Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 4

Vladimir Tismaneanu
Hello, I'm looking for a bio of the guy. A credible one. Which means:
 * not the "ad usum delphini" one offered by Tismaneanu himself and copied everywhere
 * not the "volodea" stuff from harsh critics.

I am really interested to know more about his parents, and about his early career as a young politruc. Frankly, I expect most claims from "Ziua" to be true, even some of Romania Mare, but I'd like to be sure. BTW, how do you say politruc in English? Dpotop 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Political commissar or politruk (both lead to the same article, but I think both are contrived in the Romanian case, and neither has anything to do with Tismăneanu). Dahn 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Stricto sensu you are right (although in Romania the word is also used in the sense of "involved in party policies", in which case I don't know). This is one of the reasons I need more info. Clearly, there are many classes of people that took advantage of the communist system. You have members of the high-life of the time. Ana Blandiana was one of them, for instance, regardless of her "dissidence". Then, you have guys that got politically involved with the party to some point, for instance by writing propaganda. A third class are the actual high-rank party members. There are also the infamous "Propaganda secretaries", etc. . Tismaneanu probably was part of the high-life, what I wonder is whether he held positions within PCR/UTC, and whether he published propaganda. Dpotop 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My guess is Tismaneanu was neither. He is being "prosecuted" for the politics of his father, if anything (a fact which I find quite hypocritical). In the larger picture: you yourself have stressed that "being in the Party" meant virtually nothing (which may be extended just as well to "people who wrote what might ammount to propaganda"; note that Tismaneanu was neither). In this case, we are talking about a person who has spent his life pointing to the countless wrongs of Communist politics in Romania. The attack nowadays is scandalous in that it hides suspicions people will forever have of "Communist kids", when in fact many of his attackers might have been more communist than he ever was. Dahn 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am bothered by two things:
 * That the "trial of the communism" is done today, when the real communists are all dead or dying (except, of course, Brucan :) ). It is clear to me that this "trial", whatever form it may take, is a form of political fight between existing parties, and not an actual trial of the communist system.
 * I rather agree with that. Dahn 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That the "trial of the communism" is conducted by the son of a chief politruk (stricto sensu), which profited the system himself (if only to emigrate). If not for the symbol, I believe him to be partial when evaluating the involvment of his parents.
 * I cannot agree with that. There has been nothing preventing xenophobes and neo-fascists to monopolize anti-communist discourse in this country, although that too would fall under the same suspicions (if not, indeed, under a more accute one). IMO, besides most of the victims of the wave of repression in the 1950s, the Romanian pop. and communism seemed to agree for long. Since that communism turned progressively "national" (rendering the nationalist critique of communism as anti-national largely bogus), many of the actual victims of the regime are actually communists (not stricto sensu "victims", but there you have Brucan and Tismaneanu's father). In fact, "the trial of communis" is a non-sequitur wherever, and especially in Romania, where it is used by a population who sincereky believed all of Dej's or Ceausescu's rhetoric. Dahn 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But you forget that "nationalism" is multiform, just like "capitalism", "socialism", etc. For instance, I presume that in his uneducated and primitive sense Ceausescu actually tried to do best his job. Of course he was a dictator. Of course he did so many bad things. But I'm not sure he was dishonest w.r.t. himself when saying that he never acted against the interests of Romania. Given that he was educated in a period of "sacrifice curves", "royal dictatorship", and other sorts of turmoil, what happened in the '80s might not have looked that bad in his eyes (although I believe he should have been executed, if only for this). Also, whatever his doctors/nutritionists might have explained to him, he was trying to apply to the Romanian people as a whole. :) I've been shocked myself, when leaving Romania, to see at which point "salamul cu soia" is appreciated and healthy. :):):)
 * Nationalism may be "multiform" but we have debated to death about just how unilateral it was and is in Romania (etno-national, leadrship-bound, exclusive, populist, autochtonist), and Ceausescu did not go against any of its tenets. I did not accuse of dishonesty. It is precisely this: what he honestly stood for, and what most Romanians agreed with until finding out that they just couldn't eat any more salami (and even then, many of them sure liked Vatra Romaneasca...), it is precisely what he used (because he stood for it) against the former vanguard that needs to be looked into. Shall we call it "trial of communism"? Well, if that implies that we have placed an ideology on trial, and thus exclude what we and none other made of it, no. If it is pointing out to what I have mentioned, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Dahn 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why am I saying this? Because there are multiple nationalisms. Ceausescu was nationalist in some sense. I am in a different one, and my critique stands, even though I can understand his POV. Dpotop 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep dragging me to that point :). I do not accuse "a person that calls him/herself a Romanian nationalist" for the evils of others. I may tell you that, strictly IMO, I find the designation unnecessary and at times highly counter-productive, but I still would not hold you responsible for what the post-Adrianople fantasy has produced (since: 1. you are not responsible for it; 2. your interpretation of nationalism is rather un-traditional in the Romanian context, and it will, much to my delight, place you in endless conflicts with most Romanian nationalists). To paraphrase John Stuart Mill on conservatives: "Not all nationalists are stupid, but most stupid people are nationalists." You may insist on calling yourself a nationalist (and I cannot see why), but I still wouldn't call you stupid (as I would call most Romanian nationalists I know). Dahn 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What bothers me (and makes me reply along these lines) is that you keep on talking about Romanian nationalism as though it were one, whereas there were several of them. Were you talking about "Ceausescu's form of nationalism", I would not have replied.
