Putin to gays: they must "leave the children in peace."

Don't waste your time. Gays preach acceptance, but what they really mean is everybody but them. They expect you to accept them, yet if you don't, they can't accept you. They should practice what they preach, but they don't. They just attack you if you don't accept them and support their gay lifestyle.

Why does nobody here know what what propaganda is...

Putin isnt saying Gays are all paedophiles and cant talk to children. He is saying please dont use the Olympic games as an opportunity to spread a message...and thats a perfectly reasonable (allbeit poorly worded) sentiment. The Olympics is a stage for athleticism and itsnt about sexuality.

A gay person not accepting homophobia is as hypocritical as a black person not accepting racism (it's not hypocritical at all)

Obviously you're a bit slow so I'll keep it simple. Being gay harms no one. Homophobia harms everyone.

Seconded.

Propaganda is such a vague term that it does apply to literally all thing positive about gay people (including couples holding hands in public) It's basically made it illegal to be openly gay. The law was intentionally vaguely worded for that to be possible.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue at all.

Look dont you dare tell me what I have an understanding of and what I dont. I follow the news, Im aware Russia doesnt make life easy for Gay people but this is a public relations issue and the fact is to the rest of the world its in Putins best interest to appear friendly and receptive to Gays visiting for the Olympics. However he still needs to adhere to the bill he passed about propaganda. Hence this statement. The fact is, regarding this particular situation....sexuality SHOULD NOT be of any relevance whatsoever. Of course Gay people should be made to feel safe and welcome however the Olympics does not need to become a platform for propaganda.

Well clearly you don't follow this story in the news. The law wasn't passed for the Olympics in fact they have temporarily made it more lenient because of it.

No such word. That word gets red underlined, so it ain't a real word.

Clearly???

Who do you think you are talking to?

How on earth could you possibly know what I do and don't' follow in the news. Do yourself a favour and dont quote me again, you have proven your inability to have a reasoned discussion by insulting the people who attempted to engage in the conversation. Im out. Dead topic.

I rest my case. Cry like a bitch and try to insult me all you wish. You just proved my point.

Don't waste your time. Gays preach acceptance, but what they really mean is everybody but them. They expect you to accept them, yet if you don't, they can't accept you. They should practice what they preach, but they don't. They just attack you if you don't accept them and support their gay lifestyle.

Lol two people loving each other is propaganda now. Oh well, I just have more names on my idiot list.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is so 1990's.

Can't see anything wrong with the law. It doesn't persecute gays for being gay, but it asks them to keep it to themselves. Whether you like it or not heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence either by virtue of statistical prevalence or biological purpose of preserving the species and reproduction. So if some grown up adults decided to swing that way its their choice and they should be entitled to the liberty of sexual preference. However, they should also be inclined to keep it to themselves as far as minors are concerned. Actually as a general rule of thumb, heterosexual or homosexual, an adult is always asked to keep his sexuality and anything associated with it away from minors so again what's wrong with the law?

Well the law doesn't say anything about heterosexuals, only homosexuals.

Because the law seems to acknowledge that heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence for one's sexuality. So the Russians' rationale would be along the lines of "Being homosexual is the more reason why you should keep your sexuality away from minors". Essentially, all adults are asked to keep their sexuality and everything associated with it away from minors. But the standpoint of that law is heterosexual adults would not be influencing or harming minors by making the fact that they're heterosexual obvious or by not trying to hide it because it is the normal mode of existence for a human being's sexuality. So exposing minors to the notion itself cannot harm them and if minors were left to discover their sexuality on their own, they'll grow up to be heterosexual from a statistical and biological point of view. On the other side of the argument, the law sees homosexuality as an abnormal mode of existence for one's sexuality. While the law does not persecute people for it, it asks them not to abet or sway minors into that lifestyle. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, but the idea is: exposing children to heterosexuality does not have the capacity of influencing their sexuality, homosexuality on the other hand does.

And here we see the issue with the law. Also grouping it in with pedophilia

Children do learn and are influenced by the actions, views and traits of the authority figures they encounter in life and certainly by parents. By statistical prevalence and biological functionality and physiology, heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence of one's sexuality. But if an adult chose some other sexuality its his choice and if a minor would grow up to choose the same sexuality it will be his choice too, just don't tamper with his own growth and identity as it would be a violation of his individuality and liberty.

Children do learn and are influenced by the actions, views and traits of the authority figures they encounter in life and certainly by parents. By statistical prevalence and biological functionality and physiology, heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence of one's sexuality. But if an adult chose some other sexuality its his choice and if a minor would grow up to choose the same sexuality it will be his choice too, just don't tamper with his own growth and identity as it would be a violation of his individuality and liberty.

Children do learn and are influenced by the actions, views and traits of the authority figures they encounter in life and certainly by parents. By statistical prevalence and biological functionality and physiology, heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence of one's sexuality. But if an adult chose some other sexuality its his choice and if a minor would grow up to choose the same sexuality it will be his choice too, just don't tamper with his own growth and identity as it would be a violation of his individuality and liberty.

I'm pretty sure that there were lots of people in the West who linked homosexuality with pedophilia as late as a decade ago (wouldn't be surprised if it's still going on)

It's so despicable the way people still have these prejudices. Just read about how this happy gay couple had their son torn from them. All they wanted to do was have a family and live a life of love. But hate tore it apart.

http://chiangcruise.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/abc-far-north-queensland-two-dads-are-better-than-one-by-sam-davis/

Becoming parents was hard work for gay couple, Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to.

A shiny child’s bike lies on its side on the front lawn of an immaculate garden.

Around the back gay dads Pete and Mark chase their son’s pet chickens around, trying to catch them.

Drake, 5, exclaims that the little birds are too fast for him.

It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles Drake was born by surrogacy in Russia.

"We decided that we would have a child, that it was time for us to have a family. We wanted to experience the joys of fatherhood and we started our surrogacy over in the United States back in 2002," Pete said.

You can read more here: Son torn from two Dads because of hate

[Mark Newton's] voice quavered as he said, "being a father was an honor and a privilege that amounted to the best six years of my life."

Because the law seems to acknowledge that heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence for one's sexuality. So the Russians' rationale would be along the lines of "Being homosexual is the more reason why you should keep your sexuality away from minors". Essentially, all adults are asked to keep their sexuality and everything associated with it away from minors. But the standpoint of that law is heterosexual adults would not be influencing or harming minors by making the fact that they're heterosexual obvious or by not trying to hide it because it is the normal mode of existence for a human being's sexuality. So exposing minors to the notion itself cannot harm them and if minors were left to discover their sexuality on their own, they'll grow up to be heterosexual from a statistical and biological point of view. On the other side of the argument, the law sees homosexuality as an abnormal mode of existence for one's sexuality. While the law does not persecute people for it, it asks them not to abet or sway minors into that lifestyle. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, but the idea is: exposing children to heterosexuality does not have the capacity of influencing their sexuality, homosexuality on the other hand does.

Can't see anything wrong with the law. It doesn't persecute gays for being gay, but it asks them to keep it to themselves. Whether you like it or not heterosexuality is the normal mode of existence either by virtue of statistical prevalence or biological purpose of preserving the species and reproduction. So if some grown up adults decided to swing that way its their choice and they should be entitled to the liberty of sexual preference. However, they should also be inclined to keep it to themselves as far as minors are concerned. Actually as a general rule of thumb, heterosexual or homosexual, an adult is always asked to keep his sexuality and anything associated with it away from minors so again what's wrong with the law?

please don't comment on matters you don't understand. I find it funny how you pretend to be a rational person yet refuse to educate yourself on subjects like this and continue to spread this crap as if there is any truth behind it.

So I'm uneducated and irrational because I don't confirm to you and politically correct views on homosexuality? How enlightened of you. If you don't like my views you're free to disagree with them and disregard them altogether. Otherwise **** off.

if he hates gay propaganda so much then how come this exists?

Vladimir Putin is 61 years old,not 40.

You make the mistake of thinking homosexuality is a choice, despite that it's clearly not. The fact that you can't control who you fall in love with should already prove to you that homosexuals can't control that either.

This isn't a matter of opinions. What you're saying is objectively false. Being around gay people doesn't make you gay, why the hell do you think that?

And yes when it comes to sexuality you clearly are uneducated.

I said it once and got heavily disparaged but I'm going to say it again anyway. You and I have a choice in pretty much everything that we do in life as long as 1) We're not forced to do it under coercion, 2) We don't need to do it for survival. Every possible course of action we take that is outside the scope of these two concepts is subject to and the result of choice.

This notion of choice in itself is quite vague and open to all possibilities and implementations in life. It is entirely subjective and context-dependent. What I'm getting at with this is that there's no reason why this concept of choice should be perceived to be deterministic or used in itself to discredit anyone or anything so abstractly and rigidly. I can't see why whoever makes the claim that homosexuals have a choice is heavily antagonized and secluded from the realm of rationality. To be perfectly clear here, I can and do accept the claim that homosexuals don't have a choice in who they feel attracted to, but they absolutely have a choice whether to act upon these feelings and urges or not. What is so outrageous about this? Homosexuals that decided to get out of the closet should celebrate this conception of choice rather than detest and silent it. It would be a celebration of liberty and freedom of choice. The only possible scenario I can think of where homosexuals need and a have a great interest in desperately asserting the idea that they have no choice is a one where homosexuals themselves are either loathing and antagonizing themselves for their sexual preference, think they're doing something wrong or both. If I were gay and decided to follow that lifestyle, I'd have no problem validating a reality in which I had a choice in the whole thing, a reality where I consciously and individually made the choice to lead such a life. I would celebrate it because I value my individuality and self-consciousness more than anything.

I paid a hefty price for holding some views and taking certain stands in a place like where I live, but I'm not going to stand in front of you and say I had no choice. I fully had one. I could have either yielded and coalesced, or I could have preserved my individuality and practiced my liberty to the most possible extent. I could have chosen either course of action and my survival wouldn't have depended on it. I have no regrets and I certainly don't feel the need to justify myself and have an apologist attitude towards the entire thing, even though I would have the strongest of cases if I chose to go that way. A form where one needs to make excuses for something that concerns no one but himself or receive the approbation and assertion of others is a lower form to inhabit.

Follow the progress of the quoted text above and tell me exactly what makes your point of view more valid than mine? And what makes my stand on the issue uneducated and objectively false while yours the opposite?

What's your point? Are you really such a huge dickbag that you're going to use that horrific tragedy to demonize millions of innocent people? :/

Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed "substantiated" sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 of these mother and 148 (86%) of 173 of these father perpetrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) of the mothers and 25 (14%) of the father perpetrators sexually abused boys, i.e., 92 (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. Of these parents 15 both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 of the mothers and 4 of the fathers, sons by 3 of the mothers, i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%. Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825933

What innocent people? I'm not the one defending mentally ill perverts. In a sane society they would getting the help that they need from a young age, instead of being encouraged to embrace their illness.

Because what you're saying contradicts the current understanding of human sexuality. For you to do that you have to use facts.

If you can back up your argument then there wouldn't be a problem, but what you're doing is saying any random thought that comes to your head and expecting us to believe or respect it.

I didn't expect anything, and I didn't even address you in any of my replies so I'm not sure why you seem to be concerning yourself too much with whatever that I post.

Let's go over the three claims I made in the post you so barbarically despise:

• Heterosexuality is statistically prevalent, has a crucial biological purpose and the anatomy of the human body is designed accordingly which lead to the conclusion that it is the normal mode of existence of sexuality, that it is the rule and homosexuality is the exception.
• Children are influenced by the authority figures in their lives, parents being the most influential of them all.

Which one of these claims you find absurd, unfounded and rubbish?

I didn't expect anything, and I didn't even address you in any of my replies so I'm not sure why you seem to be concerning yourself too much with whatever that I post.

Let's go over the three claims I made in the post you so barbarically despise:

• Heterosexuality is statistically prevalent, has a crucial biological purpose and the anatomy of the human body is designed accordingly which lead to the conclusion that it is the normal mode of existence of sexuality, that it is the rule and homosexuality is the exception.
• Children are influenced by the authority figures in their lives, parents being the most influential of them all.

Which one of these claims you find absurd, unfounded and rubbish?

And how is any of that relevant?

lol I rest my case.

Look you sometimes make decent posts. So why are you now acting so stupid?

Give some evidence that being around gays can cause you to be gay or admit you are wrong. I don't get why you are getting offended about this. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant as long as you can accept it.

I'm not sure who's being stupid here.

First you proceeded to insult me despite the fact that I didn't even address you to begin with and I certainly did not insult anyone, then you ask me why I'm being offended. Then you proceed to make the statement that I'm just spouting worthless shit and that my opinion is objectively wrong without either addressing any of the claims I made or saying anything of actual worth. Finally after I repeated my claims and asked you to pinpoint which one you're having trouble with you responded with "how is any of that relevant?".

I have no problem admitting that I'm largely ignorant of many things in life. I'm as fallible as a human being can possibly be. But I try to apply reason and rationality as extensively and objectively as possible, to the best of my knowledge. Needless to say, due to human's fallibility and subjectivity, sometimes I will make not so convincing arguments which is fine really, as long as we're conversing and trying to have a relatively intelligent conversation, and as long as the opposite party is also aware of its fallibility and subjectivity. However, I'm never a hardliner or a dogmatic imbecile and I never start throwing insults left and right. I'd like you to survey the posts I made and all the insults I received so far and tell me how that washes with you. I don't know why the narration in this topic went that way, but its not very appealing to continue this conversation.