Slovenians reject same-sex marriages in a referendum

[Exocet]

The people has spoken. They massively rejected the so called "same sex marriage".
That is democracy. (Unlike in our country..)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-slovenia-rights-idUSKBN0U30BS20151220

[lliam]

The Sovereign has spoken!!!

So, how that was handled in France?

[Exocet]

The Sovereign has spoken!!!

So, how that was handled in France?

No referundum was held in France. The people wasn't able to decide on this issue.
I really hope the next President and his/her government "abolishes" the law permiting to "same sex" persons to marry.

[Vlerchan]

The people has spoken.
No. Christ - through the heroic Slovenian people - has spoken.

Praise be.

[sqishy]

Alright. Being done through a referendum, it is an example (at least apparently) of democracy, yes.

I might be outlying with my view that people here in Ireland saying that same-sex marriage should not have been done through a referendum, while calling Ireland completely democratic, are using a double standard. I don't get why they don't just be honest and say Ireland is not a democracy with certain (or most) issues, if no voting is done on them. Anyhow, off-topic.

[Judean Zealot]

No. Christ - through the heroic Slovenian people - has spoken.

Praise be.

xdRyNea19PE

[Exocet]

No. Christ - through the heroic Slovenian people - has spoken.

Praise be.

U mad cuz the Slovenian people didn't follow "right way" as you guys "did" ? LOL.

[Judean Zealot]

I really hope the next President and his/her government "abolishes" the law permiting to "same sex" persons to marry.
Question:

Do the quotation marks indicate that you see the abolition of the law as invalid, or that same sex couples aren't really of the same sex?

Just wondering, is all.

[lliam]

No referundum was held in France. The people wasn't able to decide on this issue.#

ah, same procedure like in Germany.



I really hope the next President and his/her government "abolishes" the law permiting to "same sex" persons to marry.

at least, you can hope ... even I can't quite estimate whether you are against this same-sex-thingy or not. Anyway, that's actually not the topic of the thread i guess.

[Vlerchan]

U mad cuz the Slovenian people didn't follow "right way" as you guys "did" ? LOL.
No. Same-sex marriage is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

We also did: not "did": whatever that means.

[Exocet]

at least, you can hope ... even I can't quite estimate whether you are against this same-sex-thingy or not. Anyway, that's actually not the topic of the thread i guess.

Totally against it.
Even if it is be abolished,they should still be happy to not be in some countries like Saudi Arabia.... if you are gay..... you have chances that your head will be 1 meter away from your body....

[Exocet]

No. Same-sex marriage is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

We also did: not "did": whatever that means.

I expect the GAY Slovenians to emigrate to Ireland.

[dxcxdzv]

What's the problem with same-sex marriage?

I'm a hundred percent sure this is a the billionth time someone says that on the Internet, where's my prize?

[Jinglebottom]

What's the problem with same-sex marriage?

I'm a hundred percent sure this is a the billionth time someone says that on the Internet, where's my prize?
It's about as useless as opposite-sex marriage.

[dxcxdzv]

It's about as useless as opposite-sex marriage.
Agreed. But still not a reason to prohibit it. Useless things are cool, like colored vodka shots.

Or... we prohibit opposite-sex marriage as well. :>

[Jinglebottom]

Agreed. But still not a reason to prohibit it. Useless things are cool, like colored vodka shots.

Or... we prohibit opposite-sex marriage as well. :>
Colored vodka shots aren't useless in my book. :D

[Exocet]

What's the problem with same-sex marriage?

I'm a hundred percent sure this is a the billionth time someone says that on the Internet, where's my prize?

Pourqwwwwwa paaaa.

http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/88/66/1289480/102543811_o.jpg

The gays shouldn't forget that they had a father and a mother. But whatever.

[dxcxdzv]

Pourqwwwwwa paaaa.

image (http://p8.storage.canalblog.com/88/66/1289480/102543811_o.jpg)
Consenting humans =/= chimpanzees.

You use the stupid technique of the "if we allow this then soon we will have to allow this... and so on".
You should grow up a bit dude.

And you shouldn't forget that we live in a civilized society.

[Jinglebottom]

Tu crois que les singes doivent avoir le droit de se marier? :P

[Exocet]

Consenting humans =/= chimpanzees.

You use the stupid technique of the "if we allow this then soon we will have to allow this... and so on".
You should grow up a bit dude.
And you shouldn't forget that we live in a civilized society.


YES we should also allow this ! We live in the 21st century no ?

[dxcxdzv]

YES we should also allow this ! We live in the 21st century no ?
I feel like you didn't really read - or understand - the first line of my post.
And now that I think about it, I don't even think you even read a single line.

[phuckphace]

No. Christ - through the heroic Slovenian people - has spoken.

Praise be.

Inquisition 2.0 when??

[lliam]

Totally against it.


OK. I put it under the category: Senselless to argue about taste and such.

IMO marriage is a private matter. May marry who wants to marry or so. I even wouldn't support or protect marriage by law or whatever.

In my twisted mind there is only one duty:

* If someone brings kids to live, whether consciously or not, they've kindly to take care of these beings and the goddamn duty to raise'em up to become critical, and self-reliant individuals. Without the right be respected for it.