 * And again, you hold onto your intellectual arguments. A very powerful nation does not need a national movement because nobody would challenge its interests (so that its philosophers can utter such memorable phrases as you cite). But everything changes when this power declines. You may not have noticed, but the US Senate has just voted English "unique national language", at a time when WASP dominance is really endangered. Human society needs groups, and the groups need some form of (irrational, if you want) ideological support. This is reality, and until mankind changes fundamentally, I see no reason to weaken Romania by criticising romanian nationalism for its irrationality. The good thing to do is to follow other nations in structuring the national movement along constructive lines, and not chauvinistic and xenophobic propaganda. This is why I consider myself a nationalist. Moreover, I believe the romanian people deserves more recognition at international level (in the sense of knowledge about its values and culture). Dpotop 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate the work of Tismaneanu. Even though I can sense his biases, it gives very useful insight. Most important, his point of view of the period is probably representative for the children of the "old guard" stalinist generation. I cannot see, however, how a genuine trial of the communism can be directed by him. I was speechless while seeing how Paul Goma (one of the very, very few actual Romanian dissidents) was attacked and discarded in the process that ended with Vladimir Tismaneanu in lead. Again, I think that this "trial" is dumb idea, except as a political wapon. And the attacks on Goma clearly showed that it is intended to be such a thing. Tismaneanu in lead is actually an interesting choice: everybody knows who he is, and if this is not important, what else can be? Therefore, he can influence Romanian politics in whichever way he chooses, for instance in favor of his old school colleagues (cf. ). Dpotop 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Tismaneanu is not rejecting Goma. Perhaps he would have been as good a choice as well (I think that his "anti-semitism" is made up by his adversaries). However, it is sophistry to say that Tismaneanu has a shadowy past or whatever: he is good when he entertains Romanians with what they want to hear (because it was entertainment value, and not the obvious truth of his analysis that has made Tismaneanu popular), but we don't want the Soviet boy to be handling "our past". It has the same trivial status as accusations against Roman, except Tismaneanu has gone further than anyone in exposing communism as an ideology (including his father's version of communism). As to "his school buddies": besides the fact that I know someone who went to school with him and who is not a communist, Nicu and the rest were known as the playboys who didn't give a piss about communism. I think Tismaneanu has exposed this hypocrisy on numerous instances; I know that he has gone to length to expose the inherent evil of the nomenklatura from which his father was removed, and around which he gravitated as an adolescent. In fact, his supposed "bias" was not linked to favouritism towards the likes of Sasha Mizil and Madalin Voicu (with whom Romanians seem to have few problems), but, in the same ugly mindset, to his (or his father's - for what difference is there, right?) "classical Marxism" - i.e.: not the good ole boys of natioanal-communism, but the "Jews that came riding on tanks". The fact that this topic still passes into conversation is what I dread most. Dahn 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the current Romanian context, choosing Tismaneanu was exactly equivalent to rejecting Goma. Note that I do not say "agreeing", but "choosing". Dpotop 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully support you in saying that the generation of Nicu, Vladimir, a.s.o. was largely non-ideological. Like the Romanian "communist" regime in the 70s and 80s. If fact, communism was relegated to propaganda, while the political system quickly approached that of an apolitical dictatorship. State property became a mere means of control, and private property was being slowly promoted (appartments starting in the 80s, the "auto-gestion" of factories, etc). Dpotop 08:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And let me not forget my usual work with analogies. Is Svetlana Alliluyeva "less reliable" as a critic of Stalinism because her father was Stalin? Are Old Bolsheviks less anti-Stalinists because they were Marxists (in fact, wasn't the first major critique of Stalinism a Marxist one? or even: wasn't the first major critique of Leninism a Marxist one?)? Is Aung San Suu Kyi less of an enemy of Burmese socialism if her father was a leader of the anti-British rebellion? And I could go on with many such examples... Dahn 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point: Would you confide to Trotsky the trial of Russian Communism? Recall that he is for much in what the "leninist" system actually was (if only because he organized part of it). Dpotop 09:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To expand: Tismaneanu, Blandiana, Brucan, and Goma are to be placed on a scale, you say, and one of them will win. Let's say that criteria is subjective, without saying that it is dissmissable. Moving on, we notice something interesting: Tismaneanu is bad for leaving (probably using his connections), Goma gets exiled, Blandiana's gestures are too timid to count (and are contrasted by her supposed "praise" for the regime), while Brucan is a communist etc.. Hm. But wouldn't you say, Dpotop, that all of them have the merit of doing something to oppose Ceausism, in contrast to the larger part of the Romanian population? And, more importantly, will you reject my verdict that most Romanians have actually backed Ceausism, helped it along, and found benefits in it? Wouldn't that render "the other" (whoever "the other" is) on a scale of his/her own, and way out of the moral reach of most Romanians? Dahn 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it good that we agree on the main point: today it's just a political fight. As to the second point, note that I do not challenge the analysis of Tismaneanu. I mostly disagree with his choice as a symbol, given that the "trial of communism" is a symbol itself. In my view, he is **not** the good person to conduct the trial of communism, whatever this may be. Dpotop 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As concerns your statement most Romanians have actually backed Ceausism, helped it along, and found benefits in it I would say it is partly true, except for the benefits part, and maybe not in the sense you see it. But this is the subject of another discussion already: When and why did Romanians actually back Ceausescu? Dpotop 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My full point is that I would not entrust anyone with a "trial of communism",. since any trial of an ideology is meant to be a sham (not even Nurnberg was technically "the trial of Nazism"). Judgment of intellectuals has been and is already available, and no sane person could "prosecute" Maoism and Khruschevism along with Stalinism etc. (which is not to say that "version of communism x is better", but that a "trial" of communism would be based on sophistry). If we are talking about the investigation of communism in Romania (while I reject that we need "special laws" for that, and especially the notion that doing something which is both not criminal now and not illegal back then - i.e. merely "being a communist" - turns into a "wrong" we should investigate), then I have to say that, as pompous as it is, it could have some fundament. If we talk about "doing wrong under communism" (which is an objective principle), then Tismaneanu is beyond suspicion. About the mass of the population: a "trial of communism" serves to excuse not only the backing they/we gave to Ceausescu, but also the fact that the second stage of communism is in fact our own creation (I'm exaggerating, but not by much). Ceausism, which may only benefit from passing into "faults we attribute to the generic term 'communism'", reflects things for which none of the proposed dissidents - Goma as well as Soviet children, and even Brucan - is to be made responsible for (unlike your Trotsky analogy). So, I propose that the real issue here is: Romanians looking for an excuse for what they have condoned (or, as Sieyès put it, "vecu"), and the ancestral "blame it on the outsiders" (which both Dej and Ceausescu knew how to work with). Dahn 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, but you don't have to convince  me that the "trial of communism" serves no useful purposes. Studying communism needs to be done, but then you don't need a boss to do historic science. Science is better off decentralized. I do not think romanians need excuses for what happened during communism, nor some of exorcism or brain-washing. Two things are necessary:
 * Romanians need to learn the history of communism in general, and that of romanian communism, so that it doesn't happen again.
 * People that have been hurt need some form of just compensation. And the main problem here is probably the definition of "just compensation". Here, I believe that only the democratic process in a state of law can be the measure.
