|
Extra Extra...Iran hates fags... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think that Bush's successful election strategy in 2004 of making gay marriage an issue should be pretty sufficient proof. |
I wouldn't so far to say that he choose it.
I can't name a single politician that would touch that issue wantingly with a 50' pole!
It was either go with it or loose votes....it's the same thing here in Canada... |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
so.. should i be wary of passing through iran with a 'girlfriend' in the future? :p |
Depends on how well shes hiding "it" :D |
|
|
| kush paintings |
| Bush's stance on gay marriage was a religious one from the the perspective that marriage is the union of a man and a woman nothing else. As for hating gays, of course you can misconstrue (how the hell do you spell that?) his stance on that issue as he hates gays, but if you truly look at the issue it wasn't about hating gays, it was about what he felt marriage stood foor (right or wrong). You can't tell me because someone thinks homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, they then of course hate homosexuals. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
Bush's stance was, however, to make gay marriage ILLEGAL. Kerry opposed such a proposition though he wasn't exectly rooting for gay marriage either. I'm not anti-gay but i do not support gay marriage.
Iran's hardline Islamic regime has had enough of footballers with long hair and plucked eyebrows.
"I will ban athletes with an effeminate look," the head of the country's Physical Education Organisation, Mohammad Ali-Abadi said, told the Etemad-Melli newspaper.
"It is really disgraceful for Iran that young people step onto fields wearing make-up," the top official fumed. "When a man enters the field with dyed hair and groomed eyebrows he is disrespecting society."
The paper said Ali-Abadi appeared to be particularly worried about footballers, and warned that "even though they get away with it now, they will be disqualified in future"
:haha: |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
actually there's plenty of that sentiment in America, too. Some schools recently wanted to suspend students who didn't dress the right way, for instance
And America hates f*gs, too; did you see the demonstrations by Americans celebrating American military deaths in Iraq, as punishment for having gays in the country? |
It is in the interest of public schools to teach. If the way in which a student is dressing is disruptive to class, that student needs to be disciplined. The same is also true regardless of gender, race, or sexual preference. The faculty wouldn't let a girl walk around topless just as much as they wouldn't let a guy wear a dress. It is a limitation of rights, but as students and minors one has little choice other than to flow the rules. It's either that or drop out since homeschooling isn't an option for most kids.
Basing your claim that America hates gays on a fringe group of maybe, and I stress the maybe part, a couple hundred people involved in a whack job religious group is pretty bold. I would go along with a portion of the population disliking gays, but it's not the majority and it's not all out hatred.
The gay marriage issue will be resolved eventually. It probably won't be for another 10-15 years though. Social reform doesn't happen overnight. New evidence supporting the claim that homosexual tendencies are not a learned behavioral pattern, but are in fact physical predispostion will open the door for legal recourse because it will be argued that limiting the freedoms of a person born with certain tendencies is obviously unconstitutional, and whamo issue resolved.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12689293/ |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
It is in the interest of public schools to teach. If the way in which a student is dressing is disruptive to class, that student needs to be disciplined. The same is also true regardless of gender, race, or sexual preference. The faculty wouldn't let a girl walk around topless just as much as they wouldn't let a guy wear a dress. It is a limitation of rights, but as students and minors one has little choice other than to flow the rules. It's either that or drop out since homeschooling isn't an option for most kids.
|
So why, then, would you make fun of Iran's soccer team policies?
| quote: |
Basing your claim that America hates gays on a fringe group of maybe, and I stress the maybe part, a couple hundred people involved in a whack job religious group is pretty bold. I would go along with a portion of the population disliking gays, but it's not the majority and it's not all out hatred.
|
It's the same everywhere. That's why I'm saying that singling out Iran, by a country which itself prosecuted homosexuals up to 2003 in certain states, is pretty damn hypocritical.
| quote: |
The gay marriage issue will be resolved eventually. It probably won't be for another 10-15 years though. Social reform doesn't happen overnight. New evidence supporting the claim that homosexual tendencies are not a learned behavioral pattern, but are in fact physical predispostion will open the door for legal recourse because it will be argued that limiting the freedoms of a person born with certain tendencies is obviously unconstitutional, and whamo issue resolved.
|
Now the irony is that at the time this issue is resolved, the US will be lagging far behind most other countries. It's already lagging behind the Catholic (yes, Catholic) Spain, for instance, all of Northern Europe (which allows civil unions), Canada and Australia. |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
So why, then, would you make fun of Iran's soccer team policies? |
I did???
| quote: | | Originally posted by HardTranceProd It's the same everywhere. That's why I'm saying that singling out Iran, by a country which itself prosecuted homosexuals up to 2003 in certain states, is pretty damn hypocritical. |
Prove this gross exageration. A couple states do have legislation against homosexuals on the books(which haven't meant squat since 2003 I might add), but I can't recall a single case in even the last 10 years where a state has actually brought charges against someone for homosexuality. If you think those law are odd, you should see some of the other laws still on the books from years ago that make no sense now. Men in Indiana can be fined for speaking to a woman or child after eating onions, but I don't see them getting prosecuted.
| quote: | | Originally posted by HardTranceProd Now the irony is that at the time this issue is resolved, the US will be lagging far behind most other countries. It's already lagging behind the Catholic (yes, Catholic) Spain, for instance, all of Northern Europe (which allows civil unions), Canada and Australia. |
How is that irony? Irony has nothing to do with. Pro-homosexual legislation taking longer to come about in a country that has always been conservative with sexual issues isn't irony. It's expected. |
|
|
| WM2 |
Actually, before you even reply I'll throw this out to look at.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm
Before the ruling in 2003 only 14 states had anti-SODOMY laws of which only 4 states had theirs directed only towards homosexuals, so before you even start exaggerating again there is something eles to deflate your previous claims.
Just incase you're wondering, sodomy can pretty much be considered everything except for vaginal sex between a man and a woman meaning masterbation, oral sex, anal sex(heterosexual), bondage, you name it it's illegal. These laws haven't been enforced except for in very rare instances, once again meaning that saying that just because a handfull of states had legislation on the books till 2003 means they're all anti-gay is just another exaggeration in a long line of your exaggerations. Seems you do this in every topic. |
|
|
| Alex |
| A big LAWL to the guy saying "America doesnt hate fags". Given you're using the slang and insulting word "fag" to describe a homosexual, I cant help but find your points contradictory. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| Because there are countries out there taht LOVE "fags" :rolleyes: |
|
|
| WM2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
A big LAWL to the guy saying "America doesnt hate fags". Given you're using the slang and insulting word "fag" to describe a homosexual, I cant help but find your points contradictory. |
???
The only person that has used that term so far is the person that's arguing that America does in fact hate them. Now that's irony. Arguing that America as a whole hates homosexuals, and then getting all huffy about why it's wrong, but in the process calling them fags. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
Just incase you're wondering, sodomy can pretty much be considered everything except for vaginal sex between a man and a woman meaning masterbation, oral sex, anal sex(heterosexual), bondage, you name it it's illegal. These laws haven't been enforced except for in very rare instances, once again meaning that saying that just because a handfull of states had legislation on the books till 2003 means they're all anti-gay is just another exaggeration in a long line of your exaggerations. Seems you do this in every topic. |
Well, the anti-sodomy law was enforced by a cop in Texas in 2003, which is the whole reason this issue was ever brought to the Supreme Court's attention and eventually struck down. Give me the name of any other industrialized country that has recently arrested anyone for gay sex.
My point is that America is not exactly an "angel" when it comes to this issue either - far from it. But the author of this topic, as he usually does, conveniently ignores this fact, by ridiculing another country. |
|
|
|
|