Whether if homosexuals, object-sexuals, heterosexuals or Donald Trump fulfills this duty, I don't care. Who evades this obligation, goes to jail.

[phuckphace]

I oppose gay marriage because 99.9999999% of gays are seethingly angry anti-traditionalists who only care about "muh rights" while rejecting their obligations to the society they live in. good on the Slovenians for giving these miserable people the collective middle finger.

[Hudor]

I oppose gay marriage because 99.9999999% of gays are seethingly angry anti-traditionalists who only care about "muh rights" while rejecting their obligations to the society they live in. good on the Slovenians for giving these miserable people the collective middle finger.

Yup I understand that you have information about 99.9999999% gays behaviour. NSA undercover agent revealed :P

And Exocet there's no point in arguing with you. There are about a hundred threads in rotw on similar topics. I suggest you patiently go through at least a few of those for further enlightenment.

[sqishy]

I oppose gay marriage because 99.9999999% of gays are seethingly angry anti-traditionalists who only care about "muh rights" while rejecting their obligations to the society they live in. good on the Slovenians for giving these miserable people the collective middle finger.

Apparently I am 1 of 730 people alive who is not rejecting obligations to the society I am in. I'm not getting how marriage (a primarily private act) is infringing/threatening/corrupting (primarily public) society. Enlighten me plz.
(I'd say the same if you went for 90%)


Either that, or I am miserable and need that middle finger. Would work wonders for my mental health! (I know, it does not matter, stupid self-serving me.) I'm so needy and inconsiderate for wanting to marry someone, it's causing so much damage everywhere! Why don't I just go shut up and conform to certain rules which clearly keep the peace and integrity of humanity? I must recognise the triumph of past society and not be so ignorant to think otherwise, or even be open to such silly ideas of questioning it.

[Judean Zealot]

I oppose gay marriage because 99.9999999% of gays are seethingly angry anti-traditionalists who only care about "muh rights" while rejecting their obligations to the society they live in. good on the Slovenians for giving these miserable people the collective middle finger.

Honestly, I've come to the realisation that legalisation of gay marriage added nothing new to the playing table. It is simply a natural outgrowth of the repeal of Sodomy laws.

Remember, marriage, as legally defined is most western countries is not a sacramental, but a fiscal arrangement. There is no reason that any two individuals living together in such a manner shouldn't have that fiscal arrangement available.

Those who oppose it ought to be calling for Sodomy laws, while those who oppose Sodomy laws ought to support SSM.

The big deal in regards to marriage is ecclesiastical recognition of gay marriage. Otherwise, it doesn't change a thing.

[phuckphace]

yeah, it's the culture war. but the thing is, victories for the social liberals only make them angrier and even more totalitarian. I mean that in the sense of gay marriage today, and laws against Christian parents teaching their own children "homophobia" tomorrow. there was a recent case in Norway (I'll drop a link when I get home) of a Christian family having their children taken away without warning by nanny state social workers - cases like these underscore the one-way street that is progressive "tolerance". these people, generally, are deeply contemptuous of religious values - a very high number of gay people will defend the Norway situation (or if they don't, at best give it a passing sigh of "well, that may have gone a bit too far but oh well.")

I don't know about you but if I were one of those Norwegian parents I'd seriously consider becoming the next Breivik. I have zero sympathy for the "muh mental health" excuse. it's a ruse. that's why I'm going to cackle very loudly when they are electorally defeated, even if only temporarily.

[Jinglebottom]

Am I only one who really really dislikes "pride parades"? I can't find any reason to justify throwing such a big and loud event, and I don't see what they're trying to achieve, really. If anything, it just shows the world how obnoxious some LGBT people can be. I would never, ever participate in one. They're making fools out of themselves, all while confirming basically every single stereotype that exists about gay people, and giving others more and more reasons to hate our guts. Note, I said "our" guts.

[Judean Zealot]

Am I only one who really really dislikes "pride parades"? I can't find any reason to justify throwing such a big and loud event, and I don't see what they're trying to achieve, really. If anything, it just shows the world how obnoxious some LGBT people can be. I would never, ever participate in one. They're making fools out of themselves, all while confirming basically every single stereotype that exists about gay people, and giving others more and more reasons to hate our guts. Note, I said "our" guts.

They also insist on marching where their behaviour is the most offensive to the people. Take the parades in Jerusalem: over 80% of the city didn't want it, with a large percentage of those strongly opposed. The public vulgarity displayed during those parades is nothing less than deplorable.

[Jinglebottom]

They also insist on marching where their behaviour is the most offensive to the people. Take the parades in Jerusalem: over 80% of the city didn't want it, with a large percentage of those strongly opposed. The public vulgarity displayed during those parades is nothing less than deplorable.
Eek! They marched in the world's holiest city! :eek: Yet they still expect you to treat them with full respect. I can't find the logic here. They wouldn't last a day anywhere in Lebanon, with the exception of Beirut. And that's overestimating it.

[Judean Zealot]

Apparently I am 1 of 730 people alive who is not rejecting obligations to the society I am in. I'm not getting how marriage (a primarily private act) is infringing/threatening/corrupting (primarily public) society. Enlighten me plz.
(I'd say the same if you went for 90%)

Although (as you already know) I disagree with your assertion that private behaviour shouldn't be subject to public censure, I'm not going to go that way now.