 * I can agree with that. Dahn 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The capitalist wouldn't want all aspects of communism to be known, cause people might want it back. Anonimu 09:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On a related topic: I'm thinking of creating the subcat Category:Romanian politicians by party. What do we do with the PCR, considering that so many were members, without it adding to either their career or designation as "communists"? I'm thinking something on the lines of "Romanian Communist Party activists" with a subcat for "Gen. Secretaries", perhaps taking in view the 8th point of the Timisoara proclamation (whereas for other parties, categories would be created as "Members of..."). I'm waiting for suggestions. Dahn 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can probably make these differences. But you can also have a "PCR" section, just like we could also have a section for "Frontul Renasterii Nationale". Dpotop 22:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, as it is, most other "politicians" categories follow this trend (note that Category: French Communist Party members is included in Category:French Communist Party (yeah, well, I had something to do with categorizing there... :) ). I had decided to ask you because we have had that confontation on the PCR talkpage, and I want to make sure that we can agree on a distinction that is both relevant and accurate. "Activists" sounds a bit vague, I wonder if you can propose a more specific term. About the FRN: I was thinking the same thing, especially since a FNR cat would establish the needed nuance in Category:Fascist politics in Romania (I cannot possibly get myself to include Carol in Category:Romanian fascists while keeping a straight face, and the FNR would be dead on with the proxy value of the concept). Dahn 22:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You already listed "Straja Tarii" as a fascist organization. Why not the FRN and Carol II? Everything depends on what meaning you retain for "fascist". Dpotop 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Politicians by party
This is drawing from the previous conversation with Dpotop (excuse me, btw, for what seemed like an abrupt ending: I'm not sure if you want to continue it, Dpotop, but the only reason I originally stopped is because I got tangled up in other issues). I would like to hear opinions and comments on the issues with a newly-created subcategory here: Category talk:Romanian politicians by party. I want us all to see what terms we can agree on for future inclusions. If you feel like stating your views on this page instead, that would be just as good. Thank you. Dahn 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I sure wouldn't be at all preoccupied with the lack of response to this issue if I wouldn't be convinced that, when categories will be created without consensus, many of those who have failed to express any sort of opinion so far will nonetheless be "outraged" by this and that here and there. Dahn 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Romania pictures
I just got back from a 2 week visit to Romania. I have a number of pictures of Sibiu including of the village musume or Traditional Folk Civilisation Museu as it is mentioned in the article. I also have pictures of Craiova, Tîrgu Jiu (mostly of Sculptural Ensemble of Constantin Brancusi from Târgu Jiu which includes a few decent pictures of The Endless Column and The Gate of the Kiss I could not get one of The Table of Silence that was not filled with people though). Anyway my question, I don't want to just upload them randomly if they dont have a place in an article since that is bad form. Should I just put the ones that are ok for use here on commons and drop a note here? Or should I leave a link to a personal gallery with them and leave a note that people can upload them here if they like under a CC licence? I did upload two pics but the better ones are still in RAW format and will have to be tinkered with and converted to JPG. Dalf | Talk 05:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be to upload all of the photos. Even though they may not be needed now, they will be needed in the future. Uploading them to commons enables them to be used by a wide variety of projects who may need them. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool I'll upload some of them now to commons and if I end up photoshopping them I'll reupload. Most of the photos of The Endless Column were taken in jpg and raw format and the jpg's turned out very poorly (but the raw ones look good).  My roomate is going to help me clean them up this week.  How do I put pictures fomr commons in a &lt;gallery&gt; do you know? Dalf | Talk 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

GayFest photos
Hi, would anyone in Bucharest be able to take some photos of the GayFest parade, to be inserted into the relevant article? I know this is a bit of late notice, but the photos would be very useful, considering the importance of the festival in the context of Romanian civil rights. Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 09:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need any fag photo. They are enough of them in wikipedia. Anonimu 11:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And we don't need any intolerance here. And while we're here, I can just as well say "we don't need any more Orthodox icons and crosses here, so take them off you user page. There are enough of them in Wikipedia". Equal? Ah, but, no, you don't want to live in a Romania of equality. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not intolerance. But i don't think that people with psyhic disorders should get their photos all over a neutral encyclopedia. Anonimu 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It is intolerance. By stating that "we don't need any fag photo", you're being intolerant towards LGBT people, and are trying to minimise coverage of LGBT issues on Wikipedia. Isn't opposing LGBT content intolerance? 2) Homosexuality is not a psychic disorder. Read more widely. 3) The status of homosexuality has nothing to do with its coverage on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers a broad range of information. Writing articles about LGBT issues doesn't go against neutrality principles, even though it may lead to systemic bias. The fact that Wikipedia has many LGBT-related articles just means that the LGBT community is overrepresented here, in the same way that Europeans are overrepresented here in comparison to Africans. By documenting the GayFest, we are just furthering the goal of Wikipedia, to inform people. Any form of informative addition to Wikipedia should be encouraged, as long as it's written in a neutral way, without mattering what subject type it is. 4) It doesn't cost anything to tolerate. Think about this. This applies not only to LGBT people, but to people who are different that you in general. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline Today, solidarity and hope 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cu ce ajuta o poza cu oameni destrabalandu-se wikipedia? Cat despre conditia medicala numita homosexualitate: timp de sute de ani a fost considerata o boala, pana cand un homosexual a pus mana pe o diploma universitara si a inceput sa scrie pseudo-stiinta. In studiile contemporane nu poti avea incredere. In vest, aluzia la faptul ca homosexualitatea nu e tocmai naturala echivaleaza cu sinuciderea stiintifica. Nu am nimic impotriva homosexualilor in sine. Ii respect si cred ca ar trebui sa primeasca tratament de specialitate ca toti ceilalti bolnavi psihici. Sa le refuzi acest lucru e adevarata discriminare. Anonimu 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you? Stuck in the 1950s? - FrancisTyers 13:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cât timp avem articol despre GayFest, poza ar face articolul mult mai puternic. La fel cum un articol despre Metroul din Bucureşti ar fi mai puternic cu nişte poze ale metroului. Pozele ar arăta comunitatea gay din România, la fel cum sunt poze cu festivalul pride din Brazilia sau Germania. Cât cu homosexualitatea ca boală psihică: nu poate să fie boală cât timp nu influenţează pacientul într-un mod negativ. În lumea vestică sunt foarte mulţi homosexuali care au o viaţă normală, vor să îşi trăiască viaţa, nu afectează pe nimeni şi nu suferă. Deci, ce rost ar avea tratamentul, care în orice caz este aproape imposibil? Cât timp homosexualitatea în sine nu afectează persoana într-un mod negativ, este mai degrabă o diferenţă precum scrisul cu mână strângă. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 12:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PArca am avea poze la toate articolele cu romania si asta ne mai lipsea. Si homosexualitatea afecteaza viata. Ams cris unele din modurile in care o afecteaza undeva mai jos. Anonimu 13:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Am încercat să cer poze şi pentru metroul bucureştean, şi a oraşului în general, şi vezi că în articolele unde am fost involvat eu, sunt multe poze. Şi încerc să fie cât de multe poze la articolele cu teme româneşti, inclusiv GayFest. Ţi-am răspuns la argumentul de mai jos despre influenţa homosexualităţii pentru "agenţi externi" (hai să zicem, externalităţiile activităţii homosexuale). [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 13:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cat timp ai trait in Romania? Anonimu 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nu avem nevoie de perversiune mai multă decât e aici. Parada asta este un semn că România se duce de râpă. Şi nu văd ce are de-a face parada asta cu drepturile civile. Ei au aceeaşi drepturi ca toată lumea--pot să se căsătorească cu cine vor, cât timp ce persoanele sunt de sexuri diferite. Exact aceeaşi condiţii Se aplică la toţi cetăţenii români. Situaţia cu Art. 201 era la fel: puteau să aiba relaţii sexuale cu oricine, cât timp ce persoanele era de sexuri opuse. Că ei vor drepturi speciale nu ne pasă; ar trebui să-şi dea seama că ce fac ei este imoral şi să se pocăiască înainte să fie prea târziu. Biruitorul
 * He-he! That's the solution to every problem: POCĂIŢIVĂ! :-) bogdan 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Greu mai e cu limba asta română. Anonimu 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Era sarcasm. Am întâlnit pe internet destui care chiar spuneau aşa... :-) bogdan 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Păi da, d-le Giuşcă: chiar Sfântul Ioan Botezătorul a rostit aceste cuvinte: "Pocăiţi-vă, căci Împărăţia cerurilor este aproape!"Biruitorul 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Că este o perversiune este opinia ta. Pentru mine, parade este un semn că România merge în faţă. Cât cu drepturile civile - nu vezi cât de nonsens pare argumentul tău? "Pot să se căsătorească cu cine vor, cât timp ce persoanele sunt de sexuri diferite"? Ce înseamnă asta? Este la fel cum ai spune: "maghiarii au dreptul să vorbească limba lor, pentru că se pot adresa în limba română când vor". Situaţie unde căsătoria este doar între un bărbat şi o femeie este tocmai discriminatorie, pentru că doar se ştie că gay-ii nu se pot căsători cu persoane de alt sex. Legea română la ora actuală este discriminatorie fiind că este extrem de heteronormativă. Ei nu cer drepturi speciale sau mai multe decât orice alt român. Tot ce vor este să îşi exprime sexualitatea şi cultura într-un mod egal, nu să se fie forţaţi să se supună la normele hetero. La fel cum minorităţile etnice nu ar trebui să fie supuse la asimilare forţată în cultura română. Că tu crezi că ei sunt imorali nu are voie să fie punctul de vedere al statului, care este neutrul şi secular. Eu unul vreau să trăiesc într-o ţară tolerantă, egală şi deschisă, nu într-o societate intolerantă şi discriminatorie. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 12:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comparaţia cu maghiarii este ilegitimă fiindcă o persoană poate fi maghiara ci nu poate fi homosexuala: poate numai să acţioneze în mod homosexual. Eu, un român, nu pot deveni maghiar, dar pot participa în acte sodomite dacă chiar vreau (nu e cazul). De asemenea, "un homosexual" poate, prin tratament sau prin harul lui Dumnezeu în care dvs. nu credeţi, sa trăiască o viaţă heterosexuală. Cu heteronormativitatea (concept Orwellian) merge lumea înainte; altfel murim cu toţii de SIDA (un efect nociv al sodomiei, fiindcă tot aţi cerut unul). Legea nu trebuie să garanteze efect egal ci numai şansă egală: la fel şi cum surzii nu pot obţine aceleaşi plăceri de la o operă ca oamenii care pot auzii, tot aşa persoanele care nu sunt inclinate spre sexul opus nu pot beneficia la fel de mult din instituţia căsătoriei aşa cum e constituită astăzi, dar acest fapt nu obligă restul lumii sa-i acomodeze. Dacă s-ar supune la normele heterosexuale poate s-ar mai normaliza şi ei. Aş vrea să mai precizez faptul că psihologia este o "ştiinţă" politicizată (ca "socialismul ştiinţific," deci nu putem avea încredere în ea 100%– de ce homosexualitatea nu se mai consideră boală psihică dar condiţii asemănătoare, ca pedofilia, sunt? Din cauza activismului homosexual.
 * Statul ... este neutrul şi secular Până vine omul meu Becali la putere! Dar serios vorbind, faptul ca o bază creştină susţine principiile legii, chiar şi în statele seculare, nu poate fi contestat. De asta nu poţi omorî, fura, etc.: astea, pâna la urmă, din Biblie vin, la fel şi cu legea privind căsătoria.
 * Eu unul vreau să trăiesc Şi eu vreau altceva. Nu înseamnă că dorinţele dvs. sunt mai legitime. De fapt, Dreptatea e de partea mea.Biruitorul 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Romania o merge in fata... poate ca racu. Asa e ma casatoria in romania e discriminatorie. Sunt revoltat ca nu pot sa ma casatoresc cu un bebelus de un an sau cu scroafa lu bunica'mea. Ce cultura au ma homosexualii? De cand se defineste cultura in functie de ce futi? Maine-poimaine o sa aud de cultura felationista. Comparatia cu minoritatile etnice nu isi are locul aici Anonimu 12:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Primul argument care persoanele anti-gay dau împotriva drepturilor LGBT sunt "şi pedofilii şi zoofilii vor cere drepturile lor". Nu este argumentul despre aceste grupuri, este despre persoane LGBT. Punct. Deci comparaţia cu bebeluşul nu ţine, sau cu scroafa. Căsătoria între doi bărbaţi sau două femei este un contract voluntar care nu afectează pe nimeni altcineva, pe când căsătoria cu minorii sau animalele este diferită fiind ca aceastea nu pot să intre în acest contract, ne fiind responsabile legal. Deci pică comparaţia. 2) Ei păi tocmai asta este: că tu vezi homosexualitatea doar prin sex. Nu este aşa - este şi o relaţie iubitoare, şi există experimare culturală LGBT, în acelaşi fel cum există cultură feministă, etc. Persoanele LGBT doar vor dreptul să-şi trăiască viaţa cum vor ei, şi nu afectează pe nimeni. Ce te costă pe tine să îi tolerezi? 3) Comparaţie cu minorităţile etnice este foarte relevantă. Minorităţile etnice şi sexuale amândouă vor să aibă libertatea să îşi exprime felul de viaţă. Bineînţeles, există unele diferenţe. Dar dece spui că comparaţia nu îşi are loc? [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 12:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Căsătoria între doi bărbaţi sau două femei este un contract voluntar care nu afectează pe nimeni altcineva La fel şi cu canibalismul. Acel canibal (NB: un homosexual) trebuia pedepsit sau nu?
