his mom, that has nothing to do with her being a woman, she might as well be an elephant, really. As far as kindergarden is concerned, I touched upon that - it's emulation of pre-existing patterns, it's playing house more so than actual relationships. To conclude on my end, the life of a boy is divided into a few basic sections with titles as follows: _"I don't know what a boner is", "I have a boner but I don't understand why", "I have a boner and I understand why", "I have a boner and I have to do something about it immediately", "I have a boner and you should do something about it, baby" _and_ "I don't have boners anymore... maybe it's for the better, my back pain is killing me... stop bothering me, whipper-snapper!"._


 
I wonder if a baby elephant would love his mom, even if she were human or even a snake... however, "playing house" is still a relationship. It's not the type you have with your girlfriend (at least I think you have one) or even your classmates, but they're two people interacting with each other. I'm not going to describe the relationship between your computer and your keyboard; I'm just using this as an example of a non-human relationship. Oh, and I know about a boy's stages of life. Finally, some knowledge we share in common.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

Ericthegreat said:


> Can't be helped if some people refuse to listen either


We live in free countries _(for the most part)_, freedom of speech comes with freedom of having different opinions and thank god it does - it brews interesting and fruitful discussions. 


calmwaters said:


> I wonder if a baby elephant would love his mom, even if she were human or even a snake... however, "playing house" is still a relationship. It's not the type you have with your girlfriend (at least I think you have one) or even your classmates, but they're two people interacting with each other. I'm not going to describe the relationship between your computer and your keyboard; I'm just using this as an example of a non-human relationship. Oh, and I know about a boy's stages of life. Finally, some knowledge we share in common.


Of course it is a relationship, so is friendship or kinship - by _"relationship"_ I obviously meant the _"life partners"_ style which implies sexual attraction of some kind. 

An adopted child loves his/her adoptive mother regardless of whether she is the actual biological parent simply because the mother plays a parental role _(plus the child usually isn't informed about this state of matters until much later in his/her life)_, I don't think the species would be a massive giveaway until the child matures enough to notice and understand visual cues - the same goes to elephants, a highly intelligent species by the way.

As for having something in common, finding common ground is the whole point of having discussions _(on top of exchanging information, of course)_.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 10, 2014)

> *due to a controversial law restricting the promotion of same-sex relationships to minors*.


 
An 18 and above ? I wonder if this game is only for straight relationship and will it remain an 18 and above ? I doubt. They sound really silly. A same sex relationship is natural and its normal. Nothing's wrong with that. Jeez. This America is weird. Most Europe, they do not care about the rating mature.


----------



## tofast4u (May 10, 2014)

Check out Piagets stages


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2014)

bearmon2010 said:


> An 18 and above ? I wonder if this game is only for straight relationship and will it remain an 18 and above ? I doubt. They sound really silly. A same sex relationship is natural and its normal. Nothing's wrong with that. Jeez. This America is weird. Most Europe, they do not care about the rating mature.


The article_ is not about America, it's about Russia_. Whether a same sex relationship is natural or not is a matter of how you approach the subject - they occur naturally in both humans and animals alike, however that doesn't change the fact that we have two sexes, they're both required to reproduce, that's just how we _"work"_. Of course here we're touching upon the subject of what a relationship is and slowly nearing the deep and muddy area of what a marriage is, so we should probably avoid going down that path. 



tofast4u said:


> Check out Piagets stages


Piaget describes stages of cognition development, psychosexual development was Freud's field, accuracy of the theories aside.


----------



## Gahars (May 10, 2014)

bearmon2010 said:


> An 18 and above ? I wonder if this game is only for straight relationship and will it remain an 18 and above ? I doubt. They sound really silly. A same sex relationship is natural and its normal. Nothing's wrong with that.


 
Of course someone named "bear mon" would say that. 



bearmon2010 said:


> Jeez. This America is weird. Most Europe, they do not care about the rating mature.


 

America is Russia now? The Gipper and I have some strong words about that.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 10, 2014)

Okay, America and Russia are weird. LOL! I am kidding.


----------



## AlexeySinitsyn (May 10, 2014)

Guys, it's just rating system, calm down. They can't do anything, when law restricts promotion of same sex relationship to minors. And this is all bought promotion to minors. They doesn't prohibit you to be gay/lesbian. Also, there are many same-sex relationship pairs in Russia.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 11, 2014)

bearmon2010 said:


> Most Europe, they do not care about the rating mature.


 
Aren't you forgetting about the lovely PEGI?

I have nothing against PEGI and prefer PEGI over the old rating but it's just because it looks cooler.


----------



## Nah3DS (May 11, 2014)

people still plays the Sims?


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 11, 2014)

So, they don't want minors going around screwing people of the same sex, but of the opposite sex, it's okay. I guess that's just minors being minors.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 11, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Aren't you forgetting about the lovely PEGI?
> 
> I have nothing against PEGI and prefer PEGI over the old rating but it's just because it looks cooler.


 
Oh yes.. I understand what you mean.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 11, 2014)

AlanJohn said:


> Doesn't matter really. Nobody cares about age ratings in easturn europe.


 

Does anybody care about Age Ratings?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 11, 2014)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> Does anybody care about Age Ratings?


Store managers do.


----------



## SickPuppy (May 11, 2014)

Maybe they need a LGBT rating on the games that need it, so I know what games not to buy.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 11, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Store managers do.


 

" You're 13 and i won't sell you COD! " No one ever said.... welp here at least.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 11, 2014)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> " You're 13 and i won't sell you COD! " No one ever said.... welp here at least.


I was 22 when a store clerk refused to sell Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 to me because I forgot my ID. And no, I don't look child-like.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 11, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I was 22 when a store clerk refused to sell Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 to me because I forgot my ID. And no, I don't look child-like.


 

I look younger than i am and no one asks me for ID or anything when i buy stuff ;O;
Once they asked when i wanted to play Bingo ;o;


----------



## Foxi4 (May 11, 2014)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> I look younger than i am and no one asks me ;O;


My sister's 29 and she still gets asked for an ID when she buys cigarettes, it's hilarious.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 11, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> My sister's 29 and she still gets asked for an ID when she buys cigarettes, it's hilarious.


 

The gift of being young forever, it will be good in the 40s.


----------



## lokomelo (May 11, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I was 22 when a store clerk refused to sell Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 to me because I forgot my ID. And no, I don't look child-like.


You live in a real boring place, dont you? (just joking pal ) Here at least (and I bet that in Russia too) nobody cares about your age when you are buying something... Do not matter if it is a beer, a knife, a game, a porn movie, if you have the money, you can take home. So that's why I find this thread pointless.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 11, 2014)

lokomelo said:


> You live in a real boring place, dont you? (just joking pal ) Here at least (and I bet that in Russia too) nobody cares about your age when you are buying something... Do not matter if it is a beer, a knife, a game, a porn movie, if you have the money, you can take home. So that's why I find this thread pointless.


Actually the incident ocurred in the UK.


----------



## Tigran (May 11, 2014)

AngryRussianKid said:


> _*snip*_


 


Wow... You really have a hate for a pile of wood.. or cigarettes... not sure.


----------



## lokomelo (May 11, 2014)

AngryRussianKid said:


> _*snip*_


You know... I dont know why but... I have a feeling that it never happened...

maybe it is just me... anyway...


----------



## AngryRussianKid (May 11, 2014)

lokomelo said:


> You know... I dont know why but... I have a feeling that it never happened...
> 
> maybe it is just me... anyway...


Hmm... It's my first thought, when I saw these news.(I mean my words from #70 message) I always think, that in Europe, there are ideal children and their ideal parents. They take a look on age rating every time. 
Also, my inglish is very bad.


----------



## The Catboy (May 11, 2014)

I am a little more shocked that they didn't just outright ban the game or censor it. Honestly with Russia's stance on homosexuality, the fact that this game is even predicted to coming out there is a shock to me.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 11, 2014)

Way to go, Putin! Make sure to piss off every freakin' child in your country! No, they won't rebel openly or come out on the streets. They'll just pirate the crap out of it and probably force gay marriages everywhere "because they can". 


The only disturbing thing about this affair is that I now have the mental picture of pussy riot promoting an EA game. And that _really_ is a picture of a disturbed world...


----------



## GHANMI (May 11, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> Way to go, Putin! Make sure to piss off every freakin' child in your country! No, they won't rebel openly or come out on the streets. They'll just pirate the crap out of it and probably force gay marriages everywhere "because they can".
> 
> The only disturbing thing about this affair is that I now have the mental picture of pussy riot promoting an EA game. And that _really_ is a picture of a disturbed world...


 

About this decision (which is as pointed out above incredibly lenient since they could have instead banned it or asked for EA to edit the game to allow the release at all)...
It's not like it's impopular censorship in a repressive way. It's embraced by the population as a respect of ancestral values.
The vast majority of Russians are in fact -as much as I hate generalizations- having incredibly conservative social norms, and support wholeheartedly that homosexuality and related stuff is expected to be unacceptable social behavior and should be hidden from children.

That, and that the "West" isn't as popular there as you may think...
Western groups exercising any pressure on any social matter is guaranteed to have the reverse-effect.
(Some groups tried to send children coloring books there promoting same-sex couples... for children. The popular outcry wasn't pretty, and as a matter of fact LGBT became even more unacceptable socially after the Soichi campaigns).

In essence, calling Russians "homophobic people" if you prefer to put it this way is true.
Russians and other eastern cultures are very different than the US, where game makers can be lynched if they dared to localize a game that included breeding marriage but not same-sex marriage.
That's just how it is.



SickPuppy said:


> Maybe they need a LGBT rating on the games that need it, so I know what games not to buy.


 
Adding "LGBT Themes" to the ERSB/PEGI rating? I think it already exists as "Sexuality Themes" in fact... Correct me if I'm wrong.

Needless to say, some activists (the supporters of "if parents educate their children in the way they intend to, they will be invariably racists/sexists/homophobes/bigots and the only way for this to be helped is to forcibly shove down their throats our own education in their games and coloring books".. methods ironically not unlike churches' methods)
are not happy with this and want the mere mention/warning/notice of it be removed from ratings.

In my opinion, people must after all monitor the content their children are exposed to, and educate them the way they wish to.
Labels like "Violence", "Sexuality Themes", and even "Fear", are important.


