I do hope you are trolling... ...cause that reads like you really have no idea what you are talking about.  It's make less since than saying women should not be alowed to fly airplanes because they have babbies.

But temped to ask the question:  So you are saying that Rudolf Nuryev, Waslaw Nijinsky, and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, (Some of the most famous Russians) are all useless?

^lol, what exactly you didn't understand in phrase "in this specific regard", i.e. family? People you mentioned regardless of their talent and contribution to world culture are exactly that in this specific regard, afaik they weren't successful fathers or rather fathers at all and out of them only one (?) was married. Father is a social role, family is social institution, deal with that.

Explain whatever you want to these people ;) BTW next time pls stay within the limits unless want to be reported.

There is nothing to deal with.  You haven't made any points - just a very bizarre warped delusion of what you think the world/family/life only revolves around a certain roll some people have for a time in the world.  Other than your irrational fear and paranoid, you aren't effected in the least by to women or to men getting married (well, unless you are in the closet and jealous of them) nor made any significant, meaningful or relevant point as to why that should not be allowed.

Gay men can be fathers, just like strait men aren't necissarly fathers.  It's like being upset that some people are left handed.  In other word, just bizzare that you would react hatefully to how they are.

You are illustrating bad stereotype of viciousness related to an irrational fear, and maybe just a touch of madness.  It’s unfortunate, but the image of the people of Russia has been severely damaged in world lately, and you are just confirming the manic bigotry.

I find it sad, cause I have some good friends from Russia and they have to world hard to undo all the damage people like you do.  I hope someday you can evolve a bit more - there is plenty of room for you to grow.

I don't have any fears, you just assuming that all people who are against homosexual marriage have "irrational fear", i.e. homophobic, which is not true. See the videos from that protest in Paris I posted above, people are openly admit they have nothing against gays, so the rally is more of pro-family rather anti-gay.

Instead of trying to patronate me, what's exactly your agruments against my post above? If anything I'm trying to rationally explain why certain people might have that irrational fear you're talking about. I just don't have any reasons to fear anything, it's nothing like my goverment is about to allow gay marriage, lol.

Marriage is construct made mostly for purpose of procreation (as for other purposes...well, family comes from latin word for servant, slave) and giving most people opportunity to do it (why monogamous marriage is historically more accepted than polygamous). Marriage has not been invented for purpose of uniting man and woman in love, or with God, it is a social instrument that proved itself over the course of many thousands of years for goal of civilization/human species surviving and progressing. In it, offspring learns, among other things, their biological and social roles, so that they can continue cycle of civilization, and for that offspring to exist in first place you need male and female specimen (without recent involvement of modern science).

Changing definition of marriage defeats its main purpose - procreation.

That said, a lot of gay people contributed so much to our civilization, and thank universe for spawning them into this reality - but at the end, without male and female creating them, they would not exist in the first place, and marriage is the main vehicle of our society in which that happens.

1. The definition of the word Bigot still does not apply to simply teaching my children right from wrong. I can teach my Children not to do something, while at the same time, teach them the all important values of not judging others, not looking down on others, and treating everyone with love and respect regardless of the other person's background, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. As I see it, the most important point made by Jesus in his life and words was to love others as yourself, never Judge anyone, and treat everyone with dignity because we're all created equal, and we're all viewed equally by God no matter what our faults. In other words, the values I teach my children on how to view and treat others are the exact opposite of teaching them bigotry. Also, if I teach my children that it would be wrong for them to do some action, but they make the choice to go against what I taught them when they are of age to make such choices, I will still love them, accept them and will treat them no differently. This is also the oppsoite of Bigotry, which is at it's core "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. "

2. Your comparison of my morals, first to those of Hitler, then to somebody who wanted to kill people who he hated are insulting, untrue, and way over the line. I'm not even going to waste my energy on that utter nonsense.

3. As I explained in point 1, I'm not talking about, nor have I ever been talking about teaching or exercising intolerance through my parental authority, I teach the exact opposite to my children, as do most Christians I know. I have advocated for equal legal rights for homosexual couples through Civil Unions (as I believe they are entitled to that since they are no different than you and me), as well as, on multiple occasions expressed my tolerance and acceptance of people with differing views than mine (including you), you are technically the only person in this specific discussion that has actually shown actions that meet the definition of Bigotry as defined in point 1. I'm not going to call you a bigot, because I would hope these actions are more due to an excess of passion and emotion rather than a deeply held bigoted worldview. I would prefer to assume the best about you as a person, I had hoped you would show that you could behave in a reasonable manner in a debate.

4. Your patronizing tone is very detrimental to your arguments. Of course I know what the term lemming refers to, it insinuates foolishness and stupidity to the point of following another off a proverbial cliff, so you are blatently called me a 'stupid fool' by the definition of the term. That's why I took offense to it. Also, I use the term 'opinion' to express humility in this case, suggesting that, though I may have arrived at a conclusion using logic, the conclusion is still my opinion (regardless of how many logical arguments I can make for it). This is because I know there is still room for me to grow and learn on every subject. I also use the word 'opinion' in a debate to show that, though I may believe something, I'm not going to hold it in such high regard as to say your opinions are wothless or not worth debating, as this would quickly destroy any chance for a good, reasonable debate. I still maintain that the majority of your attacks were both over the line and took a very derogatory tone towards those you disagree with. I also still maintain that you quickly use the term Bigot in an overly broad way, extending "stubborn and complete intolerance" to somehow mean "any form of disagreement or opposing belief".