 * Nu afectează pe nimeni Aţi auzit de SIDA sau de toate celelalte boli împrăştiate de ei?Biruitorul 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * De la Moise incoace au fost considerate toate categorii de boli psiho-sexuale. Ca s-a trezit unii cu bani si influenta sa zica ca nu e nu e un motiv ptr ca acest lucru sa se schimbe. De cand bolnavii psihici au responsabilitate legala? Cultura feminista ?!?;)) Se duce lumea de rapa. Persoanele poponare afecteaza societatea foarte mult. Prin faptul ca sunt acceptati ca sanatosi ii influenteaza pe unii pusti mai slabi ca, in timpul crizei puberale, sa capete convingerea eronata ca sunt homosexuali. Si in plus, duc si la imbatranirea populatiei si eventual la disparitia speciei. Minoritatile etnice/lingvistice/religioase/rasiale nu sunt bolnave psihice si de cele mai multe ori au o cultura profund impamantenita prin traditie si iluminare spirituala. Anonimu 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dar homosexualii nu sunt bolnavi psihici. Nu se comportă aşa şi condiţia lor nu le influenţează viaţa într-un mod negativ în sine (că contextul social al homosexualităţii, şi reacţia altora, îi face să sufere este altceva). Da, cultura feministă. Vezi arta lui Barbara Kruger. Folosind argumentul tău, "persoanele poponare" (termen haios, din cauza combinaţiei tonului formal cu "slang") nu sunt mai rele decât persoanele hetero care n-au copii. Şi aceştia duc la îmbătrânirea populaţiei. Nu poţi să condamni fiecare persoană care nu face copii. Cu homosexualii care am vorbit, majoritatea au ştiut că sunt homosexuali înainte de a fi confruntaţi cu influenţă profundă externă. Plus că influenţele heterosexuale sunt de un milion de ori mai puternice decât cele homosexuale. Pe când homosexualii au paradă o dată pe an, poze cu femei şi bărbaţi în cuplu vezi întotdeauna. Deci nu prea poţi să spui că homosexualii sunt vicioşi în a recruta tinerii să fie homosexuali, dacă acest lucru este posibil în orice caz. Şi, ţine minte de un lucru: nimeni nu alege să fie homosexual, fiind că dece ar alege să trăiască într-o lume unde este tratat ca cetăţean de clasa a doua? [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sunt la fel de sanatosi ca necrofilii. Contextul social e una dintre cele mai importante aspecte ale vietii (Omul e o fiinta sociabila), asa ca atitudinea celorlati e hotaratoare. Arta nu presupune neaparat cultura. Arta doamnei aleia e parte integranta a culturii americane. Persoanele sanatoase ce au posibilitati materiale de a sutine un copil si care nu fac copii si nu se dedica unei vieti de cunoastere a menirii umane pot fi puse in accesi categoria cu homosexualii si pot fi condamnati. Porunca biblica e Cresteti si va înmultiti si umpleti pamantul si-l supuneti. Opozitia voluntara la aceasta e o crima impotriva umanitatii. Desigur persoanele care fac copii (multi) in ciuda incapacitatii de a le oferi conditii satisfacatoare de viata apartin unei categorii apropiate. Daca majoritatea au stiut inainte sa fie influentati, cum se face ca nr de homosexuali la mia de locuitori a crescut exponential in lumea occidentala in ultimii 50 de ani? Nu exista influente heterosexule. Asta este lumea... nu poti sa spui ca existenta soarelui are o influenta puternica asupra psihicului, deoarece este ceva natural si irefutabil. Homosexualii nu recruta tinerii direct, dar prezenta lor in toata mass-media influenteaza o categorie de adolescenti. Oameni se nasc homosexuali intr-o foarte mica masura (datorita unei mutatii a unei regiuni din creier), majoritatea homosexualilor sunt facuti. Anonimu 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Persoanele sanatoase ce au posibilitati ... de a sutine un copil si care nu fac copii ... pot fi puse in accesi categoria cu homosexualii si pot fi condamnati Cu excepţia călugărilor, maicilor, si episcopilor, sper?Biruitorul 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  si nu se dedica unei vieti de cunoastere a menirii umane   Anonimu 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Scuzaţi-mă şi vă rog nu vă supăraţi; citisem prea repede.Biruitorul 19:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dar voi vorbiţi dintr-un punct de vedere creştin, parcă România ar fi o teocraţie, unde călugării şi episcopii sunt la cel mai înalt nivel al ierarhiei, dedicându-se la " cunoşterea menirii umane". Dar România, ca stat secular, nu are voie să se bazeze pe aceste puncte de vedere. Nu este destul să spui că "homosexualitatea este anti-creştină" şi lumea să pice în fund şi să zică "da, deci uniunile gay nu trebuie legalizate". De aceea avortul şi divorţul sunt legale, şi persoanele căsătorite care nu fac copii nu sunt penalizate legal de stat. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 06:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Potrivit D-lui Băsescu, 99% dintre Români sunt creştini; acest procentaj preponderant a noastră în societatea românească este motiv suficient pentru ca statul sa urmărească precepte morale creştine în constituirea şi aplicarea legilor. Plus, cum a zis Anonimu, acturile homosexuale sunt drept nefireşti, nedemne de fiinţe umane sănătoase şi, de-asemenea, trebuie oprite cu toată forţa legilor. Biruitorul 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Homosexualitatea nu e numai anti-crestina, e anti-umana, anti-naturala. Si apropo, persoanele care nu fac copii nu sunt sanctionate de biserica ortodoxa; acela e un punct de vedere strict personal, si are mai mult legatura cu combaterea exploziei demografice a romilor in dauna romanilor si combaterea imigratiei asiatice si africane care a inceput sa capete consistenta si in Romania. Desigura conceptia se aplica nediscriminatoriu la intreaga popuulatie, numai ca efectele vor fi diferite in functie de evolutia demografica actuala a fiecarei etnii. Si apropo divortul e acceptat in BOR (de max 3 ori <=>fiecare paote avea 4 casatorii acceptate de biserica, nu'i destul?). De asemenea avortul este accptat de BOR in anumite conditii (viol, posibilitatea ca mama sa moara la nastere etc)Anonimu
 * Biserica dă voie la avorturi în caz de viol? M-aş mira şi m-ar întrista foarte tare dacă s-a ajuns la aşa ceva. Plus, cred că numai trei căsătoriri ai voie. Dar aveţi mare dreptate despre ameninţarea sângelui nostru romano-dac şi patriei noastre glorioase întruchipată în explozia "rromă" şi în începuturile imigraţiei din străinătate. Cum a scris celebrul poet Vasile Militaru în alt context:

Neamul meu, - în miez de noapte, glas adânc, cu dor fierbinte, Se ridică pân'la mine, din străbunele morminte; Sunt Voivozii şi plăieşii, buciumaşii dela munte, Sunt arcaşii, scutierii cei cu pletele cărunte, Care, în vremuri vechi, putut-au toate liftele să'nfrunte... Oare, tu nu le-auzi glasul?... Geamăt lung e glasul lor Şi ne strigă tuturor: "Strângeţi-vă laolaltă toţi, sub sfântul Tricolor!... "Braţul tuturor să-l ţină! Braţul tuturor să-l poarte!... "Doar sub el e biruinţă, - în afara lui, e moarte!..." Biruitorul 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Daca-ti violeaza unu nevasta sau fiica de 15-16 ani, ti-ar conveni sa cresti copilul rezultat din acest act? Desigur biserica nu obliga pe nimeni sa avorteze. Pana la urma e decizia mamei. Nu stiu sigur cate casatorii.. oricum si 3 mi se par de ajuns. Sange daco-roman? Si cu ala slav, cuman si ale altor natii (celti, pre-IE) ce au contribuit la etnogeneza română ce faci ma? Plus ca romanii colonizati in Dacia nu prea erau din cetatea Romei. (Asta ar fi insemnat ca Roma sa ramana pustie). Cu tiganii trebuie sa platim pacatele voievozilor ce i-au cumparat de la turci si i-au adus pe'aci. Oricum politica mea demografica tine mai mult de factori economici decat etnici. Dar cum cea mai mare parte a romilor intra in categoria celor care nu au mijloace suficiente intretinerii unui copil, presupun ca efectul asupra acestora e mai mare. Si, sincer, habar n-am cine-i Vasile Militaru. Anonimu 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fiindcă nu am nici soţie nici fiică (încă), nu pot răspunde decât la un nivel teoretic aici. Şi aş zice că da (dar poate am da copilul să fie adoptat) fiindcă copiii nu sunt responsabili pentru modul prin care au fost concepuţi, deci nu trebuie pedepsiţi pentru asta. Da, sigur că avem sânge slav, şi că cel roman nu e prea italian, dar ce rost ar avea un naţionalism fără câteva distorsiuni pe-ici, pe-colo? Oricum, interesantă perspectivă: trebuie sa platim pacatele voievozilor: da, foarte potrivit să vedem explozia "rromilor" (şi trecerea lor periculoasă la secte protestante) ca pe o pedeapsă divină; nu-mi venise ideea. Nu mă mir că n-aţi auzit de Militaru (vedeţi Înapoi pentru poezii), fiindca operele lui au fost suprimate de către comunişti şi nu prea au re-ieşit la iveală; nici eu nici mama mea nu auzisem de el până acum câteva luni, dar bunica mea, care a crescut în anii '30, a auzit de el şi a vorbit bine de el, deci am motiv de crezut că era destul de celebru în perioada aia. Biruitorul 21:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Si crezi ca a abandona un copil e mai crestinesc decat a-i intrerupe dezvoltarea intrauterina? 2.Omule nu e nici o pedeapsa divina. Era doar o expresie. "Pacatul" lor a fost ca au adus aici tigani sa le munceasca pamantul pe gratis. Chiar daca ai considera lacomia un pacat al acestora, nu vad de ce Dumnezeu ar pedepsi o natiune intreaga peste 5 secole. Asta e doar legea naturii. Nu introduci lucruri noi intr-un mediu stabil. Exista numeroase exemple... oamenii au introdus specii noi de plante si animale, cu un rezultat dezastruos. Anonimu 12:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Hai sa punem întrebarea dvs. puţin altfel: Şi crezi ca a-l da pe un copil la altă familie e mai creştinesc decât a-l ucide?