----------



## Fat D (May 11, 2014)

I find the use of gay as an insult in a forum thread on this topic... slightly ironic.


----------



## hhs (May 11, 2014)

Funny that Russia has made such a to-do about repressing its gayness.

I mean, what's gayer policy wise than inserting yourself in your comrades back door to keep him from hanging out with a European crowd.

Come at me bro, I'm behind ten thousand claymores.


----------



## Nyancat (May 11, 2014)

18?! I've been playing sims since I was 8??


----------



## Hyperstar96 (May 11, 2014)

Keep up the good work, Russia


----------



## Christopher8827 (May 11, 2014)

Erm, to be honest, I oppose any distribution of homosexual propaganda to minors (and obviously most Russians would agree with me). For example, the MiiEquality campaign seems to the attracted the attention of GLADD and ABMLA, who have a special interest in furthering their aims to spread homosexuality, even though the game should be for all ages. Not only that, the gay lobbies are hell bent on intimidating people opposing their aims by redefining the opposition as 'bigots', etc. They have fired the CEO of Mozilla, Eich, for his views. Innkeepers have had their business boycotted, and shut down. Photographers being threatened with fines for refusing to photograph a same-sex union. A Catholic/Christian orphanage/foster-care.adoption provider forced to shut down because allowing gay couples to adopt the children would violate their beliefs.

The fact is that Western society seems to have an obsession with gay people. Russia seems to be on the right track on stopping it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 11, 2014)

I might have to find me some of this homosexual propaganda....

"Turn gay even if you do not think you are, it is awesome"

Edit. I think I found some.


----------



## emigre (May 11, 2014)

Christopher8827 said:


> Erm, to be honest, I oppose any distribution of homosexual propaganda to minors (and obviously most Russians would agree with me). For example, the MiiEquality campaign seems to the attracted the attention of GLADD and ABMLA, who have a special interest in furthering their aims to spread homosexuality, even though the game should be for all ages. Not only that, the gay lobbies are hell bent on intimidating people opposing their aims by redefining the opposition as 'bigots', etc. They have fired the CEO of Mozilla, Eich, for his views. Innkeepers have had their business boycotted, and shut down. Photographers being threatened with fines for refusing to photograph a same-sex union. A Catholic/Christian orphanage/foster-care.adoption provider forced to shut down because allowing gay couples to adopt the children would violate their beliefs.
> 
> The fact is that Western society seems to have an obsession with gay people. Russia seems to be on the right track on stopping it.


 







Also I laughed at the use of innkeeper.


----------



## Lacius (May 11, 2014)

Christopher8827 said:


> The fact is that Western society seems to have an obsession with gay people.


I thought it was Russia that had the obsession with gay people these days.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 11, 2014)

Oh please, Crimea river.



Lacius said:


> I thought it was Russia that had the obsession with gay people these days.


 
Oh no, just the West.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 11, 2014)

I think all of the world's officials and the media do have a bizarre fascination with who sleeps with whom and why and it's slowly becoming a problem. I think we should all embrace the idea that it's none of our beeswax who Tom wants to take from the rear, regardless of whether it's Anna or Steve. It doesn't influence our lives in any shape or form - the world isn't going to end because Anna deals with licking Emily's carpet, so we should both stop being butthurt about it _(that's Steve's affliction)_ and stop promoting it at the same time because it has zero actual weight and only serves to divert our attention from actual pressing matters that the world as a whole has to deal with.


----------



## hksrb25s14 (May 11, 2014)

In Mother Russia, SIMS plays you.


----------



## Gahars (May 11, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I think all of the world's officials and the media do have a bizarre fascination with who sleeps with whom and why and it's slowly becoming a problem. I think we should all embrace the idea that it's none of our beeswax who Tom wants to take from the rear, regardless of whether it's Anna or Steve. It doesn't influence our lives in any shape or form - the world isn't going to end because Anna deals with licking Emily's carpet, so we should both stop being butthurt about it _(that's Steve's affliction)_ and stop promoting it at the same time because it has zero actual weight and only serves to divert our attention from actual pressing matters that the world as a whole has to deal with.


 

"As long as I'm not the scooper, do what you want with your pooper."

The world would be a better place if more people could live by this philosophy.


----------



## Dork (May 11, 2014)

Gahars said:


> "As long as I'm not the scooper, do what you want with your pooper."
> 
> The world would be a better place if more people could live by this philosophy.


but gahars you dont understand i have an agenda to push


----------



## Gahars (May 11, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> but gahars you dont understand i have an agenda to push


 

You can push it in the tush or you can push it in the bush, but please, leave it in the bedroom.


----------



## Arizato (May 11, 2014)

I am not surprised... There is such an easy solution to this "problem" though. What if people just stopped caring about who other people sleep with? I just don't get how it's so hard not giving a shit about what other people do as long as they are not actively hurting you.

I've seen so many stories this last year where people in Russia got beat up by like 6-8 other people just because they happened to be homosexual, or suspected to be. It's really goddamn frightening. Now I am not saying that releasing Sims 4 in Russia without this rating would have done much of a difference, but I certainly believe that giving it this rating makes some of these violent beings believing what they are doing is right all the more.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 12, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I think all of the world's officials and the media do have a bizarre fascination with who sleeps with whom and why and it's slowly becoming a problem. I think we should all embrace the idea that it's none of our beeswax who Tom wants to take from the rear, regardless of whether it's Anna or Steve. It doesn't influence our lives in any shape or form - the world isn't going to end because Anna deals with licking Emily's carpet, so we should both stop being butthurt about it _(that's Steve's affliction)_ and stop promoting it at the same time because it has zero actual weight and only serves to divert our attention from actual pressing matters that the world as a whole has to deal with.



Agreed at some level, I usually read these threads in a similar manner to when we all look at the US' gun, gambling, IP and drug laws in stunned amazement or barely keeping from giggle fits.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (May 12, 2014)

Gay people are people too, albeit gay.

If people still want to get caught up in homophobia, I invite them to. After all, fear, no matter how irrational is involuntary.

But that doesn't make gays any less human and deserving of recognition, and silly little scared people shouldn't be able to dictate that.


----------



## Metahodos (May 12, 2014)

*sigh* I can't believe that I finally registered just to write _here_.
Anyway, about the topic. First, absolutely no one in Russia cares about ratings. Second, almost nobody cares about Sims. Third, gays themselves aren't oppressed - Petr may *ahem* love Nikolai all he wants - again, nobody cares.  But children are different story - they really deserve the right to decide for themselves, don't you think? Yes, society may be somewhat cruel on those who different - but that's not something that can be changed by laws. Fourth, nobody _wants_ to be gay - and, as a result, there are much less cases of being one. I mean, damn, did you see our girls?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 12, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I think we should all embrace the idea that it's none of our beeswax who *Tom* wants to take from the rear,


 
What if it's your mother ;O;O;O;O;O 

I wasn't aware the Sims 4 was going to be a thing, I figured they'd just keep making "expansion" packs for the next couple years until all 10 people who seriously played it got bored. Ah well, if kids in Russia really wanted to play this they'd just buy a digital copy with a totally legit™ birth date or just pirate the thing.


EDIT: 





Metahodos said:


> *sigh* I can't believe that I finally registered just to write here.
> Anyway, about the topic. First, absolutely no one in Russia cares about ratings. Second, almost nobody cares about Sims. Third, gays themselves aren't oppressed - Petr may *ahem* love Nikolai all he wants - again, nobody cares. But children are different story - they really deserve the right to decide for themselves, don't you think? Yes, society may be somewhat cruel on those who different - but that's not something that can be changed by laws. *Fourth, nobody wants to be gay - and, as a result, there are much less cases of being one. I mean, damn, did you see our girls?*


That's probably the dumbest and most ignorant fucking thing I've read in this thread. Please educate yourself on sexuality in general before you make such claims as "No one wants to be gay"


----------



## Gahars (May 12, 2014)

Metahodos said:


> I mean, damn, did you see our girls?


 

More like Catherine the So-So, if you ask me.


----------



## Oxybelis (May 12, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> EDIT:
> That's probably the dumbest and most ignorant fucking thing I've read in this thread. Please educate yourself on sexuality in general before you make such claims as "No one wants to be gay"


 He was probably talking about popularity and trends. Because somebody can try to be a homosexual because it is popular and "cool".


Gay people are so obnoxious pushing their selfish agenda. They do not think about ramifications for society.
Countries should care. I think it is clear that promoting homosexuality to children destabilises society and can even decrease population. Decline of a population a is big problem for nearly every developed country.
Some of them increase population through obscene immigration which can destroy cultures and is a wrong way to solve this problem. Way to go Europe.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis said:


> Because somebody can try to be a homosexual because it is popular and "cool".


Choice has nothing to do with homosexuality. One either is or isn't.



Oxybelis said:


> Gay people are so obnoxious pushing their selfish agenda.


You mean equal treatment under the law and acknowledgement of their existence? Yes, _so_ obnoxious.



Oxybelis said:


> They do not think about ramifications for society.


What ramifications?



Oxybelis said:


> Countries should care. I think it is clear that promoting homosexuality to children destabilises society and can even decrease population.


I'm not aware of any evidence that the advocation of equal treatment under the law and acknowledgement of the existence of gay people turns children gay.



Oxybelis said:


> Decline of a population a is big problem for nearly every developed country.


Last time I checked, the opposite problem was true.


----------



## Oxybelis (May 12, 2014)

Lacius said:


> Last time I checked, the opposite problem was true.


 Where? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2014)

Lacius said:


> Last time I checked, the opposite problem was true.


He probably means the ethnic side of things which is highly divided. Native Europeans are dying for all intents and purposes - the average couple has one child so in the long run the population is shrinking. Meanwhile, immigrants from islamic areas that follow a different family model normally have multiple children, so their numbers grow.

That being said, this has very little to do with the _"gay agenda"_ - gay people aren't going to have children anyways because, news flash, they're gay, having children requires the involvement of the two sexes _(and then there's In Vitro and surrogate mothers, but that's a whole different can of worms)_.

I'd say that the problem is caused by the rat race and people's fixation on their careers - most people simply _"don't have the time to have children"_ so to speak, not until they're in their late thirties and by that time they can only have so many.


----------



## Gahars (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis said:


> Countries should care. I think it is clear that promoting homosexuality to children destabilises society and can even decrease population. Decline of a population a is big problem for nearly every developed country.


