Is this Google's open criticism of Russia's Anti Gay laws?
The quote on Google's home page appears to be critical of Russia's anti gay laws.
The quote is from the Olympic Charter. It's not so much anti-gay as it is a human rights statement. The rainbow colors of the logo openly give a nod to their agreement of the Olympic Charter.
The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”
It's ridiculous that the host country does not seem to believe in this statement yet still is able to host the winter games.
Good for Google.Of course, the possibility that Google's artist(s) happened to want to use rainbows (cause they're colorful) is non-existent.
Anything colorful is sure to be taken as a pro gay statement now. I'm sure real rainbows in the sky are nature's way of showing her pro LGBT feelings, or the multi-colored Olympic rings themselves.
The possibility of Google (a vocally pro-gay company) meant this logo as "just a rainbow" is extraordinarily slim.
IzzyM, LGBT people are not 1%, despite what your NARTH and other anti-gay organizations might tell you. A 2011 survey suggests that in the US suggests that nearly 4% of people identify as LGBT - and surveys report much higher results for people who say they have had same-sex relationships or experienced same-sex attraction, but still identify as straight. The low percentages definitely are affected by people being afraid to identify as LGBT or not understanding it. Estimates that 10% of people experience same-sex attraction at least once are not far off.
WriterFox, I think you're actually trying really hard to not make sense on purpose. First off, "hermaphrodites" - that is, intersex people - actually exist, and are physically born with both male and female parts. It happens more often than you must think. So? Do you hate these people too? You seem to be willing to mock them. Androgynous is simply a description of appearance, so I have no idea what you're talking about there. Eunuchs, I assume you mean victims of genital mutilation, not exactly funny, nor a common modern day practice for men, but still a horrible crime and possible sexual assault against a kid. Again... not funny. Asexuals... what would be wrong with someone being asexual? As in, they don't have any interest in sex. Is that a problem too, now?
We get it, you're straight. You're really rubbing in the fact as you minimize the atrocities that innocent people face today, simply for being gay.
Another straight person who thinks it's totally okay that gay people are routinely persecuted, beaten up, murdered, raped, and executed. Congratulations on being straight, you'll never have to worry about any of that. It's not a "real" problem to you. It's a real problem to gay people, and anyone who cares about people who are gay. If you think Russia's law of jailing people for doing nothing more than kissing their partner in view of a minor is reasonable, as well as the numerous hate crimes LGBT people face there (and in America, for that matter)... well, I don't know what to tell you, except there is a reason people are mad.Again, that statistic is for the UK only and it comes from the Office for National Statistics. If you have confusion about this statistic, go look at their .gov.uk website. The UK government can hardly be classified as an "anti-gay organization" and it wasn't taking a stand 'for or against' anything. This is a statistic from the UK government based upon its research. Izzy was discussing a disproportionate representation of lifestyle practices on UK television and she is correct.
Actually, I never discussed that at all. Might be time for you to bone up on your reading comprehension skills if you had such difficulty understanding what I wrote. When you are a parent, perhaps you will better understand why most parents try to protect their minor children from any kind of sexual propaganda from adults, when kids are not ready for such information. This isn't about gay rights at all. This is about the rights of children and parents.Yeah because gay people will definitely admit they are gay to a survey right? Half of the gay people I know haven't even come out to their parents let alone a random survey. That number is thus completely useless.
It's really funny how the "For the children!!!" argument get's trotted out did you know "for the children!!!" is a known fallacy?
It's also just a really nonsensical view, most gay people discover their sexuality as children or early teens, what you DON'T want is children who think they are sick or abominated because they don't know there are plenty of people like them. That's the sort of thing that leads to the much higher suicide rate among gay teens and children.
Raised two kids by the way (before you trot out the "as a parent"
fallacy again.)This was Putin's message about Russia's new propaganda law preventing the solicitation of minors: "We aren't banning anything, we aren't rounding up anyone, we have no criminal punishment for such relations unlike many other countries. One can feel relaxed and at ease, but please leave the children in peace."
Actually, being homosexual or engaging in homosexual activities is not against the law in Russia. It is against the law in more than 80 other countries and maybe your hostility should be directed toward those countries instead.Yup it was Putin's and your statement, now you share a sound bite with the Butcher of Grozny, isn't that nice?