Răspunsul meu e "da!" 2. Cum vreţi dvs.–nu pot dovedi că e vorbă răzbunarea Domnului, dar mi-se pare posibil. Oricum, concluzia e la fel: explozia "rromilor" dăunează şi caracterul poporului român şi dezvoltarea economică a ţării. Biruitorul 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Din cate stiu io copilul incepe sa "traiasca" din a x-a luna de viata intrauterina (nush sigur cat e x... 4 sau 5 daca tin bine minte). Daca avortul are loc atunci cred ca e mai crestinesc. Desigur asta doar in cazuri de viol si la cerera mamei. Mare problema a tiganilor e faptul ca acestia tind mai mult decat romanii sa creeze grupuri infractionale. Cand romanu mai putin educat vede clanu Camatarilor ori Cordunenilor pe la TV, isi zice: io muncesc si astia fura si traiesc mai bine ca mine. Da ce, io's mai prost ca tiganii astia?, influentand deci criminalitatea si in randul altor etnii. Desigur e si problema ca majoritatea tiganilor ce traiesc sub limita saraciei fac cel putin 4-5 copii (cunosc personal astfel de familii, asa ca nu e cazul unor stereotipuri) si iti dai seama ca acestia nu pot trai din mijloace legale. Aici s-ar vedea efectul politicii mele demografice, care repet, s-ar aplica nediscriminatoriu la heteosexualii de orice etnie, religie ori convingere politica. Anonimu 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Depinde cum defineşti "viaţa"; embrionul arată semne clare de viaţă la câteva săptămâni, din câte ţin minte. Oricum, deşi politica ceauşistă care a interzis avorturile a fost prost executată, conceptul a fost bine gândit şi ar trebui încercat din nou ca să se nască mai mulţi români. Biruitorul 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Măi, da voi vă daţi seama ca xenofobi şi intoleranţi păreţi? Vorbind de "problema" migraţie asiatice şi exploziei rome, şi de nevoia pentru a proteja "sângele neamului". Deci văd că nu aveţi ceva numai cu homosexualitatea, ci aveţi în general puncte de vedere "Noua Dreptiste". Ce e mai rău este că vreţi să impuneţi acest punct de vedere statului, care este neutru. Cât timp România nu are biserică naţională oficială, statul nu este creştin. Ba mai mult, ar trebui scoase crucile din parlament şi fraza "Aşa să mă ajute Dumnezeu" din jurământ. Asta nu înseamnă prigonirea bisericii, doar libertate a religiei. Religia trebuie să rămână întotdeauna un lucru privat, neoficial. Asta avantajează şi religia. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nu sunt xenofob: o fobie produce frică, şi mie nu-mi e frică de străini, dar ramân de părerea că mai bine ar sta la ei, la fel şi cum mă opun prezenţa celor milioane de români din europa de vest şi căsătoririlor lor cu ne-români, şi cum m-aş opune dacă milioane de europeni ar emigra într-o ţară africană sau asiatică. Popoarele pe care le avem astăzi sunt culminarea unor dezvoltări care durează de multe secole şi după mine ar fi un păcat să le distrugem prin exogamie în câteva generaţii. Nu cred că poziţia mea e neobişnuită în România dar eu măcar o exprim. Dacă se scoate şi fraza respectivă din jurământ şi crucea din parlament, atunci ajungem la o situaţie unde statul promovează nu religia ci lipsa ei–ca pe vremurile comuniste. Chiar şi în Statele Unite, o ţară militant seculară, Congresul porneşte fiecare zi cu o rugăciune rostită de un preot (sau, mai rar, de un rabin sau un imam). Oricum, eu militez pentru readoptarea acestei clauze din Constituţia de la 1923:

Biserica ortodoxă română fiind religia marei majorităţi a Românilor este biserica dominantă în Statul român. Biruitorul 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nu, scoaterea menţinurilor creştine din jurământ nu ar duce la o încurajare a lipsei de religie, ci o neutralitate adevărată. Cât timp rămân acolo acele lucruri, statul încurajează activ religia. Lucru anormal. Religia nu trebuie încurajată de stat, la fel cum nu trebuie dezcurajată. Dezcurajarea ar fi înlocuirea crucii din parlament cu un semn mare pe care ar scrie "trăiască ateismul". Aceastea ar fi dezcurajare activă a religiei. Pe vremurile comuniste se descuraja religia, era prigonita. Eu, pe de altă parte, suport total libertatea religiei. Dar asta înseamnă şi libertate de la religie (freedom from religion). Plus, SUA nu este deloc o ţară "militant seculară". Un exemplu mai bun este Franţa, unde secularismul într-adevăr lucrează şi unde religia este total privată şi liberă. În SUA, mai ales de când e Bush preşedinte, religia are un loc tot mai semnificativ în activităţile statului. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nu ştim ce efect ar avea schimbarea jurământului deci e mai bine să nu sărim de pe acest precipiciu–poate să ne aducă blestemuri divine asupra ţării noastre. (De educaţia religioasă din şcolile de stat aveţi ceva de zis?) Ţineţi minte că chiar şi Constituţia de la 1948 proclama că "Libertatea conştiinţei şi libertatea religioasă sunt garantate de Stat", deci o simplă garanţie de libertate, fără măcar o picătură de promovare a religiei, poate duce la prigoane. Aş vrea exemple concrete despre cum religia este mai importantă în activităţile statului american de când e Bush la putere. În Franţa, toate locaşurile de cult ridicate înainte de 1905 sunt proprietatea statului (ajutând Biserica Catolică); elevii evrei nu au voie cu tichie în cap şi nici musulmancele cu cearşaf, pe când creştinii au voie să poarte cruciuliţe; şcoli religioase primesc subvenţii generoase de la stat; iar în Alsace-Lorraine Concordatul lui Napoleon e încă în efect şi Biserica Catolică e încă biserica de stat. Dacă asta reprezintă secularismul, bine. Biruitorul 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cu Constituţia de la 1948 încerci să mă păcăleşti. Faptul este că comunismul a fost extrem de ipocrit şi nu a respectat acea lege. Această garanţie de libertate nu a fost ţinută cât timp BOR a fost controlată de stat. Libertatea adevărată de religie înseamnă privatizarea totală a religiei - adică, statul nu prigoneşte biserica, o protejează de prigonire la fel cum protejează altă asociaţie sau cetăţean. Educaţia religioasă în şcoli nu o suport, dar în România nu este obligatorie, deci nu am o problemă cu acest lucru. Cât timp un copil ateu poate să fie scos din orele de religie, n-am să fac caz, fiind că totuşi există o libertate de a alege. Pe când crucea din parlament este impusă - nu poţi să alegi sau nu dacă vrei să o vezi! Cât cu statul american - de când e Bush, nu s-au introdus legi concrete anti-seculare, dar politica socială republicană este influenţată mult de valori creştine. De aceea nu a fost legalizată căsătoria între persoane de acelaşi sex, de exemplu. Plus, Oath-ul american încă conţine cuvintele "So help me God" şi bancnotele conţin "In God we trust". Deci, nu poţi să spui că SUA este militant seculară.