 
That has nothing to do with gays. This is just a general trend - when nations are wealthier, the people are better educated and have better access to things like birth control, so the birth rate takes a hit. Gays aren't going to start popping out babies just because you deny them basic rights and deny their existence.



Oxybelis said:


> Some of them increase population through obscene immigration which can destroy cultures and is a wrong way to solve this problem. Way to go Europe.


 

You just went full goober.


----------



## xxNathanxx (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis said:


> Decline of a population a is big problem for nearly every developed country.


Man, ya dun goof'd.



Oxybelis said:


> Where? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate


What's your point?


----------



## Oxybelis (May 12, 2014)

xxNathanxx said:


> Man, ya dun goof'd.
> 
> 
> What's your point?


"The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries."
Take a look at the map.


----------



## xxNathanxx (May 12, 2014)

Again, what's your point?


----------



## Oxybelis (May 12, 2014)

You cited it himself.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis said:


> You cited it himself.


 
Please explain to us how homosexuality has *any* kind of causation on the decline in birth rates in developed countries. Please show us the factual and scientific reasoning behind your posts. kthx.


----------



## xxNathanxx (May 12, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Please explain to us how homosexuality has *any* kind of causation on the decline in birth rates in developed countries. Please show us the factual and scientific reasoning behind your posts. kthx.


That, and why we should worry so much about declining birth rates.


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis, not only is the total fertility rate irrelevant to the conversation about gays and gay rights (declines in total fertilities rates in developed countries are due to factors unrelated to the presence of gay people), but bringing up declines in total fertility rates also does not translate to the statement that there are population declines; the opposite is true.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Please explain to us how homosexuality has *any* kind of causation on the decline in birth rates in developed countries. Please show us the factual and scientific reasoning behind your posts. kthx.


If he _really_ wants to push that argument then we could assume that in the past when gays and lesbians stayed in the closet, they got married anyways due to social pressure, bred and lived unhappy lives, leading to a higher birth rate... except this approach is dumb because it implies that people should be unhappy for the greater good. There are far more important reasons as to why birth rates in civilized countries are low, homosexuality is at the very bottom of the list and has little impact.


----------



## DunnoBro (May 12, 2014)

America may not mind some declining birth rates but countries like Russia and Japan sure do. (Who do actually have declined birthrates in contrast to the rest of the planet)

Less people = Less taxpayers = Less Soldiers = Less Government = Less Power

Not really invested in the sexual equality = decline in birthrate discussion, I just wanted to point out that declining birthrates can actually be rather worrying.


----------



## Vipera (May 12, 2014)

Fags destroy our lungs. Seriously, stop supporting them.

Also, this rating is idiotic. Kirby kisses his male friends in the mouth in Kirby Superstar Ultra to fill health and it got a normal PEGI rating. WILL SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


----------



## Oxybelis (May 12, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> If he really wants to push that argument then we could assume that in the past when gays and lesbians stayed in the closet, they got married anyways due to social pressure, bred and lived unhappy lives, leading to a higher birth rate... except this approach is dumb because it implies that people should be unhappy for the greater good. There are far more important reasons as to why birth rates in civilized countries are low, homosexuality is at the very bottom of the list and has little impact.


 Most individuals can live happy life with either sex if person is good. Sexual orientation can be caused not only by brain structure, but social factors. For example an individual can be afraid of other sex because of social factors and avoid them. If homosexuality is celebrated individual won't even try to establish contact with other sex.


DunnoBro, Most of EU (and USA too) retains its population through immigration.


----------



## xxNathanxx (May 12, 2014)

Well, alright, you're free to believe that. Just know you're completely wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis said:


> Most individuals can live happy life with either sex if person is good. Sexual orientation can be caused not only by brain structure, but social factors. For example an individual can be afraid of other sex because of social factors and avoid them. If homosexuality is celebrated individual won't even try to establish contact with other sex.


You're treating the matter completely impersonally. Sexual attraction is a crucial cornerstone of every well-adjusted marriage, I see no reason as to why anyone would force themselves into a relationship he or she wouldn't feel sexually fulfilled in, no matter whether it's with a friend or not. You're proposing that gays should _"establish contacts with the other sex"_ and _"have children with it"_ completely disregarding the fact that they're not interested in the other sex in any way or can even be somewhat disgusted by it in extreme cases. If Joe likes to sleep with guys then you're in no position to tell him to do otherwise.

Besides, homosexuals are not the problem - the problem is that within the current economy parents don't have the time or resources to have three or more children, three being the lowest possible amount of children resulting from a relationship required for a given nation to grow. In addition, more often than not both parents work and neither is dedicated to upbringing the children or taking care of the household. As a result, we trade family life in exchange for our careers, which didn't use to be the case. If anything, the nation's growth can be stimulated by making parenthood _"worth it"_ through tax deductions or other benefits for young couples, things that give them the necessary push towards parenthood.

Forcing Joe and Steve to separate and elope with women does not solve the problem - Joe and Steve are still gay and if they will create family units, those units are likely to fall apart precisely because they're homosexuals. You're literally proposing that they should create dysfunctional families which are likely to end in divorces and harming the children.


----------



## Oxybelis (May 12, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You're treating the matter completely impersonally. Sexual attraction is a crucial cornerstone of every well-adjusted marriage, I see no reason as to why anyone would force themselves into a relationship he or she wouldn't feel sexually fulfilled in, no matter whether it's with a friend or not. You're proposing that gays should _"establish contacts with the other sex"_ and _"have children with it"_ completely disregarding the fact that they're not interested in the other sex in any way or can even be somewhat disgusted by it in extreme cases. If Joe likes to sleep with guys then you're in no position to tell him to do otherwise.
> 
> Besides, homosexuals are not the problem - the problem is that within the current economy parents don't have the time or resources to have three or more children, three being the lowest possible amount of children resulting from a relationship required for a given nation to grow. In addition, more often than not both parents work and neither is dedicated to upbringing the children or taking care of the household. As a result, we trade family life in exchange for our careers, which didn't use to be the case. If anything, the nation's growth can be stimulated by making parenthood _"worth it"_ through tax deductions or other benefits for young couples, things that give them the necessary push towards parenthood.
> 
> Forcing Joe and Steve to separate and elope with women does not solve the problem - Joe and Steve are still gay and if they will create family units, those units are likely to fall apart precisely because they're homosexuals. You're literally proposing that they should create dysfunctional families which are likely to end in divorces and harming the children.


Bisexuals say they do exist. Sometimes psychological state takes precedence over instinctive sexual attraction.

Economy is a problem, but here we are talking about homosexual propaganda to minors law in Russia, are not we? I made my points why this is unwanted.
Some more.
What if child tries to imitate homosexual behaviour? Groups of children play with same sex more often.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 12, 2014)

Lacius said:


> Choice has nothing to do with homosexuality. One either is or isn't.


Then how come, in the case of identical twins who share the exact same genes, there are numerous cases where one is a homosexual and is not? http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf

Or what about when someone changes their orientation later in life? If their orientation was genetics this would not be possible. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-study-changing-sexual-orientation-is-possible

Study: Middle aged women changing their orientation http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...Can-really-true-And-whats-emotional-cost.html



> You mean equal treatment under the law and acknowledgement of their existence? Yes, _so_ obnoxious.



Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays want a special, additional right.



> What ramifications?


 
How about a 9000% increase in risk of anal-cancer? http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/mar/07032205
Child molestation? http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/
Mental disorders? http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

The list goes on.



> I'm not aware of any evidence that the advocation of equal treatment under the law and acknowledgement of the existence of gay people turns children gay.


 
Children of homosexual couples:

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research .


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2014)

Oxybelis said:


> Bisexuals say they do exist. Sometimes psychological state takes precedence over instinctive sexual attraction.


Maybe because bisexuals, as the name implies, are attracted to both sexes?


> Economy is a problem, but here we are talking about homosexual propaganda to minors law in Russia, are not we? I made my points why this is unwanted.
> Some more.


It depends on your definition of _"propaganda"_. I'm not a huge fan of love parades myself, but that's due to two simple reasons. Firstly, I like my afternoons peaceful and quiet, whatever parade it might be, I don't want it outside my window. Secondly, I don't see heterosexuals parading, so I don't see a reason why homosexuals _(or insert x-sexuals here)_ should. Keep your bedroom business in your bedroom, it doesn't concern me.


> What if child tries to imitate homosexual behaviour? Groups of children play with same sex more often.


_"Playing together"_ is hardly negative behaviour, it's simply a result of a more _"unisex"_ approach to children. Remember, they're children, sexual attraction is completely alien to them.


----------



## TyBlood13 (May 12, 2014)

This thread is so fucked up. I don't even know where to begin as a member of the LGBT communtiy


----------



## Gahars (May 12, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> *All of these sources with explicit conservative Christian agendas*


 
It's almost as if there might be a bias in your sources.

Well, okay, with one exception - The Daily Mail, which is actually even less reputable than your other sources. You might as well start citing the National Enquirer; it's about as legitimate. 



Haloman800 said:


> Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays want a special, additional right.


 

By your logic, giving gays the right to marry people of the same sex extends that right to heterosexuals as well. In that case, gays aren't getting an exclusive right; the right applies to everyone equally. Everyone's rights increase, so that's like a win-win, really.



Haloman800 said:


> Children of homosexual couples:
> 
> Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
> Have lower educational attainment
> ...


 
Let's pretend you have legitimate, reliable, trustworthy sources for a second here...

Going purely on statistics, you could probably apply a few of these to children of black couples, considering the generally lower economic status of blacks in the US. It would be discriminatory as fuck, however, to then claim that blacks are inherently inferior parents or to use this as justification to deny them children.  Gay people, whether you like them or not, are people, and the principle is the same.



Haloman800 said:


> If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female


 
I'm not seeing a downside here.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 12, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> Then how come, in the case of identical twins who share the exact same genes, there are numerous cases where one is a homosexual and is not? http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf
> 
> Or what about when someone changes their orientation later in life? If their orientation was genetics this would not be possible. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-study-changing-sexual-orientation-is-possible
> 
> ...




Here we go again, another such thread, another such Haloman800 response. Gahars already went and what he said, however I will go anyway.

On the genes thing, and before we go into the murky territory of epigenetics, then even assuming it was an absolute free choice of the person then would it matter?