But I want you to answer this. How, in absolutely any way, is demanding government sanction, that is, sanction by the supposed representatives of the people, not public? Government is the expression of the people, both in my own ideas and the democratic tradition. So how is the government's sanction of something not a public matter?

[phuckphace]

Am I only one who really really dislikes "pride parades"? I can't find any reason to justify throwing such a big and loud event, and I don't see what they're trying to achieve, really. If anything, it just shows the world how obnoxious some LGBT people can be. I would never, ever participate in one. They're making fools out of themselves, all while confirming basically every single stereotype that exists about gay people, and giving others more and more reasons to hate our guts. Note, I said "our" guts.

I've seen photos and videos of some of the most disgusting shit you can imagine. you've got public nudity and masturbation, dildos in orifices, and dudes in leather thongs getting oral sex from several people simultaneously. and of course this is all in full public view in broad daylight. you'll even see mentally damaged "heterosexual allies" with their families and children cavorting amongst the flailing penises.

I remember back when I first joined VT, I brought this up and the responses were either total denial that this even happens, or UGH nobody's getting hurt BIGOT. a couple posters even demanded PROOF, as if I'm going to post that shit on VT :lol3:

[Jinglebottom]

I've seen photos and videos of some of the most disgusting shit you can imagine. you've got public nudity and masturbation, dildos in orifices, and dudes in leather thongs getting oral sex from several people simultaneously. and of course this is all in full public view in broad daylight. you'll even see mentally damaged "heterosexual allies" with their families and children cavorting amongst the flailing penises.

I remember back when I first joined VT, I brought this up and the responses were either total denial that this even happens, or UGH nobody's getting hurt BIGOT. a couple posters even demanded PROOF, as if I'm going to post that shit on VT :lol3:
Oh lord, what a disgrace. And if you dare question their motives behind this abomination, you'll be labelled an evil homophobe (even if you're LGBT yourself) that contributes to all the inequality and discrimination in the world. All in the name of "freedom" and "expression" and "we just want to be accepted even if we behave like animals". :lol:

[phuckphace]

Oh lord, what a disgrace. And if you dare question their motives behind this abomination, you'll be labelled an evil homophobe (even if you're LGBT yourself) that contributes to all the inequality and discrimination in the world. All in the name of "freedom" and "expression" and "we just want to be accepted even if we behave like animals". :lol:

what I really can't wrap my head around is the fact that getting your dick out in front of an eight-year-old would have you sent to prison as a sex offender in any other situation.

----

http://i.imgur.com/gS385pY.jpg

[Exocet]

They also insist on marching where their behaviour is the most offensive to the people. Take the parades in Jerusalem: over 80% of the city didn't want it, with a large percentage of those strongly opposed. The public vulgarity displayed during those parades is nothing less than deplorable.

Didn't they land in hospitals ?

[Judean Zealot]

Didn't they land in hospitals ?

Two were murdered in middle of the parade, and a whole bunch injured.

[Jinglebottom]

Didn't they land in hospitals ?
Seven people were stabbed in this year's pride parade in Jerusalem, and of these, one person's injuries were fatal. (wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_gay_pride_parade))

[Judean Zealot]

Seven people were stabbed in this year's pride parade in Jerusalem, and of these, one person's injuries were fatal. (wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_gay_pride_parade))

Another died later, as I recall.

[phuckphace]

more like the Sanhedrin Shankdown

[Exocet]

Two were murdered in middle of the parade, and a whole bunch injured.

That's what you got when you do this sh*t in the Holy Land. (An utter provocation) And they were lucky,do this in Makkah,no one will survive.

[Jinglebottom]

That's what you got when you do this sh*t in the Holy Land. (An utter provocation) And they were lucky,do this in Makkah,no one will survive.
Mecca barely allows Shi'ite Muslims in, let alone people considered grave sinners. http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah286/bobyo01/rofl_zpskengj081.gif (http://s1383.photobucket.com/user/bobyo01/media/rofl_zpskengj081.gif.html)

Homosexuality carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, so these people would have to be suicidal, should they organize such an event there. But the reactions (from both parties) would've been priceless.

[phuckphace]

not to derail but I've heard that some newspapers in Dubai actually have men-seeking-men personal ads even though it's illegal. what's up with that?

[Exocet]

phuckphace xbob18

OUWMYgm8_Co

[Jinglebottom]

not to derail but I've heard that some newspapers in Dubai actually have men-seeking-men personal ads even though it's illegal. what's up with that?
With the ridiculous sex segregation that exists in the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia + Gulf), it's no wonder that men turn to other men for sexual gratification. After all, it's easier being gay than straight there, as long as you're not caught in the full-blown act. In fact, men can even exchange small kisses and hold hands in public, since those acts are considered acts of friendship, not love. But watch as all the straight couples are imprisoned and punished for merely displaying affection in public.

I've been to Dubai countless times before, it's only three hours away.

[phuckphace]

With the ridiculous sex segregation that exists in the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia + Gulf), it's no wonder that men turn to other men for sexual gratification. After all, it's easier being gay than straight there, as long as you're not caught in the full-blown act. In fact, men can even exchange small kisses and hold hands in public, since those acts are considered acts of friendship, not love. But watch as all the straight couples are imprisoned and punished for merely displaying affection in public.

I've been to Dubai countless times before, it's only three hours away.

lol, jesus. we used to have a diet version of that here in the West (Victorian era). I think that's how the Abe-Lincoln-was-gay meme got started (he shared a bed with male friends!) everything has an annoying sexual connotation now thanks to the sex revolution. brb adding sex segregation to my future regime's social policy

[Jinglebottom]

lol, jesus. we used to have a diet version of that here in the West (Victorian era). I think that's how the Abe-Lincoln-was-gay meme got started (he shared a bed with male friends!) everything has an annoying sexual connotation now thanks to the sex revolution. brb adding sex segregation to my future regime's social policy
That being said, I don't think the towelheads (sorry) recognize the concept of sexual orientation... for them, there are no homosexuals, just heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts. Take Ahmadinejad for example, who blatantly denies the existence of gays in Iran.

[Judean Zealot]

That's what you got when you do this sh*t in the Holy Land. (An utter provocation) And they were lucky,do this in Makkah,no one will survive.

It was both illegal and wrong to react through murder. I have little sympathy for the marchers, but let's just set the record straight. Thankfully the murderer will be dealt with by the law, although not to the extent that I would like. Israel only has the death penalty for Nazis and traitors, and a murderer is neither. :(

[Jinglebottom]

It was both illegal and wrong to react through murder. I have little sympathy for the marchers, but let's just set the record straight. Thankfully the murderer will be dealt with by the law, although not to the extent that I would like. Israel only has the death penalty for Nazis and traitors, and a murderer is neither. :(
It was the same murderer in 2005 and 2015. Why didn't he get a life imprisonment sentence after the first offence? And yet, since he seemingly didn't learn from his past mistake (which cost him ten years of prison), he should be held eligible for the death penalty. Just my two cents.

[phuckphace]

phuckphace xbob18

OUWMYgm8_Co

absolutely haram

[Exocet]

absolutely haram

i've seen a documentaries where it said that even Saudi princes are organizing parties for Gays etc. with alcohol everywhere in their palaces.
Haram yes. So haram. Utterly haram. Even the word haram is so soft to explain the Haramity of this.

[Jinglebottom]

"Haram" in Lebanon means that you pity someone, not that you're denouncing them for sinning. :P

But yeah, still haram. And how haram of me to twist the true meaning of the word!

[Judean Zealot]

It was the same murderer in 2005 and 2015. Why didn't he get a life imprisonment sentence after the first offence? And yet, since he seemingly didn't learn from his past mistake (which cost him ten years of prison), he should be held eligible for the death penalty. Just my two cents.

No one died from his first attempt.

[tovaris]

Not realy 67per cent of people staied home

[phuckphace]

there was a recent case in Norway (I'll drop a link when I get home) of a Christian family having their children taken away without warning by nanny state social workers[...]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/norway-seizes-kids-over-familys-christian-indoctrination/

Wiki article:

In November 2015, a new case arose to public attention involving children of foreign nationals being removed from custody by Barnevernet. Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, a Romanian-Norwegian couple of Pentecostal faith are accused to have religiously indoctrinated their children. According to Christian Today, the couple have been charged with "Christian radicalism and indoctrination."[23] Under Norwegian law, authorities are obliged to respect both the children’s and the parents' right to privacy. Therefore, Barnevernet has not made public details about the case.[24]

On 16 November, Barnevernet took the two eldest children from school and placed them into foster care. Then, accompanied by police officers removed other two children from the parents' home in Naustdal. Police have also arrested Mr and Mrs Bodnariu but released them soon after. The next day, Barnevernet took custody of the youngest child for alleged safety reasons.[25][26][27]

Since the children appear to have been taken on religious-related grounds, Christian-orientated media are awake to the case.[28] There are also multiple sources describing the case in Romanian, particularly from evangelical Christians in the Romanian diaspora.[29][30][self-published source?] A petition in support of the family, initiated by a Romanian Pentecostal pastor based in Chicago, has been signed by 42,145 people, as of 19 December 2015.[31]

According to the Christian Post, the two older daughters have told investigators they were physically punished as they were taught that "God punishes sin". Although court papers did not identify signs of physical abuse.[32]

On 30 November, an appeal against Barnevernet launched by the parents was rejected in court. They will be allowed to visit the youngest son twice per week for two hours and two other boys once per week. The girls will not be seen by the parents.[32][33]

Romanian senator Titus Corlatean issued a statement noting the Bodnariu case and condemned Barnevernet's action.[34] The Permanent Bureau of the Romanian Pentecostal Church issued a statement in support of the family and called on the Romanian President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to do whatever they legally can so that the family regain custody.[35]

reminder: chopping your dick off is perfectly okay, but raising your own children according to your religious convictions is DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD.

[sqishy]

Although (as you already know) I disagree with your assertion that private behaviour shouldn't be subject to public censure, I'm not going to go that way now.

Oh, I know.


