Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Obama is closer to Reagan tahn Republicans are.

To quote a friend of mine: "I don't care what Reagan would have done, what are you going to do?"

What's the big deal here? So, they said something fairly homophobic. Are we supposed to be shocked?

As someone else pointed out, in the not-too-distant future there could be a US president espousing a similar world-view. What the guy said was actually fairly mild, in the context of contemporary Arab nations and their attitude to homosexuality.

This is a standard Frazzled 'Loony UN' story taken from Fox, and as such, should be largely disregarded.

I know where I an't going to, like EVER!
Besides a burka is less than flatering

Were you planning on going to Libya before this 'furore' erupted, like?

Well, no... but thanks for blowing a hole in me post.
They do have some nice Roman ruins I wouldn't mind seeing though.

Albatross wrote:Were you planning on going to Libya before this 'furore' erupted, like?

Frankly I was, it seemed like a wonderful holiday destination, so much good press lately.

Ribon Fox wrote:Well, no... but thanks for blowing a hole in me post.
They do have some nice Roman ruins I wouldn't mind seeing though.

I know a city with loads of them.

Albatross wrote:

Ribon Fox wrote:Well, no... but thanks for blowing a hole in me post.
They do have some nice Roman ruins I wouldn't mind seeing though.

I know a city with loads of them.

Athens?

Rome?

Bingo!

Kilkrazy wrote:Don't you know civilised Europe and the USA had a harsh stance against gays 50 years ago?

It didn't change overnight here and it will take time in Libya too.

Definitely agree with this. The only way a society can become more tolerant is through education and a gradual movement towards a liberal and developed society. That isn't to say that bigotry will simply cease to exist - after all minorities will always face adversity in developed countries, again usually from the uneducated (I'm thinking of a ballet dancer who was recently beaten up, or the band 'Gay Dad' who were chased through the streets of Liverpool after a gig). However, there are different levels of tolerance, Libya (like most of the world in fact) is somewhat further back on that scale at the moment.

Unfortunately though tolerance doesn't always go hand in hand with economic or industrial development - I lived for 2 years in Korea, and despite them having the 12th largest economy in the world, gay people don't officially exist. There are pop stars on the TV over there that couldn't stub out a cigarette, their wrists are that weak, yet they have tens of thousands of girls screaming like lunatics and crying when one of them does so much as blow their hair out of their eyes. There are signs that things are slowly changing, but quite often such things face a lot of opposition from traditions and as has been pointed out above, the older generation.

Albatross wrote:Bingo!

I was kidding around with the Athens bit, just so we know.

Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.

Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.

It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...

purplefood wrote:

Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.

It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...

More importantly, who doesn't impose their values on others?

dogma wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.

It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...

More importantly, who doesn't impose their values on others?

True...

dogma wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.

It's hardly an unreasonable request to treat another human being as another human being...

More importantly, who doesn't impose their values on others?

It's only important not to impose your values on others if you value not imposing your values on others.

Luco wrote:Oh look, here we go again pushing our values on others.

Yes, I imagine that homosexuals, whose relationships are private and harm no one, do want to force their right to not be brutally murdered in the streets, and I'm sure they also would like to enforc their right to not be gang-raped to "fix" them.

How DARE they make these kinds of demands!!!

I don't think I've ever gotten so much attention on here all at once.
@ biccat. Touche.

@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?

Luco wrote:I don't think I've ever gotten so much attention on here all at once.
@ biccat. Touche.

@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?

feth me, are we on the endangered species list again? Here I thought we were growing exponentially, but apparently those damn gays have gone and done it and doomed the human race to die out because everybody wants to watch Bravo now instead of have eighteen kids.

I've seen the light. Where can I get some Tea Party literature?

Luco wrote:@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?

I do. Problem?
We're not the great white shark, you know.
Nobody's hunting us to extinction, and as homosexuals are a minority in comparison to straight or bisexual people, the overall birth rate of the human species remains waaaay beyond the death rate.

biccat wrote:
It's only important not to impose your values on others if you value not imposing your values on others.

So you're imposing your value of not imposing your values on others, onto others.

Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.

I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.

Luco wrote:Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.

I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.

I don't see a damper on the growth of the human race as a problem. The growth itself is a bigger problem than that, as you yourself just pointed out.
Also, as the human race as a whole is increasing in population at an exponential rate, yes, our birth rate is waaaaay beyond the death rate.

Luco wrote:Sorry, I meant 'growth' of the human race and yes it does put a damper on it, which means less scientists, less farmers, less labor, and perhaps the most politically important: less potential soldiers.

I wouldn't say we're waaay beyond the death rate.Many European nations have a declining population due to low birth rates, for example. Yes, China, India, and Africans are reproducing quickly, but thats going to put us in a tough spot at one point, especially with this idea that its the West's responsibility to feed everyone.

Out of interest which European nations?
And considering many gay couples have surrogate mothers or implanted embryos when/if they want children it doesn't really impact population growth that much...

Luco wrote:@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?

I dismiss is so hard that it turns into a Bose-Einstein condensate from my cold shoulder.

Melissia wrote:

Luco wrote:@Melissa: Do you dismiss that it endangers the reproduction of the human race within that nation?

I dismiss is so hard that it turns into a Bose-Einstein condensate from my cold shoulder.

Can't wait for round... 4?

This has... gone to plaid.

Gays endangering the reproduction of the human race?

Oh my god! Shoot them all!

MrDwhitey wrote:This has... gone to plaid.

Gays endangering the reproduction of the human race?

Oh my god! Shoot them all!

Question:
If gay people, by virtue (or lack thereof in some peoples' view) of being gay, threaten the reproduction/propagation of the human race.
Does that mean sharks, by virtue of being sharks, threaten the survival of the human race?