"Middle aged women changing their orientation"
Middle age seems to be your 50's these days, now most people do not live to 100 but that is a discussion for a different day. 2014-45 ~ 1970, earlier if you consider that the studies would have to have been done and compiled so realistically late 1950's onwards. Not exactly considered some of the most enlightened times and if one was pressured into a stereotypical family (because that is what you after all). If I can say screw it, I want to live on a beach, stop working in the city and make cabinets.... then I fail to see how deciding that you no longer wish to fumble with a given style of genitals, or wish to fumble with all styles as your whims may take you is any different (though the psychological issues of being in a relationship you do not care may make it even better).

"Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays want a special, additional right."
This is news to me, everything I have seen with regards to marrying people of various genders say that some of the laws are wonky and do not necessarily make for the same rights to automatically exist. By the looks of things the law is pretty slow in changing some things so there will undoubtedly be more to change, likely for the rest of our lifetimes but equality is the goal.

I am not even inclined to humour the rest of that drivel, mainly as it looks like I will first have to explain how statistics works.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 12, 2014)

Gahars said:


> It's almost as if there might be a bias in your sources.


 
Well, okay, with one exception - The Daily Mail, which is actually even less reputable than your other sources. You might as well start citing the National Enquirer; it's about as legitimate. [/qupte]

Ad hominem. My points remain unrefuted.




> By your logic, giving gays the right to marry people of the same sex extends that right to heterosexuals as well.


 
Correct, however this still does not prove the definition of marriage should be changed (It still being "1M1W" in the vast majority of places). My point was, gays already have "equal rights" as straights, to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are seeking to introduce new legislation allowing for alternative types of marriage.




> Going purely on statistics, you could probably apply a few of these to children of black couples, considering the generally lower economic status of blacks in the US. It would be discriminatory as fuck, however, to then claim that blacks are inherently inferior parents or to use this as justification to deny them children. Gay people, whether you like them or not, are people, and the principle is the same.


 
The study ignores race. I'm simply stating facts, that on average children from same-sex parents do worse in many sectors of life.





> [Women from same sex parents more promiscuous] I'm not seeing a downside here.


 






Have at 'em!


----------



## Lacius (May 12, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> Then how come, in the case of identical twins who share the exact same genes, there are numerous cases where one is a homosexual and is not?


Because sexuality is complex and a product of more than one variable, broadly including both biology and environment. For example, birth order appears to sometimes play a key role in the development of male sexuality due to the ways a mother's body responds to a male fetus; a hypothetical set of twin brothers might not be treated the exact same way in the womb. Identical twins have different sets of fingerprints on account of both biological and environmental factors, but it's not because choice had anything to do with it. In fact, since having a gay twin drastically increases the odds that one will be gay him/herself, a biological correlation is demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation



Haloman800 said:


> Or what about when someone changes their orientation later in life? If their orientation was genetics this would not be possible.


A person's sexual orientation is not typically subject to change later in life, although it's possible. Common, for example, might be that someone with a predisposition to bisexuality could go back and forth, or that someone in a same-sex prison population would prefer same-sex experiences to no sex experiences. Every reputable medical and psychological association I'm aware of considers sexuality more-or-less inflexible by a certain age, and more importantly, they consider conversion therapy both ineffective and dangerous. Sexuality, although usually not subject to change, can be fluid in some individuals and have nothing to do with choice.
I should also note that it wouldn't really matter if one's sexuality were a choice with regard to this conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Fluidity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy



Haloman800 said:


> Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gays want a special, additional right.


That's like saying that in a world where only same-sex marriage were legal, heterosexuals would have the same rights as homosexuals. Heterosexuals want a special, additional right.
That would also be like saying that in a world where same-race marriage were all that were legal, everyone would have the same right: to marry someone of the same race. Biracial couples want a special, additional right.
We've been down this line of "reasoning" before.



Haloman800 said:


> How about a 9000% increase in risk of anal-cancer?


HIV (particularly the immunosuppression involved), along with other sexually transmitted infections such as HPV, apparently lead to an increased risk of various cancers. This is true regardless of one's sexuality; plenty of gay people are without sexually transmitted infections and without those increased risks of cancers, and plenty of straight people have sexualy transmitted infections and an increased risk for associated cancers. While a good opportunity to preach about the importance of safe sex, regardless of one's sexuality, it's not particularly relevant to our conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_sex



Haloman800 said:


> Child molestation?


There is no demonstrable correlation between homosexuality and an increased likelihood of child molestation. If you're looking for a correlation between a variable and child molestation, I would recommend you look at Catholic priesthood or other forms of forced celibacy.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric#Conflation_with_child_abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases



Haloman800 said:


> Mental disorders?


With regard to closeted homosexuals, there is a correlation between homosexuality and mental disorders such as depression. This is likely the result of the anxieties associated with living in an intolerant society. One of the reasons cited in favor of gay marriage is the improved mental health of LGBT individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_and_the_LGBT_community#Mental_Health_and_Suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Health



Haloman800 said:


> Children of homosexual couples:
> 
> Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
> Have lower educational attainment
> ...


In reality, the children of gay parents are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. You might know better if you weren't citing resources such as the Family Research Council, a group dedicated to anti-gay activism that has been known to spread blatant misinformation and has been officially categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council


----------



## Gahars (May 12, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> Ad hominem. My points remain unrefuted.


 
Pointing out that you've cherry picked your data from clearly biased sources is not ad hominem. Biases, agendas, and credibility are anything but irrelevant points here. 



Haloman800 said:


> Correct, however this still does not prove the definition of marriage should be changed (It still being "1M1W" in the vast majority of places). My point was, gays already have "equal rights" as straights, to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are seeking to introduce new legislation allowing for alternative types of marriage.


 
By your logic, however, straight people are just as deprived of the right. Everyone has less rights. Why should this be allowed? Don't we want the people to have as many rights as possible? Why are you against human rights?



Haloman800 said:


> The study ignores race. I'm simply stating facts, that on average children from same-sex parents do worse in many sectors of life.


 
>Make a point that discrimination based on sexuality is no better or more justified than discrimination based on race
>"But I wasn't talking about race!"

Gee, whiz, you don't say?



Haloman800 said:


> *snip*
> 
> Have at 'em!


 

Judging people based on physical appearance, are we?

Personally I'm more of a Tegan and Sara guy, but hey, they seem happy enough, and if what they've got is working for them, that's fine by me.


----------



## XDel (May 12, 2014)

Glad to see Russia has some sense. The way American media is going, it is impossible for a parent to protect and guide a child while raising them within this world. They are constantly bombarded with all of our "adult world" non-sense, hence eroding the concept of Childhood that we as a culture had developed and once strived to preserve.


----------



## nando (May 12, 2014)

XDel said:


> Glad to see Russia has some sense. The way American media is going, it is impossible for a parent to protect and guide a child while raising them within this world. They are constantly bombarded with all of our "adult world" non-sense, hence eroding the concept of Childhood that we as a culture had developed and once strived to preserve.


 


you should move there.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2014)

XDel said:


> Glad to see Russia has some sense. The way American media is going, it is impossible for a parent to protect and guide a child while raising them within this world. They are constantly bombarded with all of our "adult world" non-sense, hence eroding the concept of Childhood that we as a culture had developed and once strived to preserve.


Here's a thought - maybe it should be up to the parent, not the government? Maybe the sole reigning body within the household should be the parents who, you know, play the parental role and lay down the rules? Maybe politicians shouldn't peek into other people's privet lives and decide what's appropriate and what isn't? Last time I checked, the only two people that are actively involved in the conception and subsequent birth of a child are its parents, so what authority does the government have over it?

You're saying that children are bombarded with messages, I'm saying that parents are repeatedly failing at parenting and wish to have that duty taken off them and put on someone else - a clerk in the store or a politician in the government, preferably along with the responsibility. Here's what I think - the parents are the only individuals responsible for the upbringing of their children. If they will find it appropriate for their child to play The Sims 4 or Half-Life 3 _(ha!)_ then it's their god given right, they're doing the child no harm.

It's always so easy to play the blame game - my child is violent because he/she plays video games, my child is a gangster because he/she listened to rap, my child got into drugs because he/she listened to reggae, my child is a registered sex offender because of oversexualized cinema... No. Your child did all this sh*t because you failed as a parent, end of.

As far as the whole _"Gay Agenda"_ conversation above is concerned, we're heading rapidly in the direction of xenophobia, so it's best if we leave that subject be before this thread is inevitably derailed and closed.


----------



## SILENT_Pavel (May 13, 2014)

@*Reploid*


Spoiler: vodka, do not read.






Reploid said:


> Всё равно это ни на что не повлияет. Meh.


Недолго нам тут сидеть осталось, скоро и этот портал отправится в реестр запрещенных, а большую часть игр просто запретят как в ОАЭ для "заботы о детях и защиты традиционных ценностей"...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2014)

> > All the same, it may have no effect. Meh.
> > vodka
> 
> 
> Not long left us to sit here, and soon this portal go to register prohibited and most of the games simply be banned in the UAE for "taking care of children and the protection of traditional values​​"...





> We are an English speaking community. Please post in legible English ONLY
> ~http://gbatemp.net/help/terms


...unless you're in the EoF, then it might be acceptable in moderation.


----------



## XDel (May 13, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You're saying that children are bombarded with messages, I'm saying that parents are repeatedly failing at parenting and wish to have that duty taken off them and put on someone else - a clerk in the store or a politician in the government, preferably along with the responsibility. Here's what I think - the parents are the only individuals responsible for the upbringing of their children. If they will find it appropriate for their child to play The Sims 4 or Half-Life 3 _(ha!)_ then it's their god given right, they're doing the child no harm.


 
I've not read this article in detail, not really into politics my self, though I'd wager to guess that this does not prevent parents from buying it for their children should they desire too, at least I'd hope not as I do believe a person should have the ability to exorcise free will and have the right to privacy.
 That being said, it is nice that there at least will be a warning on the package to warn the parents that there is content of a sexual nature. Likewise it is nice that a child can not just walk into a store and buy this without their parents.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2014)

XDel said:


> I've not read this article in detail, not really into politics my self, though I'd wager to guess that this does not prevent parents from buying it for their children should they desire too, at least I'd hope not as I do believe a person should have the ability to exorcise free will and have the right to privacy.
> 
> That being said, it is nice that there at least will be a warning on the package to warn the parents that there is content of a sexual nature. Likewise it is nice that a child can not just walk into a store and buy this without their parents.