Hostility is rightly directed at anyone who denies basic human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of association are basic human rights in case you don't know and Russian laws ban both of them for gay people.It's nice to see the anti-Putin bandwagon train rolling along. No one talks about the positive things that Putin has done for Russia. After the fall of the USSR and during the Yeltsin years Russia was in total chaos, with rife organized crime, the questionable "privatization" of state owned companies, war in Chechnya etc. Putin has now more or less stabilized Russia economically and politically in his own way. It is naive to think that a country that has never had Western style democracy would automatically become a model state. Russian society is still in a transition phase after 70 years of communism and hundreds of years of monarchy. This Cold War style of East and West bashing each other is still alive and well it seems. I'm not saying that Russia is a paradise now - far from it - but it is still better off than it was a few years ago. No country is free from corruption, they just experience different degrees of it.
Again, that statistic is for the UK only and it comes from the Office for National Statistics. If you have confusion about this statistic, go look at their .gov.uk website. The UK government can hardly be classified as an "anti-gay organization" and it wasn't taking a stand 'for or against' anything. This is a statistic from the UK government based upon its research. Izzy was discussing a disproportionate representation of lifestyle practices on UK television and she is correct.
Well, no, actually. Lifestyle practices are diverse and can also vary with region. For instance, there are higher concentrations of gay/straight and bi individuals in urban than rural areas. With the exception of Emmerdale, (set in a fictional village in the Yorkshire Dales) UK soap operas tend to be created around fictional towns and cities, but are often filmed in cities such as Manchester and London; Coronation Street and Eastenders are the two most popular soaps and are filmed in London and Greater Manchester. And if you insist that only 1 in 10 individuals are gay, you'll find that the soaps are reflective of that statistic. At present, there are five gay individuals in Coronation Street, however, one of the characters is now in a different gender relationship. In Eastenders, to the best of my knowledge, there is currently one gay individual throughout the whole cast. Consequently, the soaps do reflect the diverse lifestyles of city dwellers. Have to ask WF, have you ever been to the UK or lived in one of the big cities? Your post suggests otherwise.
- Beth37posted 10 years ago
0It is a mega company. It posted a popular opinion quote. Do you feel it is abnormal?
The stance against Russia's anti gay law is not universally popular. The Sochi Winter Olympics / anti gay law is a major political issue, it is abnormal for Google to take sides, well, atleast this openly!
People feel more secure when they can conspicuously "prove" how not prejudice they are.
That's what I assumed was going on when I saw that in the upper left corner on Google this morning.
Google.co.uk is not carrying this message. What does it say?
Here in the UK the BBC are producing anti-Russia programs based around the Games. The bias is terrible. They stop just short of calling for a boycott.
I think it is due to the anti-gay Russian stance.
Where did this world-wide pro-gay movement come from?
Every UK soap opera shown before the watershed now features gay couples.
I don't care what people do in their own homes, but I don't want it brought into mine.Where did this world-wide pro-gay movement come from?
Possibly from gay people themselves, or from people who have loved ones who are gay.
I don't care what people do in their own homes, but I don't want it brought into mine.
Gay couples are part of every day society, as they should be! Why should gay men and women have to hide their sexuality? If people have a problem with gay men and women, or the TV reflecting how real life is, then they shouldn't turn their TV on. If they are that sensitive.Google promptly removed that statement. Olympian athletes were not supportive of the mixing of social issues with the Olympics. The games are supposed to be free from political, religious or cultural divisions. See this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ol … story.html
Russia never banned homosexuals from participating in the Olympics. What Russia outlawed was the solicitation of minors for homosexuality. Three weeks ago Putin told the media: "We aren't banning anything, we aren't rounding up anyone, we have no criminal punishment for such relations unlike many other countries. One can feel relaxed and at ease, but please leave the children in peace."
Distributing homosexual propaganda to children is outlawed in Russia and this is in keeping with the cultural norms in that country. In August, 2013, a Pew Research study concluded that "About three-quarters (74%) of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society."
Many western cultures also prevent the distribution of certain products, information and solicitations (including advertisements) to children, including heterosexual porn. Most societies do want to protect children from certain materials until the frontal lobe (where reasoning and judgment takes place) of their brains have matured.