 * Dar nu ştim ce efecte ar avea secularismul total pe care îl propuneţi; poate cā prigoanele ar începe din nou. Mai bine nu ne atingem de jurāmânt şi de cruce fiindca oricum sunt numai simbolice, ca şi "In God We Trust," dupā declaraţia Curţii Supreme ale SUA, o instituţie care promoveazā secularism de mult. Dar propun un compromis: hai sā se retragā statul total din afacerea cāsātoriei; cine vrea sā se cāsātoreascā cu o persoanā de acelaşi sex, sā o facā el cum ştie, şi statul sā nu se bage de loc. V-ar surâde un asemenea plan?

"So help me God" nu este obligatoriu; nu apare în Constituţie. Iar refuzul de-a legaliza "căsătoririle" propuse de dvs. nu mā mirā–este o idee aşa de radicalā, aşa de inimaginabilā chiar acum zece ani, cā nu mā mirā faptul cā nu au fost legalizate în mod legislativ în nici un stat, nici mācar în statele cele mai Democrate, precum New York, California, Vermont, Maryland, Hawaii, etc. Biruitorul 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * În Franţa, secularismul este mult mai răspândit decât spui tu. Elevii de orice religie nu au voie să poarte semne semnificative religioasa, inclusiv cruci mari. Tichia şi cearşaful sunt văzute ca manifestaţie semnificativă a religiei. Dar dacă un musulman ar veni cu o semilună mică la gât, sau un evreu cu un Magem David, ar avea voie. Legea este egală în acea măsură, şi acest fapt este tocmai un exemplu de secularism - că simbolurile religiose nu au loc în şcoală. Plus, în Franţa însemnele statului nu conţin cruci, etc, şi nici jurământul nu conţine menţiune creştină. Şcolile religioase primesc subvenţii de la stat nu pentru că încurajează religia, ci pentru că oferă învăţământ şi de multe ori ajută copii dezavantajaţi. Dacă aceste şcoli nu ar primi subvenţii, taxele ar fi mai scumpe şi mulţi nu ar avea bani să le plătească, iar sistemul public şcolar ar trebui să le asigure acest învăţământ la un cost mai ridicat decât subsidia. Plus, aceste subsidii sunt oferite la orice şcoli private, nu numai cele religioase. Nu are nimic cu religia. Alsace este excepţie - nu este o regiune seculară şi nu este inclusă în scopul acestui argument. Deci eu vorbesc de Franţa fără Alsace. Dar, în final, secularismul nu este atât de brutal cât crezi tu. Religia se poate dezvolta sub secularismul, pentru cei care o vor, şi poate să fie într-adevăr liberă, ne fiind la cheremul statului. Secularismul nu este deloc o prigonire, ci o neutralitate pentru libertate. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Deci un secularism flexibil? Sub un secularism strict, nu s-ar merita impozite mai mari pentru a proteja copiii de influenţe religioase? Plus, notez cā nici un creştin nu este obligat sā poarte o cruce mare, pe când, de exemplu, un sikh trebuie sā poarte un cuţitaş si pentru asta sikhii francezi efectiv nu mai pot merge la scolile de stat. Biruitorul 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * De cand a fi anti-homosexualitate echivaleaza cu a fi xenofob si intolerant. Daca din Asia si Africa ar veni numai oameni din clasa de mijloc sau mai sus, n'as zice nici io ca e o problema. Dar trebuie sa tinem cont ca o mare parte din acesti imigranti traiesc sub limita saraciei. Cand acestor oameni foarte saraci li se arata ca statul nu-i poate intretine se ajunge la confruntari ca in Franta. Nu vreau ca acest lucru sa se si in Romania. Si apropo nu sunt impotriva imigratiei. Desigur cred ca inainte ca un imigrant sa fie primit in tara ar trebui sa i se verifice cazierul. Nu exista nici un "sange al neamului". Oamenii sunt fiinte sociabile asa ca intrepatrunderi se produc mereu. Atat timp cat la ultimul recensamant 99% din populatie s-a declarat ca apartinand unei grupari crestine, nu vad care este problema. Iar fraza "Asa sa ma ajute Dumnezeu" este toatal neutra. Si musulmanu, si ortodoxu si evreu tot Dumnezeu are. Allah, YHW sunt doar numele acestuia in limbile de origine. Dar cum limba oficiala este romana => juramantul contine Dumnezeu. Anonimu 12:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Foarte bine zis. În Europa imigrează numai scursorile societăţilor respective şi noi nu suntem obligaţi să-i primim şi să-i ţinem în viaţă (şi asta vor–în Danemarca musulmanii sunt vreo 3% şi 40% din asistenţa socială pe ei se cheltuieşte). Biruitorul 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Este cam ipocrit punctul tău de vedere. Cât timp migraţia din Asia şi Africa este foarte scăzută spre România, iar cât timp românii continuă să plece în străinătate, este puţin ciudat să vorbeşti de "noi nu suntem obligaţi să-i primim". [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nici ei nu sunt obligaţi să ne primească pe noi. Dar mai important este faptul că noi plecăm ca să muncim din greu şi ei mereu vin la traf. Biruitorul 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Tu, ca mulţi alţii, crezi că trăim într-o lume unde a fi fără religie este de neconceput. Când eu spun că nu merg la biserică că nu sunt creştin, aproape toată lumea - marea majoritate - automat spune "a, eşti evreu?". Le vine greu să cred că sunt ateu, pentru că ei cred că toată lumea trebuie să aibă religie. Deci problema mea nu este că jurământul este neapărat ortodoxo-centric, ci că involvă religie în afacerile statului. Şi dacă Dumnezeu este un termen universal în religiile abrahamice, ignoră religii precum hinduismul, budismul, etc, şi mai important, discriminează împotriva persoanelor fără religie. Deci cred că vezi că fraza nu este "total neutră". Bai mai mult, problema nu este neapărat una de discriminare, ci de faptul că religie nu îşi are loc în afacerile statului! Este nefiresc ca demnitarul să spună acest jurământ cât timp el nu îl serveşte pe dumnezeu ci poporul şi statul însuşi. Guvernul şi administraţia nu trebuie să guverneze cu suportul dumnezeisc sau cu credinţă în dumnezeu ca şi entitate colectivă. Că miniştrii individuali au credinţă ortodoxă este altceva, sunt total liberi să îşi experime această credinţă. Dar problema este acest amestec anti-secular. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nu vad ce e rau in a fi anti-secular. Nu este si opozitia fata de "anti-secularism" tot o forma de discriminare? Anonimu 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Păi ateismul nu este o stare normală şi noi ne rugăm pentru ca Dumnezeu să vă binecuvânteze cu harul Lui şi să vi-se dea prilejul de-a crede în El. Ignoră religii precum hinduismul, budismul – şi câţi mai sunt din ăia în România? Discriminează – ei, nu mai spune! Una două hop discriminaaaaaaare! El nu îl serveşte pe Dumnezeu – mare greşeală au făcut când nu l-au restaurat pe Majestatea Sa pe tron. Dar poate că pe urmaşii lui îi vor accepta românii ca Regi, aşa cum e voinţa lui Dumnezeu.

