471–480 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We know that homosexuality is a destructive force in society" - NOPE.
The other side can argue that Africa has been ravaged by HIV/AIDS caused in large part due to unsafe sexual intercourse (male-male sex is leading cause)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I didn't like the news. Tim Cook is gay, so what? I though 5 seconds about it and then I realized how actually we still need this... we still need to remind people that there's nothing wrong with being gay. That's sad that we are still at this point.
Yep. Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an unpopular opinion. After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is "we"? How do you know? If you get downvoted, it won't be because of your opinion but rather your statement of something that is not backed up. Especially the part about "normal" sexuality -- how are you defining "normal", and why does it even matter? HN is all about "don't get a normal job, instead be a startup founder"... so why should everyone be "normal" (whatever that is) with their sexuality as well? And…
Who is "we"? Faithful members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And about this "the evil one"... how do you know what his/her/its desires are? Our Church teaches us so.
Just today morning I read a news[2] that a software engineer working in Infosys was booked for Sec 377 and put in jail. In June 2014, seven people were booked under Section 377 by the Bangalore Police [3]. So far 200 people have been prosecuted under this law [4].
That's the reason I don't see any famous Indian, those who work in movies or HNI, coming out and accepting they are gay. I really hope people in other countries also encourage actions of Tim Cook so that people have freedom to express their wishes and sexuality.
[0] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/india-health-minist...
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal...
[2] - http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Sec-377...
[3] - http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Six-mon...
[4] - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where the homesexual agenda in Disney movies? I'd prefer specific examples rather than just handwavey nonsense.
The last two Disney movies I watched (Frozen and Maleficent) both were resolved not by romantic love of a man and woman, but with the the love between two women. I am NOT saying Ana and Elsa were lesbians, but that Disney seems to be moving away from the prince/princess formula - that the ultimate feat of existence is getting married to someone of the opposite gender. If this is a "homosexual agenda" or not, I say go…
Have not see Maleficent, but I have heard nuts claiming Frozen was some kind of pro-gay film. It is resolved by (non-romantic) love between family members. I saw the movie twice in theater with my kid and couldn't find ANY indication of gay-ness. Anna ends up going after a man. The main plot is about self acceptance and embracing who you really are. While that metaphor can easily be applied to being gay (in todays world), I suspect the only people who instinctively made the connection are either gay or terribly anti-gay.
Gotta love Elsa, her and Merida are the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there are those who are trying to require religious organizations to perform same-sex weddings. I think that qualifies as "pushing"...
So many have done it willingly, in advance of any pressure, that religion isn't a credible defense. edit: I just realized I got dragged way off topic by a troll. Whoops.
The original comment I responded to was someone claiming there's no "pushing" going on. As you clearly demonstrated, you're willing to "pressure" religious groups -- there's nothing wrong with that, but more people should be honest about it. From my perspective, the appropriate types of pressure are internal pressure (ie, members changing the group's ideas) or competitive pressure (other organizations that already are on the opposite side), not tax pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"
I'm not sure who "they" is talking about in this thread, so I might be a little off here, but it definitely goes beyond acknowledging existence. People have acknowledged homosexuality for thousands of years (that's why there is a word for it). What the LGBT community wants is acceptance that it is a acceptable form of sexual expression. I definitely feel like there is some amount of "pushing homosexuality on everyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
George Boole, Charles Babbage, John von Neumann, Grace Hopper - To name a few great contributors. Yes Alan Turing is considered the father of computer science but with out the knowledge of others before him (and even during his time) we could be living in a different world right now. Even the late, great Isaac Newton said - [1]"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." 1. https://en.wikipe…
To put it a different way: Turing was necessary, but not sufficient. We needed him, and the entire field is built on his work. But his is not the only contribution; indeed, many others needed to also contribute to be sufficient for the field we know today. In this light, it seems the original comment is correct.
What do you think would have happened if Turing had never been born?
Perhaps we would never have had a single individual who contributed as much, all at once, as Turing did... but the sum total of his contributions WOULD have been made by other people, eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, what's the deal with your use of the loaded dog whistle term "agenda"? Listen to Fox News much? And with your presumption that the answer you're likely to get on HN might be "handwavey nonsense"? Or are you implying that Fantasia's Sorcerer and Micky Mouse are gay just because they wave their hands around to conjure up colorful butterflies, broomsticks, comets, waves and storm clouds?
I got the impression that DanBC's question was genuine, and meant the opposite of what you accuse him of implying. People have been accusing Disney of "pushing the gay agenda" (negatively) for years -- but those same people have not been able to point to concrete examples of people with same-sex attraction, they've only been able to point to BS like Mickey Mouse having a high voice. Now in this thread people are sugg…