Where did the pro-gay movement come from? It came from homosexuals, obviously. In Britain, the Office for National Statistics reports that "just 1.1% said they were 'gay' or 'lesbian' and 0.4% said they were bisexual." In other words, 98.9% of the British are not homosexuals and homosexuality is not the norm in that culture and not part of "every day society." In fact studies indicate a higher incidence of bestiality than of homosexuality. Why don't you see more of that on TV? People engaging in bestiality don't need to find a constant supply of willing partners.
Edward Laumann, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, reports that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months." A study published by Indiana University Press revealed that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500. In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners." A study by Christopher Rosik reported that "Children who experience sexual abuse are likely to later describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual rather than heterosexual. The rate is increased when the abuser is a caregiver. Many homosexual men indicate their first sexual contact at age ten."
In the U.S. there are regulations about what can be shown on TV during prime hours when children are more likely to be watching. Maybe the UK should consider something similar. There are many, many things which children should not be exposed to.? What are you referring to? The doodles are usually updated at midnight. The Olympic doodle/statement was shown on opening day only, in fact it was debuted before midnight of opening day, in the early afternoon.
Google has always supported gay rights, which are human/civil rights.Lol are you kidding? First, Google did not "promptly" remove the statement, they left it up as long as all of their logos.
Second, many Olympians ARE concerned about gay rights. The Olympics should be free from politics, I agree - but gay rights aren't politics. They are human rights, and this is a human rights issue.
Third, the brutality against LGBT people in Russia is extreme. Both civilians and police have been beating the crap out of peaceful protesters. After all, as you said, most Russians aren't anti-gay - which is a bad thing. Russia's anti-gay law isn't about protecting children, it's about having reason to arrest any gay person that has the courage to kiss their partner in public, or hold hands, or say "it's okay to be gay." Coupled with paranoia that children can be "recruited" into being gay (hint: they can't.)
I agree that some things shouldn't be exposed to kids. Things like homophobia, racism, sexism, discrimination, hatred, religious intolerance, and bigotry would be a good place to start. You can be a hateful person all you want, just do it in the privacy of your home and leave the kids out of it!
And frankly... I'm pretty sure you went on a senseless, made-up rant about your "pro gay stuff came from the homosexuals" (well yeah, we wanna fight for our rights) and then your absurd "only 1% of people are gay" and, my favorite bombshell from your post, "more people participate in bestiality than homosexuality." I'd recommend educating yourself, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) website is a good place to start if you have confusion about LGBT people.That statistic is for the UK only and it comes from the Office for National Statistics. If you have confusion about this statistic, go look at their .gov.uk website.
Russia's propaganda law of 2013 bans the distribution of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" to minors. The "age of consent" in Russia is the same for heterosexual relations and homosexual relations. This is not about gay rights; this is about propaganda aimed at children.Yes, and their definition of propaganda is being gay in public, possibly being gay in public, looking questionably gay in public, being a well-dressed male in the company of another male in public, wearing any clothing with a rainbow on it, and being a woman with hair less than 18 inches long.
Having an IQ of over 80, reading a book, and bathing regularly are also questionable activities.LOL! I certainly don't want to go live in Russia, but it might beat living in Japan where school children are sexually harassed while riding on public transportation and the society just accepts/condones it.
...what? Japan certainly does not "condone" sexual harassment of children as a society. There is a problem with perverts on the train, yes. But I'd go out on a limb and guess that perverts are a problem in almost any country. And I'm confused about what this has to do with the topic at hand - Japan is a much safer country than Russia (much lower crime rate), and it isn't illegal to be gay, and you can't be arrested for kissing your gay partner in public because of "spreading gay propaganda." With all due respect to Russia and Russian people, Japan is a safer country, period. Certainly safer for gay people.
Japan is not safe for children. The minimum age for prostitution in Tokyo is 14. Children are molested every day and the society just accepts that:
http://howibecametexan.com/2013/08/29/t … n-pervertsProstitution is not legal in Japan. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you lived in Japan? Have you even been to Japan? Why are you bringing up Japan in the first place?