But I want you to answer this. How, in absolutely any way, is demanding government sanction, that is, sanction by the supposed representatives of the people, not public? Government is the expression of the people, both in my own ideas and the democratic tradition. So how is the government's sanction of something not a public matter?

If you are asking me why there are referendums on this at all, then I ask that myself.
If it is a private issue primarily, then it should not be determined by a public organisation/etc. I was only saying before that a referendum would be a more 'democratic' act, than court ruling or whatever.

[Judean Zealot]

If you are asking me why there are referendums on this at all, then I ask that myself.
If it is a private issue primarily, then it should not be determined by a public organisation/etc. I was only saying before that a referendum would be a more 'democratic' act, than court ruling or whatever.

No. I am saying that if you were talking about homosexual legalisation Then you would have a point with the whole privacy thing.

But you are talking about recognition of the above as marriage, by the representatives of the general public. In no way can such a demand be declared a private affair.

[sqishy]

No. I am saying that if you were talking about homosexual legalisation Then you would have a point with the whole privacy thing.

Yes.


But you are talking about recognition of the above as marriage, by the representatives of the general public. In no way can such a demand be declared a private affair.

Are we talking about the institution of marriage?

[Judean Zealot]

Are we talking about the institution of marriage?

Yes, which is definitionally a recognition by others.

[sqishy]

Yes, which is definitionally a recognition by others.

So a public-recognised title/etc is assigned to a private issue.

[Judean Zealot]

So a public-recognised title/etc is assigned to a private issue.

The sex may be a private issue. The relationship may be a private issue. But as soon as those private issues cross over into the sphere of governmental sanction it no longer remains a private issue. Republicanism requires of it's citizens full participation in matters of state. That involvement is not a right, it is a sacred duty.

[sqishy]

The sex may be a private issue. The relationship may be a private issue. But as soon as those private issues cross over into the sphere of governmental sanction it no longer remains a private issue. Republicanism requires of it's citizens full participation in matters of state. That involvement is not a right, it is a sacred duty.

Why should it cross into the 'sphere of governmental sanction'?

[Judean Zealot]

Why should it cross into the 'sphere of governmental sanction'?

What is gained by being married in the eyes of the law over just making your own ad hoc ceremony, save for the fact that your marriage is recognised as legitimate by the government?

The private aspect - the relationship, the sex - is not affected in any way by whether the marriage is legally endorsed or not. The only thing that changes is that which is in the control of others - acceptance.

[sqishy]

What is gained by being married in the eyes of the law over just making your own ad hoc ceremony, save for the fact that your marriage is recognised as legitimate by the government?

Personally I would be fine without legal benefits of marriage, if it were only a private issue.


The private aspect - the relationship, the sex - is not affected in any way by whether the marriage is legally endorsed or not. The only thing that changes is that which is in the control of others - acceptance.

Exactly, acceptance.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm sorry, Paraxiom. Can you restate that? I'm having a somewhat difficult time understanding what you mean.

[sqishy]

What is gained by being married in the eyes of the law over just making your own ad hoc ceremony, save for the fact that your marriage is recognised as legitimate by the government?

The private aspect - the relationship, the sex - is not affected in any way by whether the marriage is legally endorsed or not. The only thing that changes is that which is in the control of others - acceptance.

Then why are there marriages at all, from this view? For many, it is more than just about public acceptance.

[Judean Zealot]

Then why are there marriages at all, from this view? For many, it is more than just about public acceptance.

Legal marriages are fiscal arrangements, not romantic affairs. You can have a wedding with bridesmaids and all and live happily ever after, without it ever being recognised by the government. They just won't get the tax break.

[sqishy]

Legal marriages are fiscal arrangements, not romantic affairs. You can have a wedding with bridesmaids and all and live happily ever after, without it ever being recognised by the government. They just won't get the tax break.

Coming back to the start of the topic, why should the sex/gender of two people be relevant in marriage?

[Judean Zealot]

Coming back to the start of the topic, why should the sex/gender of two people be relevant in marriage?

I wasn't addressing that. What we were discussing was the public/private answer. I don't have the head for the full debate rn, I'm just pointing out that it's not a private matter.

[Stronk Serb]

Am I only one who really really dislikes "pride parades"? I can't find any reason to justify throwing such a big and loud event, and I don't see what they're trying to achieve, really. If anything, it just shows the world how obnoxious some LGBT people can be. I would never, ever participate in one. They're making fools out of themselves, all while confirming basically every single stereotype that exists about gay people, and giving others more and more reasons to hate our guts. Note, I said "our" guts.

Essentially, the vulgar ones on those pride parades are trying to make you not treat them like animals, while they behave like animals during those parades.

*bracing for shitstorm*

[Jinglebottom]

Essentially, the vulgar ones on those pride parades are trying to make you not treat them like animals, while they behave like animals during those parades.

*bracing for shitstorm*
That's what I thought. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Vlerchan]

I tried coming up with an argument for marriage being a private issue but couldn't. I'll add though that it's a contractual affair with a fiscal component:

The more important aspect is the rights and duties that married couples are endowed with.

brb adding sex segregation to my future regime's social policy[.]
You don't think that other-ing woman has contributed towards higher rates of rape amongst Muslim men?