EDIT: You also (incorrectly) state I didn't use any logic, though I did. I'll state my argument again. Teaching a child to not do a specific action does not automatically make them bigoted towards those who do that action, nor does it mean I will be bigoted towards them if they do that action, ESPECIALLY if that child is taught to respect others regardless of any other factors (as you don't have the whole picture on the entire parenting methods an indivudual will use, you do not have enough evidence to drop the word Bigot). Teaching a child "You shouldn't do action X for Y reason" while also teaching "You are no better than anybody, you should treat everybody with equal love and respect in the same manner you would want to be treated" is not the same as saying "You shouldn't do action X and people who do action X are bad, beneath us, we're better than them, etc." You are using a slippery slope argument to say that, if I teach my child not to do action X, I must therefore be intolerant of them if they in the end choose action X, and must also be teaching them to hate or be intolerant of those who do action X. The last two parts of that slippery slope argument were added in your mind and never stated by me or any of the other people you attacked, they are also untrue in my case.

Also, I notice that you have called me both a Lemming and Lazy. A lemming (mindless, stupid follower of others) for reading and copying a previously stated argument, Lazy for not reading the previously posted argument so as to know I shouldn't re-use it. So which is it... Lemming (requires that I read the previous argument) or Lazy (requires that I not have read the previous argument). I guess, since your logic is clearly the absolute truth, I won't suggest that in spite of the fact that I had read earlier posts, I used an argument I already had in my own mind before this discussion (which would be neither lemming or lazy), but that would require that your logical process have even the remote possibility of having any flaw, so I will not suggest that. :/

To respond directly to one of your points, when you said: "if you come on here saying, "I guarantee my kids wont be having sex outside of marriage", then yes, that is bigotry too, because it displays a degree of intolerance in your position of authority."

The above does not directly show bigotry, as it depends on the intentions of the parent and what the parent would do if they were proven wrong in their statement. If I were to say the statement above, it would more likely be over confidence that my parenting skills and a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of a children as they grow into adulthood more than anything else. Someone who makes a statement like that is more than likely naive on the subject and overly confident, but that statement is not bigotry in and of itself because there are too many unknowns. The person who made the similar statment to the above also said he treats everyone with respect and dignity, so it is logical to assume he would also treat his children with respect and dignity and teach them to do the same. This is why I found that particular statement to be naive, but not enough to automatically jump to calling him a Bigot. To put it in different terms, if the statement has other explainations or reasons outside of bigotry (over confidence, naivete, etc.), you cannot with certainty say it is bigotry or that the individual is a bigot since you do not know enough about the indivudual to know his motives.

I stick by my last point, we must tolerate them even if we don't agree with their ways of life.

A lack of understanding and tolerance causes conflict.

Because it is untrue.  You can not be against same sex marriage and not anti gay. That Anti-Family picture you posted doesn't mean anything - except that it is going to really embarrass and shame their families.  Gay people have families and are part of families.  Against gay marriage = anti family.  It's like the same people against divorced people re-marrying, or no virgin women getting married, or banning interracial marriage - they are all archaic ideas that are dying and bad for society.

We had people here in the USA in the 1950's trying to say the same things about races.  That they were against anyone, but wanted a different race 'over there and in their own school/community.'  They were afraid of black people. They used the exact same arguments and justifications that you are, and they were wrong, as you are wrong.  And later some of the biggest leaders admitted they were wrong and apologized.

You don't see or understand that - and I get that you don't like same sex marriage.  But that doesn't make you right.  Maybe you think gay people are ichy?  That could be your opinion. But you can not minimize and take away people's rights and say you aren't against them. 

I am trying to understand what your point is, but when I see how much better the world is when marriages are strengthened – whether same sex or opposite sex.  How couples can work together to make a better community, support each other, raise their kids (or cats if they have those), and visit each other in the hospital, it just seems so strange to me when someone wants to ban a significant portion of society from the same rights everyone else enjoys and uses.

First, you stealthly attacking me personally (fear, paranoid, obviously country where I live should have some relevance, what relevance btw?.. seems a recurring point my opponents over here eventually bring to the public, I'm seriously considering changing it to, say, Zimbabwe in the profile, nobody knows the f**k about Zimbabwe, lol etc.), then put words into my mouth (like gay men are bad fathers), or just badly misinterpreting me, fighting straw man (a homophobic retrograde I guess?), and now lecturing (that's much better, but with little to no relevance to the post of mine that was honored with your tirade when your first posted in the thread). The point I made there seem perfectly eligible to me, furthermore people on the streets (I'm referring to that rally in Paris) are more or less concerned exactly about that, would like to hear your opinion (theoretical or based on experience) on the matter in the shortest form possible. Or just forget it, 'cos I'm certainly tired of the topic.