Yes, Japan has a problem with kids being molested - so does America. Japan also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. While it has its own unique problems, it is still a relatively safe country. And it is extremely insulting to insinuate that Japanese people are totally okay with kids being molested, and molest them every day. Of course not! Japan knows it's a problem, and it is illegal.
So why are you bringing up Japan in a discussion about Russia's homophobia and prosecution of gay people? It's so random, I seriously don't get the comparison unless you are Japanese and live in Japan and are speaking from your own perspective - but still insanely random.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are straight, which I reckon is why you don't think Russia's laws are a human rights violation or a problem at all?
I wonder if all the people upset about Russia's anti-gay laws were as upset with China's execution of political activists, censorship, lack of free speech and free press, and one party political system which allows for no dissent during the Beijing summer games? I guess those issues are not as trendy....
Why would you even wonder that? When the Olympics were in China recently, there was similar backlash. I'd say most people concerned about Russia's disregard for human rights are also concerned with China's disregard - as far as I can tell, people are still very critical of China.
You are really confused. The American Psychological Association believes that
a) homosexuality is not a disorder
b) homosexuality is NOT caused by child abuse, and is NOT a choice, and asserts that it is unknown why some people are gay
c) "Gay to Straight Therapy" is extremely harmful, and recognizes that no leading credible psychiatric association supports it
All of this can be found here: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Your buddy Dr. Rosik is of NARTH, an anti-gay "Gay Therapy" group. They reject all of the above claims, despite every aforementioned leading psychiatric group asserting otherwise. Nothing the say will be free from bias, and certainly not supported by the APA.The media's criticism of China's human rights record was and is half hearted compared to its reaction to the Russia anti-gay law. It's easier for the main stream media to focus in on one issue than to look at the record of a whole repressive regime. Plus, the world is tied to China's economy meaning we tend to overlook uncomfortable facts concerning them more.
Ans we all know who controls the mainstream media!
I remember a whole lot of people protesting those, I remember hundreds being arrested for protesting exactly that.
Both are incredibly important issues, as is any denial of basic human rights.The fact is that human rights issues can be brought up against pretty much any country that hosts an international sporting event. Some country or some group will inevitably be offended by a given country's policies concerning some issue. Some group will always find something to complain about no matter what country an Olympics is held in, or any other sporting event.
Also, many people who grew up under communist regimes would find your profile picture to be offensive because it closely brings to mind totalitarian communist propaganda posters. Those regimes were and still are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people....
Where did the pro-gay movement come from? It came from homosexuals, obviously. In Britain, the Office for National Statistics reports that "just 1.1% said they were 'gay' or 'lesbian' and 0.4% said they were bisexual." In other words, 98.9% of the British are not homosexuals and homosexuality is not the norm in that culture and not part of "every day society." In fact studies indicate a higher incidence of bestiality than of homosexuality. Why don't you see more of that on TV? People engaging in bestiality don't need to find a constant supply of willing partners.
Codswallop, speaking as a Brit, in the main gay men and women are accepted in our society. Homosexuality is part of the norm and part of everyday society. Many of our towns and cities also include regions which are populated by gay bars and clubs and are frequented by as many straight people as gay people. Men and women in same gender relationships openly live together, and marry. Furthermore, the sample size of the study you site was 178, 197. Hardly representative of the population!
Try reading this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/rea … istics-say and see if you yourself can find the obvious problems with study!I think your comment is based on ignorance and biased, very selective, unrepresentative studies. Suggesting homosexually is a result of child abuse is offensive to gay people and victims of child abuse.
From psychiatry dot org
'What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.'It was Rosik's research that I cited. He wasn't making a 'suggestion', but giving the conclusion of his research. Dr. Christopher Rosik, PhD, is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Oregon. He received his doctoral degree in clinical psychology from Fuller Graduate School of Psychology. He is a licensed psychologist and a member of the clinical faculty at Fresno Pacific University. Dr. Rosik is the author of over 40 publications, including journal articles and book chapters. If you find his research offensive, take it up with him.
(The quote you gave has no author attribution and no supporting research studies.)The quote I cited was from the American Psychiatric Association website, the largest psychiatric organization in the world.