I wouldn't be surprised.

[sqishy]

I wasn't addressing that. What we were discussing was the public/private answer. I don't have the head for the full debate rn, I'm just pointing out that it's not a private matter.

I know it is not inherently a private matter.
Odd that I misinterpreted a discussion with opposition, where there wasn't one. (My bad again.)

[randomuser123]

Marriage is meaningless. It is just a piece of paper at the end of the day. I have no intention of allowing any government to involve itself in my private relationships, irrelevant of the sex of the with whom I am.

[phuckphace]

You don't think that other-ing woman has contributed towards higher rates of rape amongst Muslim men?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Third Worlders and their degenerate "morality" are to blame, Muslim or not. India also has a staggeringly high rate of rape, gang rape, etc. you can rape a six-year-old girl in India and get a couple weeks in jail, if anything. women in most TW cultures are chattel, see: female genital mutilation, self-immolation, etc.

when the West was at its height and had a much greater degree of segregation between the unmarried sexes, this didn't occur - women were treated with respect and the social arrangements of the time protected them from exploitation.

wall, moat, West, etc. the unconventional feminism of Hitler.

http://i.imgur.com/3pzVeEr.jpg

[randomuser123]

To be fair, in the west it is legal to mutilate a baby boy's genitals, but illegal to do the same for a female. Yes, I am referring to circumcision. Nowadays it has no real health benefits and the majority of the time is not required for any medical reason.

[phuckphace]

female "circumcision" is far more extensive and catastrophic than that of males though. Google it.

[Vlerchan]

India also has a staggeringly high rate of rape, gang rape, etc. you can rape a six-year-old girl in India and get a couple weeks in jail, if anything.
It's worth noting that Indians have no tradition of seeing rape as a crime. Far as I'm aware it's even endorsed in certain Hindu religious texts.

It's also been implied in conversations with an Indian friend that informal sex segregation prevails.

when the West was at its height and had a much greater degree of segregation between the unmarried sexes, this didn't occur - women were treated with respect and the social arrangements of the time protected them from exploitation.
It is, besides, a matter of course that factory servitude, like any other, and to an even higher degree, confers the jus primae noctis upon the master. In this respect also the employer is sovereign over the persons and charms of his employees. The threat of discharge suffices to overcome all resistance in nine cases out of ten, if not in ninety-nine out of a hundred, in girls who, in any case, have no strong indictments to chastity. If the master is mean enough... his mill is also his harem; and the fact that not all manufacturers use their power, does not in the least change the position of the girls. In the beginning of manufacturing industry, when most of the employers were upstarts without education or consideration for the hypocrisy of society, they let nothing interfere with the exercise of their vested rights.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/condition-working-class-england.pdf

I've also read enough 19th century rape cases to realise that this isn't the case at all. It was the case that woman couldn't initiate proceedings themselves as the crime wasn't against them - it was against their father or husband. It was defined in terms of force. Non-virginal woman had little chance of securing a conviction. Good luck if you weren't white. I can quote cases from the 1900s that affirm and notes as positive 'gentle coercion' and a 'firm hand' when it comes to sexual relations between a husband and wife. That exceptions to martial rape being rape prevailed until the close the the 1900s should be a strong indication that some culture of honour - or whatever - didn't exist.

That's not to mention the heights of domestic violence which were entirely legitimate.

[Porpoise101]

It's worth noting that Indians have no tradition of seeing rape as a crime. Far as I'm aware it's even endorsed in certain Hindu religious texts.

It's also been implied in conversations with an Indian friend that informal sex segregation prevails.
Sex segregation exists, especially in rural areas. It is even practiced casually to some degree in the cities. As for rape, I do not know. All I understand is that in some areas there are men who believe a woman is part of your belongings. You own her because your family is paid a dowry to possess your daughter. So some men probably take this as a reason to abuse their wives. In the area my father is from it's a different dynamic as historically the society was matriarchal, with the family name, land, and rights being passed down through the women. So there it's less of an issue because people learn to respect each other.

[phuckphace]

not buying the "Little Rape Dungeon on the Prairie" line that Marxists in particular seem to love touting. my point was that, to the extent that rape did occur, it was a lot rarer because people simply were not as dysfunctional and immoral as they are today - I'd guess the ubiquity of religion, community and lack of cradle-to-grave exposure to porn helped this. but yes I can totally see Charles Ingalls rolling home in his pimpmobile (covered wagon) after a long day of "plowing" and "planting seeds" (if you know what I mean).

Indians not having a moral objection to rape (or cheating on tests, for that matter) was exactly my point - their religion is an incredibly backwards superstition that will have most of the country eternally trapped in the Dark Ages. their religious aesthetic is ugly and resembles Cheech & Chong's shirts. I could go on but really all you gotta do is actually visit India for 10 seconds, which kinda makes me wonder why our porpoise friend here continually insists on defending them.

[Hudor]

Indians not having a moral objection to rape (or cheating on tests, for that matter) was exactly my point .