Technically yes, it does not prevent the parents from buying a given game, I'm merely stressing that all these ratings should be treated as mere suggestions and shouldn't be enforced in any way. For example, I've noticed an enforced artificial restriction on consoles as of late - games for mature audiences will not go online on PSN sub-accounts _(which are made for minors)_ - if you're not 18+ _(minimum age required for a Maser Account)_, it's just a no-go. Moreover, there's no way to migrate from a sub-account to a master account once that age is reached, so you effectively lose all your trophies and have to game share content with your new master account. I believe that's also the case on XBox Live and frankly it concerns me. Supposedly this had to be introduced due to some EU regulations, but in my eyes this is just the government stepping in where they're not welcome - such matters should be entirely up to the parent. All systems these days have elaborate parental controls options - parents should use those instead. Legislature like this practically takes away the power of parenting from the parent and force users to cheat with their birth dates to fully enjoy the content they've bought which I find ridiculous.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 13, 2014)

Lacius said:


> 'Sexuality is genetic.. Only when I feel like it!'



Doesn't work that way. It is very simple if you think about it logically. If you admit sexual orientation is not 100% genetic (the twin studies prove this), your previous statement "You are either gay or not" is false. You created a false dichotomy ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white ). Sexual orientation/preference can change/evolve over time, & isn't set in stone like someone's biological makeup is.



> A person's sexual orientation is not typically subject to change later in life, although it's possible.


 
You proved my above point, thank you for admitting the truth.



> That's like saying that in a world where only same-sex marriage were legal, heterosexuals would have the same rights as homosexuals. Heterosexuals want a special, additional right.
> That would also be like saying that in a world where same-race marriage were all that were legal, everyone would have the same right: to marry someone of the same race. Biracial couples want a special, additional right.
> We've been down this line of "reasoning" before.


 
You're implying "If you're pro-traditional marriage, you must be against interracial marriagel!" This is known as a "Strawman" argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman



> HIV (particularly the immunosuppression involved), along with other sexually transmitted infections such as HPV, apparently lead to an increased risk of various cancers. This is true regardless of one's sexuality


Sure, I agree anyone could get any STD. I stated homosexuals are at a _massively _higher risk of getting them, and I provided evidence for this. You haven't disproved this point.



> There is no demonstrable correlation between homosexuality and an increased likelihood of child molestation. If you're looking for a correlation between a variable and child molestation, I would recommend you look at Catholic priesthood or other forms of forced celibacy.


 
If those priests weren't homosexuals, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested. Thank you for further proving my point.



> With regard to closeted homosexuals, there is a correlation between homosexuality and mental disorders such as depression. This is likely the result of the anxieties associated with living in an intolerant society.


 
"73% of phychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those phychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization."

Lief, H.: Sexual survey W: Current thinking on homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality



> In reality, the children of gay parents are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. You might know better if you weren't citing resources such as the Family Research Council, a group dedicated to anti-gay activism that has been known to spread blatant misinformation and has been officially categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.


 

You neither proven your own points, nor refuted any of mine. Your response is a classic example of an ad hominem, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

--

Nearly every one of your responses can be categorized as follows:

1. Appeal to emotion.
2. Strawman.
3. Ad hominem.

Once you strip away all the logical fallacies, there's not much left.



Gahars said:


> Pointing out that you've cherry picked your data from clearly biased sources is not ad hominem. Biases, agendas, and credibility are anything but irrelevant points here.


 
It's anything _but_ irrelevant, so it IS relevant ?



> By your logic, however, straight people are just as deprived of the right. Everyone has less rights. Why should this be allowed? Don't we want the people to have as many rights as possible? Why are you against human rights?


This is true, but there are some rights we can and should do without.


> >Make a point that discrimination based on sexuality is no better or more justified than discrimination based on race
> >"But I wasn't talking about race!"
> 
> Gee, whiz, you don't say?


 
>greentexting
>on GBAtemp




> Judging people based on physical appearance, are we?
> 
> Personally I'm more of a Tegan and Sara guy, but hey, they seem happy enough, and if what they've got is working for them, that's fine by me.


 

Just to clarify my position, I'm against _any_ form of sexuality being flaunted in public. This includes heterosexuals.

The laws in Russia ban homosexual _propaganda_, not homosexuality. Huge difference. Homosexual couples can legally do whatever they want in _private._
If you want to criticize a country's sex laws, look at Uganda's. The penalty for homosexuality is death.


----------



## Gahars (May 13, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> It's anything _but_ irrelevant, so it IS relevant ?


 
That was the point, yes. Ad hominem applies when the points are irrelevant.



Haloman800 said:


> This is true, but there are some rights we can and should do without.


 
I'm not sure if that's something our Founding Fathers would particularly agree with. It's better to err on the side of liberty.



Haloman800 said:


> >greentexting
> >on GBAtemp


 
FunnyBaldManMakesSmugFacialExpression.jpeg



Haloman800 said:


> Just to clarify my position, I'm against _any_ form of sexuality being flaunted in public. This includes heterosexuals.


 
Is it rude for people, of any persuasion, to be playing tonsil hockey in certain public locations? Are there some places where immodest attire is wildly inappropriate? Of course.

Does that mean it's right to legislate on that basis? To force people to behave in rigidly-defined acceptable manners? Do we really want the government to be able to mandate that? Who gets to decide the standards here? We're not talking about a crime here - just casual behavior.

Heterosexual or homosexual, there are rude people, people without self-awareness, wherever you go. You can't put a law on the books and make that go away, and it's certainly no justification to punish everyone else for their behavior.

Luckily, there's a solution when you see someone acting in such a manner: Ignore them. If there are children, take them elsewhere and just talk to them honestly. The world has so many complexities that children naturally learn about anyway; is it really so much to throw in, "Yeah, sometimes two guys or two girls like to mack it out," with the rest? Is it so much harder to explain that than, say, death? Is keeping them ignorant really a viable solution for something they'll discover after a minute on Deviantart?



Haloman800 said:


> The laws in Russia ban homosexual _propaganda_, not homosexuality. Huge difference. If you want to criticize a country's sex laws, look at Uganda's. The penalty for homosexuality is death.


 

When propaganda includes even mentioning your sexuality in public (and could easily be construed into so much more), well... let's not pretend that this is a reasonable, sensible measure.

One injustice is certainly greater than the other, sure, but they're both still injustices all the same.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> Doesn't work that way. It is very simple if you think about it logically. If you admit sexual orientation is not 100% genetic (the twin studies prove this), your previous statement "You are either gay or not" is false. You created a false dichotomy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white ). Sexual orientation/preference can change/evolve over time, & isn't set in stone like someone's biological makeup is.


You're the one who has created a false dichotomy between "biology" and "choice." I thoroughly explained how.
As a side note, I recommend you stop conflating "biology" with "genetics." While all genetics is biology, not all biology is genetics.



Haloman800 said:


> You're implying "If you're pro-traditional marriage, you must be against interracial marriagel!" This is known as a "Strawman" argument.


The actual straw man is saying I implied such a thing. In reality, I was explaining how your point about "additional rights" would have necessarily applied to the interracial marriage debate as well as it could be applied to the same-sex marriage debate.



Haloman800 said:


> If those priests weren't homosexuals, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.


If those priests weren't pedophiles, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.



Haloman800 said:


> "73% of phychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those phychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization."
> 
> Lief, H.: Sexual survey W: Current thinking on homosexuality. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality


That might have been the prevailing thought when this was published... in 1977. That is no longer the case.



Haloman800 said:


> You neither proven your own points, nor refuted any of mine. Your response is a classic example of an ad hominem, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.


I suggest you refresh your understanding of logical fallacies, because I do not recall when I irrelevantly attacked your character and said your argument was bad because of it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2014)

I think I am having one of those "a properly good satire is indistinguishable..." moments.


----------



## KingVamp (May 13, 2014)

Even if you say kids don't have any real attraction before puberty, this didn't even get the Teen rating.



Lacius said:


> environmental factors, but it's not because choice had anything to do with it. l


I agree with most of what you said, but the fact that someone can change due environmental (and social) factors, doesn't that mean at least part of it is choice? Choice in not letting it affect you?

Not that it being a choice or not should matter.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 13, 2014)

Gahars said:


> I'm not sure if that's something our Founding Fathers would particularly agree with. It's better to err on the side of liberty.


 
Should we have the right to steal, murder, rape? If not, why? You wouldn't like to have the maximum amount of freedom possible?



> Is it rude for people, of any persuasion, to be playing tonsil hockey in certain public locations? Are there some places where immodest attire is wildly inappropriate? Of course.
> Does that mean it's right to legislate on that basis? To force people to behave in rigidly-defined acceptable manners? Do we really want the government to be able to mandate that? Who gets to decide the standards here? We're not talking about a crime here - just casual behavior.


 
This point is a matter of opinion and is too subjective to pursue further.



> When propaganda includes even mentioning your sexuality in public (and could easily be construed into so much more), well... let's not pretend that this is a reasonable, sensible measure.
> 
> One injustice is certainly greater than the other, sure, but they're both still injustices all the same.


 

I've never seen a heterosexual strap a dildo to their head and prance around in public, I can't say the same for homosexuals. Like you said, they are exposed to all sorts of crap online, they'll learn about homosexuality on their own.



Lacius said:


> You're the one who has created a false dichotomy between "biology" and "choice." I thoroughly explained how.


 
You already admitted sexual orientation can change (Backpedaling on your earlier statement "One either is or isn't."), this part of the discussion is over.



> The actual straw man is saying I implied such a thing. In reality, I was explaining how your point about "additional rights" would have necessarily applied to the interracial marriage debate as well as it could be applied to the same-sex marriage debate.


 
Sure, it can apply to it. This does not prove the definition of marriage, which, in the majority of locations is still 1 man 1 woman, should be changed.



> If those priests weren't pedophiles, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.


 
If the priests weren't homosexuals, the alter boys wouldn't have been molested. Disprove my statement.



> I suggest you refresh your understanding of logical fallacies, because I do not recall when I irrelevantly attacked your character and said your argument was bad because of it.


 

You attack people & websites I quoted, instead of the message itself. Accusing them of "bias", I can make the same statements about any source you throw out.