Considering Dr. Christopher Rosik is a memebr of NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) I would consider his reseach biased.You cited a collection of generalities with no author, no sources, and no research.
Dr. Rosik has been a member in good standing of the American Psychological Association since 1984. The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. He teaches college-level psychology research practicum.
If you disagree with his research findings, send him an email with your sources. He'll probably respond.It is true the quote I cited did not have an author but it was from the American Psychiatric Association website, and I think it would be safe to assume that this statement would only be put on the site if the 33,000 or so members were in some agreement. Whereas Dr. Rosik’s study is obviously biased, as he is a member of NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) and one can hardly cite this study as proof that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse as a child.
He may hold a doctorate but this does not mean he is independent, unbiased, ethical or that his research holds any water. I would draw parallels with culturally biased IQ tests administered to African Americans to prove they were less intelligent than whites.
There is just such a thing in place. It is assumed children could be watching the TV up until 9pm, the 'watershed'.
Most of the programs I usually watch, like Coronation Street, are on before then.
It is as if the authorities want to condition children into accepting certain activities as normal. I'm not saying they are not, they are normal for the people involved, but I don't think think children should be exposed to such a conundrum when they are not old enough to understand it.
It's not so long ago there was a huge outcry when the authorities wanted primary schools to introduce first reading books that including Mummy and Mummy, or Daddy and Daddy, instead of Mummy and Daddy.
The LGBT crowd would love this, all 1% of them.But I would really like to know where the lobby is for supporting hermaphrodites (1.5% of the UK population according to the NHS). And then, there's the androgynous, the eunuchs, the asexuals and the mutant ninjas. I could go on and on.
Why don't they have a lobby?
Whoever is pulling the strings on the mainstream media obviously have no use for them.They do have a lobbying group http://oiiuk.org/676/mission-statement/
They are still curtailing the rights of LGBT communities by forbidding gay couples from engaging in public displays of affection (freedom of speech/expression), as well as gathering together to promote "pro-gay propoganda" (freedom of assembly).
In September 1939 "About four-quarters (100%) of National Socialist German Workers' Party members decided to act on the belief that Polish and Jewish peoples shouldn't be accepted by society."
First: Nobody in their right mind would equate the desire of consenting adults to live how they want, love who they want, and be who they are without constant fear of persecution from a "majority" that disagrees with them, as somehow on a par with the desire to distribute porn to minors. Bestiality and pedophilia are similarly criminal in that both acts involve the coercion and corruption of an unwilling party who is incapable of making rational and informed decisions. The fact that neither of these disorders are considered to be "normal" is irrelevant. If the "majority" of people in a society engaged in these behaviors, then you would simply have a majority of criminals, and people who preferred not to engage in such acts would be in the minority.
You are confusing the issue. There are basic human rights which ought to supersede the will of the majority. It is not a question of what the majority wants. It is a matter of affording freethinking individuals, who do not agree with the majority, the same liberties afforded anyone else.
Finally, with regard to the snippets of ... research ... that you posted: anyone who argues in favor of the continued persecution of a minority group in order to protect the sensibilities of the majority; arguing further that the minority is somehow deviant or wrong for not falling in step with the herd, is — to put it quite simply — an <moderated by admins>!"In September 1939 "About four-quarters (100%) of National Socialist German Workers' Party members decided to act on the belief that Polish and Jewish peoples shouldn't be accepted by society." "
- if you quote something please cite the source, otherwise it's pointless.I thought it went without saying, but ... that wasn't a "real" quote? I simply re-worded @WF's quoted source in a different context in order to attack the logical reasoning implied by the original — err, "quoter." (Re: I was being snarky.)
P.S. The last word of my original post wasn't really "moderated by admins," either.Unfortunately it didn't go without saying if you needed to clarify what you were trying to do with the quotation marks.
The trouble is, it is not just Russia that is homophobic. There are several African nations that give people the death penalty for being homosexual.
Are the BBC actively outing these countries and calling for sanctions and boycotts?. No. Why?. Because they are mostly ex-British colonies.Now Channel 4 (a UK taxpayer owned broadcaster) have jumped on the bandwagon by recolouring their 'Born Risky' pyramid in the gay pride rainbow scheme and creating a thinly-veiled attack on the Russians with a gay Olympic anthem ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k ).