I keep trying to ignore your posts because you do the same thing over and over again.
Indians, as a matter of fact, do have a moral objection to rape. Rapists are condemned by the society and law alike and even in many jails which might easily be the places where the most morally depraved are present, rapists find a hard time adjusting as they are shunned by other prisoners. As for the cheating point, I think you are talking about a few states (primarily Bihar and Haryana) where a cheating scandal was exposed in exams. I guess you need to realize there are several other states as well where such things might be not be present at all.

- their religion is an incredibly backwards superstition that will have most of the country eternally trapped in the Dark Ages. their religious aesthetic is ugly and resembles Cheech & Chong's shirts. I could go on but really all you gotta do is actually visit India for 10 seconds, which kinda makes me wonder why our porpoise friend here continually insists on defending themI would appreciate if you could give actual proof or at least plausible assertions to back these claims.
Also, you seem quite updated with Indian current affairs(albeit it seems at the headlines level only) but even so if you actually want to understand things about the nation, it would be best you visit the place for more than 10 seconds(if you don't base it completely on hearsay, that is)

[Vlerchan]

my point was that, to the extent that rape did occur, it was a lot rarer because people simply were not as dysfunctional and immoral as they are today - I'd guess the ubiquity of religion, community and lack of cradle-to-grave exposure to porn helped this.
You're referring to a culture that valued woman not in their own right but as what these woman meant in relation to their men (their father - husband - or God): that held wifebeating as not just fine but of being a moral virtue in itself. During the industrial revolution: a time of extreme alienation and overbearing pressure on men that found themselves in a position of historical powerlessness.

But sure. I lack statistics. I'm not going to have much time this week for topical books and I'll return with some. That'll make this easier on the pair of us.

Indians not having a moral objection to rape.
That's not what I said. But the point was that using Indians to characterise all third world cultures is unfair.

---

Rapists are condemned by the society and law alike and even in many jails which might easily be the places where the most morally depraved are present, rapists find a hard time adjusting as they are shunned by other prisoners.
What I've read in the media is that Indians still have a significant culture of belittlement of woman where sexual harassment is normalised. I have also seen that point confirmed with relation to a friend's Facebook account.

[phuckphace]

Hudor - I'm well aware "Indian" is not a single, monolithic culture or ethnic group, so please don't misinterpret my posts as ignorant raving. it's the case however, that the more time I spend on the Internet, the more I start to notice a reoccurring pattern that goes like this: dude or group of dudes commits some fucked-up rape or other heinous act (http://www.india.com/news/india/shocking-three-gang-rape-woman-after-digging-body-from-grave-in-uttar-pradesh-655705/), and then they mention his nationality. guess which one it is the majority of the time?

a common theme includes affluent Internet Indians condemning the perp, but with the authorities either looking the other way or dropping a very light sentence. what am I supposed to conclude about the national character from a case of child rape punished by a week in prison, or that this occurs at a dramatically higher rate than, well, pretty much everywhere else?

it's worth considering that the news media within India itself reports prolifically on these events, so you really can't claim it's Western media trying to smear India's reputation. I'm just going by what I see.

and yes, it's usually Indians or Pakistanis leaving perverted comments on girl's photos. a girl posting her photo is not unlike dropping a steak into a pen of starving hyenas.

[Jinglebottom]

^^ Gruesome. How is necrophilia even a thing?!

[phuckphace]

^^ Gruesome. How is necrophilia even a thing?!

I have no idea. I just think if I were running India I'd put far more priority into hanging rapists and far less priority into space programs and nuclear weapons. something is seriously wrong with that country and if I were one of the Indian 1% like our fam Hudor I'd move the fuck out of there in a hurry.

I guess I should've put a disclaimer on my post that I don't really have it out for Indians anymore than I do anyone else - if you rape or sexually harass someone you're a dirtbag regardless of your ethnicity. but India as a country is very well represented on the Internet, and let's just say I've seen some shit.

[Hudor]

What I've read in the media is that Indians still have a significant culture of belittlement of woman where sexual harassment is normalised. I have also seen that point confirmed with relation to a friend's Facebook account.
I agree to some extent. India still has a culture of belittlement of women which is highly evident in some states which also happen to be the places where female foeticide, honour killings etc still prevail while it is non-existent to negligibly prevalent in others. I agree that in some regions sexual harassment is normalised. The basic problem lies in the lax legal system, India happening to be a soft state and having a massive problem of corruption due to which a lot of times sex-offenders get much less punishment than they should.
My statement was in opposition to phuck's that Indians don't have a "moral" objection to rape which isn't quite true because sex-offenders have a hard time adjusting in the society as they face alienation on moral grounds, more so because of the extensive media coverage nowadays.

@Hudor (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=103109) - I'm well aware "Indian" is not a single, monolithic culture or ethnic group, so please don't misinterpret my posts as ignorant raving.
it's the case however, that the more time I spend on the Internet, the more I start to notice a reoccurring pattern that goes like this: dude or group of dudes commits some fucked-up rape or other heinous act (http://www.india.com/news/india/shocking-three-gang-rape-woman-after-digging-body-from-grave-in-uttar-pradesh-655705/), and then they mention his nationality. guess which one it is the majority of the time?

a common theme includes affluent Internet Indians condemning the perp, but with the authorities either looking the other way or dropping a very light sentence. what am I supposed to conclude about the national character from a case of child rape punished by a week in prison, or that this occurs at a dramatically higher rate than, well, pretty much everywhere else?

it's worth considering that the news media within India itself reports prolifically on these events, so you really can't claim it's Western media trying to smear India's reputation. I'm just going by what I see.

and yes, it's usually Indians or Pakistanis leaving perverted comments on girl's photos. a girl posting her photo is not unlike dropping a steak into a pen of starving hyenas.