----------



## gdeliana (May 13, 2014)

First of all i am not russian, i am albanian. The law of gays is not in our country and will never be. Why? because we are behind the world??? Or because the world looks too crazy to us!? We accept menkind for what it was meant to be and not for what has become, we have gone far beyond our simplistic imagination. 


And after all, we need to increase the population....gay society is failed in this point of view. The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail. So it's good for ALL those countries which deny this manifestation of human attraction between the same sex. I am not racist, because being racist means being against a race....gays represent a race???? since when??? I am not selfish. I think about the others.... the fact that i am saying that we need to take care about our population declining and degenerating is a fact that i am not selfish.


----------



## SILENT_Pavel (May 13, 2014)

gdeliana said:


> The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail.


ORLY?


----------



## gdeliana (May 13, 2014)

OK, that's true , but they atleast do reproduce no matter if they are gays


----------



## SILENT_Pavel (May 13, 2014)

gdeliana said:


> OK, that's true , but they atleast do reproduce no matter if they are gays


So, is it okay to be bisexual, but have own kids? Be homosexual without kids (adoption kids) is bad?


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> I agree with most of what you said, but the fact that someone can change due environmental (and social) factors, doesn't that mean at least part of it is choice? Choice in not letting it affect you?
> 
> Not that it being a choice or not should matter.


As I already told Haloman800, it would be a mistake to create a dichotomy between "biology" and "choice." If something is not caused by biology, that does not mean that it had to be a matter of choice to any degree; there are other options such as environment.

I used the example of fingerprints earlier. Fingerprints develop while one is in the womb due to very subtle factors related to the environment of the womb and unrelated to genetics. Identical twins, for all intents and purposes, have the exact same DNA, but they have different sets of fingerprints. They didn't choose their fingerprints. I picked this example in particular because the environment of the womb can apparently play a big part in the development of one's sexuality.

Like most things in the nature vs. nurture debate, it's usually a little bit of both. That doesn't mean choice is involved.



Haloman800 said:


> Should we have the right to steal, murder, rape? If not, why?


Because these things infringe upon the rights of others and are objectively inconducive to their well being. If one does not wish to be robbed, raped, or murdered, the best thing one can do is consider these things immoral and surround oneself with like-minded people. I'd like to hear someone articulate a single way in which homosexuality is immoral and infringes upon the rights of others.



Haloman800 said:


> I've never seen a heterosexual strap a dildo to their head and prance around in public


I have, not that I'm advocating this type of behavior in public.



Haloman800 said:


> You already admitted sexual orientation can change (Backpedaling on your earlier statement "One either is or isn't."), this part of the discussion is over.


There are a few problems with this.

First, when I said one either is or isn't homosexual, I was not creating a dichotomy of "homosexual" and "heterosexual." Like all good dichotomies, it was "homosexual" and "not-homosexual," the latter including bisexuals, etc. since sexuality is more of a spectrum.
Second, I said the scientific consensus was that sexuality was usually inflexible; that does not exclude my earlier examples of people with predispositions to bisexuality and prisoners in same-sex prison populations.
Third, the fluidity of sexual orientation is a complex topic, and although a person's sexual orientation develops over one's lifetime a la just about every other aspect of a person, one's sexual orientation is usually fixed by a very early age and becomes even more fixed as time goes on. I'm not sure what the potential for fluidity in some individuals has to do with whether or not it's a choice or whether or not it's biology. You're once again creating false dichotomies between "not fluid" vs. "a choice" or between "not fluid" vs "unrelated to biology." I can think of plenty of other things that are unrelated to choice and/or related to biology that are also fluid (and a lot more so than sexual orientation).



Haloman800 said:


> Sure, it can apply to it. This does not prove the definition of marriage, which, in the majority of locations is still 1 man 1 woman, should be changed.


My only intent was to demonstrate how your "additional rights" argument was irrelevant. If you're going to say that same-sex marriage should be illegal, it's up to you to show why. As a side note, whether or not same-sex marriage is still illegal in a majority of locations is irrelevant to the morality/immorality of its illegality. Since you seem to like logical fallacies (but not enough to apply them correctly), I suggest you Google "ad populum fallacy."



Haloman800 said:


> If the priests weren't homosexuals, the alter boys wouldn't have been molested. Disprove my statement.


Last time I checked, Catholic priests were definitely not representative of the gay population. That's as much a selection bias as it would be for me to only select from known rapists when making the blanket statement that heterosexuals are rapists.



Haloman800 said:


> You attack people & websites I quoted


... For their content, which is, not only relevant, but the only thing that's relevant. Again, I believe you need to study your list of logical fallacies.



gdeliana said:


> And after all, we need to increase the population....gay society is failed in this point of view. The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail. So it's good for ALL those countries which deny this manifestation of human attraction between the same sex. I am not racist, because being racist means being against a race....gays represent a race???? since when??? *I am not selfish. I think about the others*.... the fact that i am saying that we need to take care about our population declining and degenerating is a fact that i am not selfish.


I've noticed that people against equal rights for gay people typically have problems with empathy, which is why I bolded the above. Here in the United States, most of the pro-gay Republicans I'm aware of are only that way because they have, for example, a son or daughter who is gay (e.g. Dick Cheney, Rob Portman, etc.). The lawyer who was virulently against same-sex marriage and even defended California's marriage ban to the Supreme Court has come out in favor of same-sex marriage after learning that his daughter is gay. If people on the anti-gay side of the debate could learn how empathy works before having gay children, this debate would move a lot faster.

When you defend anti-gay bigotry by saying gays need to just be in heterosexual relationships and procreate for the good of your country, that is in actuality selfish and not thinking about others (not to mention the fact that gays aren't about to have opposite-sex sex, and if you were somehow able to force them to through legislation, it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the population). Imagine a world the same as this one except procreation can only be accomplished through gay sex. Should we pass laws against heterosexuality? Should you be forced to have gay sex for the good of procreation? I implore you to experience empathy as well as realize the immorality of infringing upon a group's rights.


----------



## Gahars (May 13, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> Should we have the right to steal, murder, rape? If not, why? You wouldn't like to have the maximum amount of freedom possible?


 
Because marriage is on an equal level as rape, murder, and so on? Yikes, boyo.



Haloman800 said:


> I've never seen a heterosexual strap a dildo to their head and prance around in public, I can't say the same for homosexuals. Like you said, they are exposed to all sorts of crap online, they'll learn about homosexuality on their own.


 
No, but I have seen heterosexuals banging in public because indecency and rudeness isn't limited to sexuality. Besides, judging an entire group by the actions of a small subset is, you know, bad. I can't believe I have to explain that in 2014, but, well, here we are.



Haloman800 said:


> If the priests weren't homosexuals, the alter boys wouldn't have been molested. Disprove my statement.


 
If that pedophile wasn't a priest, he wouldn't have been able to rape those altar boys. Clearly priests, as a whole, are the problem here and should all be punished accordingly.

Pedophilia isn't limited by sexuality either. There are pedophiles of every sexuality, sex, race, and so on. How is a priest's homosexuality any more important than the fact that he's a fucking pedophile? Would it have been somehow better if he molested young girls instead?


----------



## chavosaur (May 13, 2014)

The main source of evolution and stuff has always stated that reproduction is the sole purpose of every living being on earth to continue life on earth. 

That's all well and good and makes sense, however that's also sucking every bit of emotional connection out of the argument, and basing it so hard on the logic you leave out natural occurrences right in front of you. 

As pointed out above, homosexuality has been found in nature, in our histories (way before the beginning of Christianity) and today. 

Reading above I've seen the argument made that, "if you take the emotion out of it, the logic is there that it isn't right." I call bullshit. Love and human attraction has always been a thing that has continued to ignore scientific data for centuries. Science doesn't get to dictate who I think is attractive and who I fall in love with. Science doesn't get to tell me if I get a boner seeing Channing Tatum shirtless, or Angelina Jolie shirtless (for sake of example). 

Most of the arguments based on homosexuality being wrong typically have to do with overinflated numbers, or people's religious beliefs. I may be going down the rabbit hole a bit here but I feel the point has to be made that, "If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again." 

1.) show me scientific evidence that homosexuality is unnatural
2.) show me scientific evidence that tells me emotion can take no place in the love of two people and their attraction 
3.) Prove to me that Science CAN prove the above two. 
Human Emotion is an Enigma. It's one of the most difficult things to understand in the world, and unless you plan on turning the world into a George Orwell story, I don't believe for a second that Emotion has no place in these instances of love and attraction.


----------



## Gahars (May 13, 2014)

gdeliana said:


> First of all i am not russian, i am albanian. The law of gays is not in our country and will never be. Why? because we are behind the world??? Or because the world looks too crazy to us!? We accept menkind for what it was meant to be and not for what has become, we have gone far beyond our simplistic imagination.
> 
> 
> And after all, we need to increase the population....gay society is failed in this point of view. The nature (or GOD) has made the laws of reproduction....Gays fail that....so they fail. So it's good for ALL those countries which deny this manifestation of human attraction between the same sex. I am not racist, because being racist means being against a race....gays represent a race???? since when??? I am not selfish. I think about the others.... the fact that i am saying that we need to take care about our population declining and degenerating is a fact that i am not selfish.


 
Of course hating gay people isn't racist. It's cool, though, 'cause we have a word for it: homophobic.


And somehow, I very much doubt you'd have any objection to an infertile heterosexual couple, or a heterosexual couple that just doesn't want children at all. You can't just force children on people; that's a recipe for disaster. Human beings are individuals, not just breeders.

I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law or anything, but there was a certain group that wanted to rigidly define how human beings breed and procreate in the aims of creating a perfect race. I don't want to spoil anything, but they weren't very nice people and there aren't many nice things to say about them. When you're basically putting forth the same pitch as those guys, well, maybe you should step back and rethink a few things.



gdeliana said:


> the fact that i am saying that we need to take care about our population declining and degenerating is a fact that i am not selfish.


 
My, what a goobening.


----------



## Qtis (May 13, 2014)

While gay marriage doesn't concern me personally, I do have friends who are gay. At the moment, there are multiple things they can't do that I could. As long as the legislation has any wording in the likes of "you have to be X in order to do Y", it is not equality. If someone's religion say "X shall now be illegal", by all means. Forcing your own beliefs on others is the same as you say the LGBT do, except you have the something they don't. Giving the same rights does not take anything away from you, it just lets people enjoy their lives just as you can.

poof, and I'm away.