Now Channel 4 (a UK taxpayer owned broadcaster) have jumped on the bandwagon by recolouring their 'Born Risky' pyramid in the gay pride rainbow scheme and creating a thinly-veiled attack on the Russians with a gay Olympic anthem ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6RID82Ru-k ).
That video is exactly what most parents don't want their kids to see: a fat man dancing around with defecation all over the backside of his underwear. Most adults don't want to look at that either.
No, what they are banned is not 'soliciting minors'--it is any public material about or representing gay people such that children might see it. Up to and including any organizations of gathering. Basically ever mentions gayness or being gay.
They are choosing not to enforce this in Sochi. As if they really could.Personally, I don't think the argument over a person's sexual orientation takes premise over terrorism, global nuclear threat, genocide, or any other matter of extreme importance. There are too many REAL worries in this world, and I'm sick and tired of this subject because it's of little importance to the majority. That being said, I do feel the reason there is so much uproar over this subject is because the chaos comes straight from its own source. If Americans or Europeans don't like Russian laws, that's too bad. Let the Russians take care of their own, and be happy you live in a country where you can exercise your right to be so.
Being persecuted for your sexuality is a "REAL" worry in certain parts of the world, usually where religious fanaticism rears its ugly head..You can be killed for it in some places.
Attempting to show solidarity and support for oppressed people in other countries is something to be lauded in my book. There should be more of it. Sod cultural relativism when it comes to something as important as human rights.Do you attempt to show solidarity and support for oppressed people in you own country too, or is it just easier to criticize countries whose history, culture and political systems are not really understood?
As a defense, "there are other cruel and bigoted regimes" strikes me as pretty damn weak. And the very act of saying you are gay in a public space *is* illegal. And thus Russia is open to criticism in this moment of attention just as they are for shooting dogs and abducting protestors in the Ukraine. They are even open to criticism for bugging American politicians because it is wrong for *either side* to do this.
If the police find a burglar at work, and he says, "but there are hundreds of other burglars and even murderers in this country", does the police man say "fair enough, you are free to go?"
No. Violating human rights is what it is, and is open to unabashed, legitimate criticism wherever and whenever it occurs.The problem is that certain regimes get criticized for some of their actions a lot more than other regimes where there are even less human rights. This is obviously done for political reasons; we criticize those regimes that we are having problems with politically, but gloss over or pay weak lip service against countries with far more repressive laws (China and Saudi Arabia for example) because we want to keep them sweet because of economic interests (production, oil respectively). This is double standards at its best.
Related Discussions
- 14
If science proves that homosexuality is NOT a choice. Where does that leave reli
by Allen Donald 11 years ago
If science proves that homosexuality is NOT a choice. Where does that leave religion?I ask in this way because if homosexuality is not a choice, then God created homosexuals as they are.
- 13
Will homosexuals go to heaven or hell when they die?
by cooldad 10 years ago
Will homosexuals go to heaven or hell when they die?I'm an atheist, but I've always thought that the Bible adamantly condemns homosexuality. Do homosexuals have any chance of getting into heaven? This has always confused me. In God's eyes, is being homosexual no more different than...
- 135
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?
by taburkett 7 years ago
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental affliction. Emotional outbursts continue to support the education of LGBT as a...
- 54
Gay people in my family. Inherited? Choice? Victim of circumstances?
by WaffleCheese 14 years ago
I know this is a hot topic, but there are some people in my family (none blood related [that I know of]) That are gay. Some are open, some say they are 'recovering' and some might not have even come out yet.Without being too specific, one member has a child who has effeminate tendencies, and the...
- 14
Do you believe a person can be a Christian and continue willingly in a homosexua
by Thom Hunter 7 years ago
Do you believe a person can be a Christian and continue willingly in a homosexual lifestyle?Culture and some churches are embracing the concept of "gay-Christian." The Bible discusses homosexuality, yet some interpret it differently than others. I write about it regularly as a...
- 16
Bullying is bad, but...
by Sooner28 11 years ago
“Anti-bullying legislation is exactly the same,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s just another thinly veiled attempt to promote the homosexual agenda. No one is in favor of anyone getting bullied for any reason, but these anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe...