This is utterly stupid...

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Time Magazine and Russia Today are liberal publications?

Also, how the hell does a pair of women kissing affect children?

The Arab world intolerance of homosexuality was mentioned in the article. I do find it strange that you are keen to call Arabs terrorist, claim to share a position with them, imply that two women kissing harms children and claim affinity with the people you call terrorists by highlighting your equally intolerant positions. What does that say about you?

LauraHale (talk)17:38, 7 August 2013

But the quotes used are highly selective. As in, the article is largely liberal.
A pair of women kissing does affect children - if our society values humanity, we should be encouraging our children to mate with people of the opposite sex and NOT the same sex. If we don't want to encourage kids to do something, we don't allow it in public. How does nudity affect children? How does sex affect children? We don't want our kids to imitate such acts and hence they are not allowed in public. Simple as that.
It says that I'm not provincial or bigoted. Although I am hostile to the Arabs, I do believe that their anti-homosexuality policy is quite appropriate. I don't FORCE myself to believe something. Maybe you should open your mind also.

Moderateconservative (talk)17:53, 7 August 2013

No, the problem is verifable facts tend to have a liberal bias. Your argument against neutrality is you disagree with the premise of the boycott.

No, sorry. That does not effect our children. You are assuming that the view that you share with people happily identify with and call Arab terrorists is the ideal one. You have not made any argument regarding harm for children. Please, come at me with some facts that support harm to children by seeing two women kissing. Facts. Even the opponents of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court couldn't demonstrate any harm in same-sex marriage. There are plenty of studies that actually demonstrate that there is no harm, that children with same-sex parents do as well or better than their peers.

I see: You are a bigot towards Arabs, but you do have something in common. And I do have an open mind. I am not forcing you to boycott anything. I am not forcing you to engage with sex with someone of the same gender. I am not forcing you to be supportive of our children who are gay who come out to you, and telling you to feed, clothe and love them. I am not telling you what news stories you can contribute to Wikinews. The force appears to be on your part, where you are demanding content be written to your specific point of view, that caters to your prejudices and ignores facts to suit your world view.

If you believe the story is non-neutral, I invite (but do not force) you to write a follow up as the protests are ongoing that conforms to what you perceive as a more neutral point of view.

LauraHale (talk)18:14, 7 August 2013

If homosexuality is allowed on the street, why can't I do the following things in public:
- make out with my dog
- make out with a dead body
- eat a dead human in public
- be naked in public
- have sex in public
According to your logic, these (especially the first few) have NO effects on children. So I guess we should allow people to engage in such acts in public?

Moderateconservative (talk)18:25, 7 August 2013

It's really hard to take your above remark seriously. Are you practicing performance art, illustrating that bigots when left to their own devices will ultimately embody the idiocy of their position?

Pi zero (talk)18:43, 7 August 2013

I think his point is that bigots like himself have no self control, that upon seeing two women making out, he wants to engage in zoophilia and necrophilia. That's kind of sick and twisted that his self control is so awful that he fears the consequences of viewing two women kissing would lead him to engaging in sex acts with dogs and dead bodies.

LauraHale (talk)18:51, 7 August 2013
 

If heterosexuality is allowed on the street, why can't you have sex with a dead dog in public while eating a sandwich from a corpse you just killed? According to your logic, you can.

Why are you coming at me with the fallacy of the slippery slope? Oh, that's right. Because your reality is an opinion based reality derived from what you believe, not from facts. You have no proof to support the claims you made, so you made something up to try to win. I can see this argument. Let's start with the slippery slope here: All promotion of heterosexual behavior is the problem. No public affection of any kind should be public, be it on the streets or on television. By encouraging heterosexual behavior, we encourage homosexual behavior. This heterosexual behavior will eventually lead you to making out with your dog and eating a dead dog in public.

Now, after that laugh, let's get back to our fact based reality where you still have provided no research that supports your claim of harm to children.

LauraHale (talk)18:47, 7 August 2013
 
 

Also, hey, remember in sharing your bigotry: Uninformed people hearing your view that homosexuality is wrong, ungodly and harms children could easily confuse you with those Arab terrorists you don't like. If you don't want to be confused with them, ... well, not sure what to say given the affinity you claim with their message.

LauraHale (talk)18:17, 7 August 2013