----------



## Christopher8827 (May 13, 2014)

Lacius said:


> I've noticed that people against equal rights for gay people typically have problems with empathy, which is why I bolded the above. Here in the United States, most of the pro-gay Republicans I'm aware of are only that way because they have, for example, a son or daughter who is gay (e.g. Dick Cheney, Rob Portman, etc.). The lawyer who was virulently against same-sex marriage and even defended California's marriage ban to the Supreme Court has come out in favor of same-sex marriage after learning that his daughter is gay. If people on the anti-gay side of the debate could learn how empathy works before having gay children, this debate would move a lot faster.
> 
> When you defend anti-gay bigotry by saying gays need to just be in heterosexual relationships and procreate for the good of your country, that is in actuality selfish and not thinking about others (not to mention the fact that gays aren't about to have opposite-sex sex, and if you were somehow able to force them to through legislation, it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the population). Imagine a world the same as this one except procreation can only be accomplished through gay sex. Should we pass laws against heterosexuality? Should you be forced to have gay sex for the good of procreation? I implore you to experience empathy as well as realize the immorality of infringing upon a group's rights.


 

No, it's selfish to deny a child his/her rights to a father and mother. You must remember this is the *wants* of homosexual adults, whose 'child' has no input. Because homosexual relationships (or those so-called 'same-sex marriage') are not geared towards procreation, there are no economic benefits from population growth and therefore pleasure is only final goal of the union. There is no shared domestic life as in heterosexual families, because the characteristics of a father and mother cannot substitute each other but complement each other, and therefore, gay couples cannot contribute to the full maturation of their children. Similarly, children in divorced families or single parent families are worse off in educational attainment, emotional wellbeing, childhood development, etc. Gay families are sub-optimal family structures, period.


Secondly, IVF and artificial reproduction methods is a very inefficient of method of producing children, in comparison to heterosexuals. There is no sexual complementary between homosexuals no matter what - it is the coitus act between heterosexuals in marriage that 'seals' or completes the marriage (through body and mind) as well both individuals consenting to the act. The coitus act has the potential to procreate, which infers exclusivity and indissolubility. 

Now, back to empathy... Just because someone's daughter or son is gay does not mean we should support gay marriage. That is being sentimental - the person is good so the anything they support or do must be linked to that goodness. Empathy is something that gay activists are hypocritically lacking, for example:

- Eich was fired from his position at Mozilla for his traditional views,
- HGTV cancels reality TV show after left-wingers ‘expose’ the stars’ pro-life, pro-family views
- Duck Dynasty Patriach gets his show boycotted by saying homosexuality is a sin.
- Christian businesses boycotted/sued by gay activists for refusing to bake wedding cake
- Photographer fined and harassed for refusing to service a gay wedding
- Lesbian admits she faked anti-gay ‘hate crime’ to get out of doing her homework ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/le...gay-hate-crime-to-get-out-of-doing-her-homewo )
- Ex-gays bullied and threatened, and accused of being 'fakers'

I can go on and on about the discrimination that people who want to stand for the truth of what marriage is about... Not just an emotional union, a pillar and cornerstone of society. (And then you will know the truth, and _the truth will set you free)_.


----------



## Gahars (May 13, 2014)

Christopher8827 said:


> No, it's selfish to deny a child his/her rights to a father and mother.


 
I'd say it's more selfish to deny a child his/her rights to parents, period. It's a bit asinine to deny children access to a caring, loving home just because an arbitrary quota of dicks and vaginas hasn't been met.



Christopher8827 said:


> No, it's selfish to deny a child his/her rights to a father and mother. You must remember this is the *wants* of homosexual adults, whose 'child' has no input. Because homosexual relationships (or those so-called 'same-sex marriage') are not geared towards procreation, there are no economic benefits from population growth and therefore pleasure is only final goal of the union. There is no shared domestic life as in heterosexual families, because the characteristics of a father and mother cannot substitute each other but complement each other, and therefore, gay couples cannot contribute to the full maturation of their children. Similarly, children in divorced families or single parent families are worse off in educational attainment, emotional wellbeing, childhood development, etc. Gay families are sub-optimal family structures, period.


 
Again, there is no barrer for infertile heterosexual couples (or heterosexual couples with no interest in children) to get married, so this argument really holds no wait.

The Nuclear family model you're promoting as natural is actually, historically speaking, fairly new and unconventional. Family is a complex thing, and it's silly to claim that there is only way that it can work. You can have perfectly functional and beneficial unconventional families and completely dysfunctional, awful "conventional" families. The structure of the family isn't the issue - it's the people.

But let's throw you a bone. Say you were right... for so many of these orphans, isn't a sub-optimal family better than nothing at all?



Christopher8827 said:


> Secondly, IVF and artificial reproduction methods is a very inefficient of method of producing children, in comparison to heterosexuals. There is no sexual complementary between homosexuals no matter what - it is the coitus act between heterosexuals in marriage that 'seals' or completes the marriage (through body and mind) as well both individuals consenting to the act. The coitus act has the potential to procreate, which infers exclusivity and indissolubility.


 
It doesn't matter who sticks what in where and how. Love is love. Sex between a man and a woman can be utterly hollow and devoid of meaning in the same way that two men or two women could share a moment of true intimacy. Again, with something as complicated as love, it's silly to try and force it into rigid standards ("It's love when I say it's love!").



Christopher8827 said:


> Now, back to empathy... Just because someone's daughter or son is gay does not mean we should support gay marriage. That is being sentimental - the person is good so the anything they support or do must be linked to that goodness. Empathy is something that gay activists are hypocritically lacking, for example:
> 
> - Eich was fired from his position at Mozilla for his traditional views,
> - HGTV cancels reality TV show after left-wingers ‘expose’ the stars’ pro-life, pro-family views
> ...


 
I actually agree with you on the firings bit. People have a right to their opinion, and even if I personally find it objectionable. As long as their opinion isn't affecting the job (like, you don't exactly want a homophobe counseling gay youths), whatever.

However, you also have to recognize that while we do have freedom of speech, that doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech. If you say something objectionable and people shun you for it, that's on you. In the case of most these firings, the people expressed views that their employers did not want to be associated with, and so the employers had every right to terminate the contracts.

Also, there's more cherry picking here than a lesbian orgy. It's hardly fair to say that all homosexuals or "left-wingers" behave in such a way because of the actions of a few. It'd be no more fair to say that all straight people are bigots because of a few murders of homosexuals.



Christopher8827 said:


> I can go on and on about the discrimination that people who want to stand for the truth of what marriage is about... Not just an emotional union, a pillar and cornerstone of society. (And then you will know the truth, and _the truth will set you free)_.


 

Again, marriage as we think of it today is a fairly recent thing. It's not a cornerstone of society, not when it's existed in so many different forms and ways throughout the years. Even today, marriage means many different things all over the world and even within the country. It's just gooberish to pick one perspective and demand that everyone else abide by it.


----------



## Lacius (May 13, 2014)

Christopher8827 said:


> No, it's selfish to deny a child his/her rights to a father and mother.


It is selfish to provide a loving and stable home, for example, for a child who needs it? By denying same-sex couples the right to adoption, for example, you are the one denying children a right to parents. I've already been over how same-sex couples are just as as fit and capable as opposite-sex parents.



Christopher8827 said:


> Because homosexual relationships (or those so-called 'same-sex marriage') are not geared towards procreation, there are no economic benefits from population growth and therefore pleasure is only final goal of the union. There is no shared domestic life as in heterosexual families, because the characteristics of a father and mother cannot substitute each other but complement each other, and therefore, gay couples cannot contribute to the full maturation of their children. Similarly, children in divorced families or single parent families are worse off in educational attainment, emotional wellbeing, childhood development, etc. Gay families are sub-optimal family structures, period.



Should it be illegal for infertile heterosexual couples to get married?
Should it be illegal for heterosexual couples to get married who don't want to have children?
Should it be illegal for heterosexual couples to get married who want to have children but don't want to have biological children (e.g. they would rather adopt)?
The moment you say gay marriage and/or one of the above should be illegal, you reasoning necessarily leads to saying all of these marriages should be illegal.

Gay couples are as capable of raising children as straight couples. Alternatively, both gay and straight couples have a choice with regard to whether or not they want kids; not having children doesn't make the couple non-productive to society. In a world where overpopulation is a legitimate concern, a moral case can be made for adoption and/or not having kids. There will always be heterosexuals (~95% of the population), and there will always be reproduction. No one should be under any moral or legal obligation to reproduce.



Christopher8827 said:


> There is no shared domestic life as in heterosexual families, because the characteristics of a father and mother cannot substitute each other but complement each other, and therefore, gay couples cannot contribute to the full maturation of their children. Similarly, children in divorced families or single parent families are worse off in educational attainment, emotional wellbeing, childhood development, etc. Gay families are sub-optimal family structures, period.


Every reputable psychological/medical group I'm aware of agrees that same-sex couples are as fit and capable as opposite-sex parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex parents.



Christopher8827 said:


> Secondly, IVF and artificial reproduction methods is a very inefficient of method of producing children, in comparison to heterosexuals.



These methods of reproduction work.
As I've expounded upon above, it wouldn't matter if no artificial methods of reproduction were available to gay people.



Christopher8827 said:


> There is no sexual complementary between homosexuals no matter what - it is the coitus act between heterosexuals *in marriage*that 'seals' or completes the marriage (through body and mind) as well both individuals consenting to the act.


I'm happy that you touched on the fact that the primary purpose (>99%) of sexual acts is social bonding. I don't know if you heard, but gay people can have sex too. It should also be noted that marriage is not required for meaningful sex to occur.



Christopher8827 said:


> The coitus act has the potential to procreate, which infers exclusivity and indissolubility.


As you've already explained, procreation is the secondary purpose (<1%) of sexual acts. An inability to procreate doesn't change anything I've already said several times.



Christopher8827 said:


> Now, back to empathy... Just because someone's daughter or son is gay does not mean we should support gay marriage. That is being sentimental - the person is good so the anything they support or do must be linked to that goodness.


Having a son or daughter who is gay allows a parent to understand that there is no reason to deny the son or daughter his or her rights. It's an alternative when one lacks basic empathy.