Indians not having a moral objection to rape (or cheating on tests, for that matter) was exactly my point - their religion is an incredibly backwards superstition that will have most of the country eternally trapped in the Dark Ages. their religious aesthetic is ugly and resembles Cheech & Chong's shirts. I could go on but really all you gotta do is actually visit India for 10 seconds

The story in the link was pretty heinous no doubt but there were no citations or reports whatsoever with it whihc makes me doubt its credibility. I dont know about necrophilia but I acknowledge the fact that horrifying sexual assaults take place in india.

I agree the legal system hands out insufficient punishment in a majority of cases due the prevalent monster of corruption mainly. However, your previous statement mentioned "moral" which is quite different from "legal".

I was actually talking about Indian media coverage for the matter. I'm not too aware of the coverage of western media of India so i didn't take that into account.

Again that is a generalisation. I don't have sufficient information though to prove/disprove that though. Also, do you happen to be talking about the behaviour of Indians worldwide plus on the internet because your previous mentioned visiting India and I answered assuming resident Indian nationals.


I have no idea. I just think if I were running India I'd put far more priority into hanging rapists and far less priority into space programs and nuclear weapons. something is seriously wrong with that country and if I were one of the Indian 1% like our fam Hudor I'd move the fuck out of there in a hurry.

I guess I should've put a disclaimer on my post that I don't really have it out for Indians anymore than I do
anyone else - if you rape or sexually harass someone you're a dirtbag regardless of your ethnicity. but India as a country is very well represented on the Internet, and let's just say I've seen some shit.

The Indian legal system has a lot of flaws. One of them being there extreme reluctance in death penalties. Stricter laws are necessary i agree alongwith their stringent enforcement.
I don't assume you have anything against the nation I only objected to the generalisations you made.
I agree that sexual harassment is a serious offence and offenders should be punished regardless of the person's ethinicity.

[Porpoise101]

which kinda makes me wonder why our porpoise friend here continually insists on defending them.
This isn't an AMA thread, but maybe it's because my family lives there and those 'superstitions' are apart of my life.

[phuckphace]

Hudor - you have to understand that things like "massive systemic corruption" and "lax sex-crime enforcement" appears to a Westerner like serious moral dysfunction on a national scale. no offense meant, of course, but there's really no other way I can adequately describe what I'm seeing.

before I became a full-time internet enthusiast my view of India was the usual benign "exotic land of jungles, mountains and temples" number so it's not like I started out with some sort of vendetta against it. I know generalizations aren't always valid and rarely so 100% of the time, but after reading the 6,000th news story about a 5-year-old Dalit girl getting dogpiled or some river cult feasting on corpses pulled from the Ganges, it starts to raise the eyebrows a little.

yes, all Indian nationals I have ever met in real life have been repulsive, cartoonish stereotypes, but then again I've noted before that our immigration policy in the current year tends to select for the worst of the worst (Microsoft doesn't care who's running their StackExchange server as long as they don't have to pay him) and this of course applies to almost all immigrants, not just those from India.

speaking of stereotypes, I once talked to a guy from Thailand who mentioned that a lot of Thais see Americans as being child-predators, because the kind of Americans who wash up in Bangkok (i.e. Rand Paul voters) are generally there for the underage poontang. he was actually surprised when I said that pedophilia = guaranteed moral outrage by all but a tiny minority of the creepiest.

[HououinKiyoma]

I dont know what this post started off with, but with this current turn, I have a few things to say.

Yes India is not the best in many ways. Poor governance, corruption, high illiteracy, corruption are just a few of the issues. The problems are many and plenty. But we are working on them. We just need to get out that centuries old hard driven view of white supremacy that Britain managed to drill in. We do have a lot of positives to take from India's growth you must agree phuckphace.

Hudor -

yes, all Indian nationals I have ever met in real life have been repulsive, cartoonish stereotypes, but then again I've noted before that our immigration policy in the current year tends to select for the worst of the worst (Microsoft doesn't care who's running their StackExchange server as long as they don't have to pay him) and this of course applies to almost all immigrants, not just those from India.



Im sorry you havent met any good Indians. The next time you do, i hope they will be a much more accurate representation of my countries morals and values.

[phuckphace]

yeah that was a bit of a tangent, but oh well

We just need to get out that centuries old hard driven view of white supremacy that Britain managed to drill in.

should be easy enough since Brits are now on the verge of extinction anyway

Im sorry you havent met any good Indians. The next time you do, i hope they will be a much more accurate representation of my countries morals and values.

there are good people everywhere, but they're not wanted in our clown world

[HououinKiyoma]

yeah that was a bit of a tangent, but oh well



should be easy enough since Brits are now on the verge of extinction anyway



Haha:D

there are good people everywhere, but they're not wanted in our clown world


So true!