Christopher8827 said:


> Empathy is something that gay activists are hypocritically lacking, for example:
> 
> - Eich was fired from his position at Mozilla for his traditional views,
> - HGTV cancels reality TV show after left-wingers ‘expose’ the stars’ pro-life, pro-family views
> - Duck Dynasty Patriach gets his show boycotted by saying homosexuality is a sin.


Everyone has a right to an opinion and free speech (in the US, anyway). That right does not extend to having the right to a television show or the right to work at Mozilla. If a television network, for example, sees that a person has bigoted homophobic views that he/she disagrees with and/or thinks will affect viewership and profit, that network doesn't have to give that person a television show. If a television network wants to give a homophobe a television show, that's perfectly fine with me; I don't have to watch it. If a television network doesn't want to give a homophobe a television show, that's also perfectly fine; it's their network. Tell me again how any of the above demonstrate a lack of empathy on the part of gays and/or gay activists?



Christopher8827 said:


> - Christian businesses boycotted/sued by gay activists for refusing to bake wedding cake
> - Photographer fined and *harassed* for refusing to service a gay wedding


Again, having the right to free speech does not extend to a right not to be boycotted for what one says. If a business owner wants to be against gay marriage, that's perfectly fine with me; I don't have to shop there. If a group of people wishes to boycott a business because they disagree with the business' practices, that's perfectly fine too.

As a side note, I bolded "harassed" because I do not think anyone should be harassed. That's inexcusable.



Christopher8827 said:


> - Lesbian admits she faked anti-gay ‘hate crime’ to get out of doing her homework ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/le...gay-hate-crime-to-get-out-of-doing-her-homewo )


I don't think anyone is arguing, if it actually happened, that this is okay.



Christopher8827 said:


> - Ex-gays bullied and threatened, and accused of being 'fakers'


While bullying and threatening people is inexcusable, it should be noted that ex-gays have not been demonstrated to exist. Many, if not most, public ex-gays have come out as still gay, and I've already touched on how all medical/psychological groups agree that conversion therapy both does not work and causes harm.


----------



## DunnoBro (May 13, 2014)

Kind of depressing just how far off-topic threads are allowed to get these days.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2014)

chavosaur said:


> The main source of evolution and stuff has always stated that reproduction is the sole purpose of every living being on earth to continue life on earth.



That is potentially a wrong reading of it.

Society evolved as a survival method, one need not breed to help with society.

Plenty of species will quite literally have sacrificial members of their population (predator satiation being one term here, a lot of what ants do* is another). It is seriously prevalent in insects and other such creepy crawly things.

*going back to the society thing it should also be noted most ants are infertile.

I believe there are also some cases of infertility rates rising in response to some environmental pressure, I will have to look up something there though. There are certainly cases of things that make breeding slightly harder but otherwise help with survival.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 14, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Because marriage is on an equal level as rape, murder, and so on? Yikes, boyo.


 
You stated "It's better to err on the side of freedom" I proved this is not always the case, then you claim I'm equating murder to homosexuality. That is a strawman.



> How is a priest's homosexuality any more important than the fact that he's a fucking pedophile?




For the third time, if they weren't homosexual, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested. This also correlates to the study that homosexuals are several times more likely to be child molesters: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/


-I'm out. It was a nice discussion! You were more courteous in your replies than others.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 14, 2014)

Lacius said:


> [Liberal mental gymnastics]


 

I'll end our little 'discussion' with some facts about the dangers of homosexuality. If anyone's interested in the truth, I encourage them to investigate the evidence with an open mind and to draw their own conclusions.

Homosexual Men Have 50 Times Higher Rate of AIDS
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#incidence

Drug Use "Seven Times Higher" Among Homosexuals
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...se-seven-times-higher-among-gays-8165971.html

One in Five Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S. Cities Has HIV
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

Report Finds Black Gay Males in US Worst Hit By HIV-AIDS
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/report-finds-black-gay-males-us-worst-hit-161752246.html

STD Facts - Syphilis & MSM
http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-MSM-Syphilis.htm

Viral Hepatitis Populations - Men Who Have Sex with Men
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm

“Didn't your study reveal that 40 percent of the homosexual men claimed to have had more than 500 partners? 
Yes”
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20072072,00.html

--
Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away
http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.c...e-mental-illness-that-went-away/#.UQi3X12lxQI


----------



## FAST6191 (May 14, 2014)

Please read an introduction to statistics before you embarrass yourself too much further, Haloman800. You have some better sources this time mind you so things are improving.

On priests... were they actually homosexual? Points where you are denied sexual contact can lead to some interesting changes in mindset, prisons were mentioned as one, various military/ships being another. Even if they are homesexual or otherwise attracted to the same sex what bearing does it have on anything here, I mean I am pretty sure there are Sunday schools that admit girls and similar after school clubs?

I once knew someone that worked in a sexual health clinic, there was a rule of thumb that double it for women, halve it for men. Still though what is the problem with having a lot of sexual partners? Sure it tends to work better when you know what the other person/people are in to and enjoy more but sometimes getting some genitals wet and stimulated is all that you might want at a given point.

"Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away"
Indeed it was, it is considered a horrifically embarrassing point in psychology's and psychiatry's history and the desire to not make a mistake of that magnitude informs a lot of the practices there to this day.

Quickfire round. If you are allowed to cherry pick and make pithy summaries that might miss the point then I am going to run the risk that my questions were answered in the sources.

Homosexual Men Have 50 Times Higher Rate of AIDS
How much of this is a legacy (HIV and AIDS is often able to be managed and get people to the point where they die of what could be considered old age), the base rates are not that high so 50 times not a lot is still often not a lot.

Drug Use "Seven Times Higher" Among Homosexuals
Given the drug use rates among the general population that would make for some serious drug use rates. What sort of drugs are these anyway? I mean I do not especially care if people enjoy the occasional joint after all, might care more if they are constantly strung out on china white.

One in Five Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S. Cities Has HIV
Again is this a legacy thing? What is the baseline otherwise?

Report Finds Black Gay Males in US Worst Hit By HIV-AIDS
That would possibly speak more to failings in the education and healthcare system, it has long been observed to be less than stellar in poorer areas and areas with a lot of black people.

STD Facts - Syphilis & MSM
I had to read that one, I take it the "75% of the reported P&S syphilis cases (15667 reported cases) were among men who have sex with men (MSM)." were what you were concerned with. It seems much of that was localised to so many cities and counties so it sounds more like an outbreak of sorts, sounds like a case for having a program to sort it if there is not one already.

Viral Hepatitis Populations - Men Who Have Sex with Men
"Despite the availability of safe and effective vaccines .... have not been adequately vaccinated against viral hepatitis." sounds like another one of those healthcare system failures.

All this is very much besides the point though as it does not demonstrate anything inherently morally questionable about having sex with men, to say nothing of a lot of this not troubling lesbians (arguably one of the safest forms of sex you can have with another person, save perhaps mutual masturbation).


----------



## Lacius (May 14, 2014)

Haloman800 said:


> For the third time, if they weren't homosexual, the altar boys wouldn't have been molested.


If men who raped women weren't heterosexuals, for example, the women wouldn't have been raped. That doesn't mean heterosexualality is immoral or that heterosexuals are more likely to commit rape; it means rape is immoral. That's aside from the fact that pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different things. Not only is there no correlation between homosexuality and increased odds that one will molest children, but there is also no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality (i.e. being attracted to adults of the same sex), regardless of whether or not the pedophilia was same-sex in nature.

I've also explained how it would be a sampling bias to say priests, a specific population with sex scandals that got your attention, are representative of gay people. It would be like me taking a school of caucasian students, selecting only the students in the special education classes with predispositions to low test scores, taking their test scores, and claiming there is a correlation between being white and having low test scores based on that data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias



Haloman800 said:


> This also correlates to the study that homosexuals are several times more likely to be child molesters


Except that the preponderance of evidence suggests that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ...y#Association_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia



Haloman800 said:


> Homosexual Men Have 50 Times Higher Rate of AIDS
> Drug Use "Seven Times Higher" Among Homosexuals
> One in Five Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S. Cities Has HIV
> Report Finds Black Gay Males in US Worst Hit By HIV-AIDS
> ...


These things are true for reasons including but not limited to shame and/or homophobia leading to an increase in risky behavior and/or the lack of access to health care. Some sex acts are also inherently riskier, particularly with regard to HIV. These statistics do not say anything about the morality or immorality of homosexuality, and they do not say anything that makes it moral for a society to infringe upon the rights of gay people.

It should also be noted that heterosexuals are more likely than homosexuals to contract NGU, genital herpes, crabs, scabies, and genital warts (not to mention pregnancy) due in part to the nature of heterosexual sex. Sex comes with risk, and everyone who's sexually active should practice safe sex.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/stds-hiv-safer-sex/safer-sex-4263.htm

Edit: I neglected to mention the obvious fact that the risk of sexually transmitted infections only extends to sex with infected partners; gay sex acts of all kinds between tested and/or monogamous partners are less risky than sex acts between non-monogamous and/or untested heterosexual partners. If you're truly concerned about sexually transmitted infections, it would be a good idea to support gay monogamy (e.g. same-sex marriage).



Haloman800 said:


> “Didn't your study reveal that 40 percent of the homosexual men claimed to have had more than 500 partners?
> Yes”
> http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20072072,00.html


These results were conducted during the height of anti-gay propaganda and were discredited sometime after 1978, when this _study_ took place, due in part to sampling bias. In reality, most gay people (~98%) and most straight people (~98%) have had fewer than 20 partners each, not 500; around 45% of both gay and straight people have had fewer than five sexual partners. I should also note that, while I personally find 500 partners to be a little excessive, promiscuity is not inherently immoral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity



Haloman800 said:


> Homosexuality: The Mental Illness That Went Away


Homosexuality was considered a mental illness in 1952 but was almost immediately challenged on the basis that there was no evidence for that position, not the other way around. Because there is no evidence that homosexuality meets a single criteria for what it takes to be considered a mental illness, it was removed from the DSM in 1973. If you go back far enough, certain attitudes exhibited by females were also considered mental illnesses caused simply by having a uterus. In Greek, _hystera_ means _uterus_; that's where the word _hysteria_ comes from. As a society, we tend to grow up and see reason over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria



Haloman800 said:


> If anyone's interested in the truth, I encourage them to investigate the evidence with an open mind and to draw their own conclusions.


I agree wholeheartedly.


----------