Apropos, aţi schimba şi imnul naţional? El vorbeşte de două concepte cu care probabil nu sunteţi de-acord:
 * [Î]n aste mâni mai curge un sânge de roman...
 * Preoţi, cu crucea-n frunte căci oastea e creştină,
 * Deviza-i libertate şi scopul ei preasfânt.

Biruitorul 13:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Monarhia nu are ce cauta intr-un stat ce doreste dezvoltarea. Problema cu ea este ca nu poti prevedea cum va fi mostenitorul. De ex: Carol I a avut una dintre cee mai importante contributii la dezvoltarea Romaniei moderne (intrecut poate doar de Ceausescu), Ferdinand a facut si el ceva... nu foarte important.. si ajungem la Carol II care nu numai ca nu tinut la valorile crestine dar a dat dovada de slabiiune in politica externa si chiar in cea interna. Asa ca nu cred ca este osolutie. O alternativa ce ar asigur stabilitatea monarhiei ar fi presedintele pe viata. Desigur cel mai greu lucru e cum sa-l alegi pe acela care merita. Caci in votul popular nu poti avea incredere (daca si al'de Basescu a ajus presedinte...). Oricum Hohenzolernii nu mai au ce cauta la conducerea tarii. Anonimu 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dar sunt şi state dezvoltate cu monarhii (iar UE-ul va duce la mai multe necazuri pentru România–bine că probabil nu mai rezistă prea mult). Plus că normele s-au schimbat şi un rege azi ar fi mai simbolic. Oricum, chiar şi pe Carol al II-lea ar fi putut să-l scoată din funcţie: "Dacă Regele se află in imposibilitate de a domni, miniştrii, după ce au constatat legalmente această imposibilitate, convoacă îndată Adunările. Acestea aleg Regenţa, care va forma si tutela." Deci cred că un Rege cu puteri slăbite şi cu o metodă clară de-al da afară la nevoie nu ne-ar sta rău. Mai bine ca Băsescu, în orice caz.


 * Ba da, ateismul este o stare perfect normală. Vezi, din punctul tău de vedere creştino-normativ, refuzi să accepţi orice alt punct de vedere. Credinţa nu este o stare mai normală decât orice alta. Este doar un fel de a gândi, o serie de valori. Oamenii pot avea valori marxiste, social-democrate, liberale, fasciste, la fel cum pot avea valori ortodoxe, islamice, budiste, taoiste, etc. Valorile catolice nu sunt de loc mai speciale decât valorile unui sistem politic ca şi, de exemplu, anarhismul sau comunismul. Eu am fost credincios şi am devenit ateu după aceea, deci nu vreau să mă întorc, şi nu cred că este deloc un prilej, ci o vedere îngustă care nu te dezvoltă mintal. Pentru mine, religia este o restricţie. Tu vrei teocraţie, nu? Adică, un stat unde biserica ar avea putere adevărată, unde regele ar fi reprezentantul lui dumnezeu, unde ce ar spune biserica ar fi lege, cum era în cazul ţarului din Imperiul Rus? Eu n-aş schimba imnul naţional, dar aş şterge partea cu preoţii cu crucea-n frunte. Pe când oastea atunci era creştină, statul român, ca institutie, nu este, conform constituţiei, creştin. Deci, imnul este anti-constituţional şi discriminatoriu. Dar, aminteşte: "Deviza-i libertate"! Tu pe aia nu prea o respecţi! [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 14:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Valorile catolice nu sunt de loc mai speciale aici suntem de-acord. Biserica Catolică este un mare pericol: sunt şi eretici şi controlaţi de o putere străină, de Vatican. Ateismul este o stare aberantă care poate fi corectată prin mai multe metode. De exemplu, ar fi bine să aveţi o convorbire, sau mai multe, cu un preot, fiindcă el este capabil să vă identifice erorile şi să vă spună unde greşiţi. Mulţi oameni religioşi au avut minţile foarte dezvoltate, precum Newton şi Dante. Iar ce-ar fi viaţa fără restricţii–sau sunteţi şi anarhist? Rusia nu a fost niciodată o teocraţie adevărată, dar e un model bun de urmărit, sau măcar cred că ar trebui să fim ca Grecia, cu biserică de stat (şi monarhie, pe care din păcate grecii nu mai au). Succes în eforturile de-a schimba imnul! (Poate aşa să fie: O! Doamne Sfinte,/Ceresc părinte,/Susţine cu a Ta mână/Coroana Română!"

Eu am mare respect pentru libertate, dar o libertate ghidată. Să vă demonstrez puţin ce liberal sunt: cred că sistemul de sănătate ar trebui să fie total privatizat, la fel şi cu sistemul de învăţământ, la toate nivelurile. Biruitorul 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Vezi, aici este diferenţa între creştini şi atei. Noi ca atei acceptăm credinţa ta şi spunem că eşti total liber să o crezi, că toate credinţele, inclusiv ateismul, sunt egale şi libere, şi statul nu trebuie să susţină nici una. Voi creştinii, în schimb, vă credeţi mai buni ca toţi ceilalţii şi vreţi ca creştinismul, sau religia în general, să fie văzută ca şi calea dreaptă. Aici este încăierarea. Tu vezi ateismul ca stare aberantă, iar eu nu văd creştinismul ca stare aberantă, pentru că eu, ca majoritatea ateilor, cred în libertate şi egalitate. În acest fel, creştinismul mi-se pare absolutist şi intolerant. De aceea vă opuneţi securalismului. Nu pentru că vă este frică că veţi fi prigoniti sau dezavantajaţi sub acest sistem, dar pentru că nu vreţi egalitate, vreţi ca biserica să rămâne avantajată, să rămână "calea dreaptă", lucru care este absolut subiectiv. Deci nu, n-am să vorbesc cu nici un preot, pentru că pentru mine creştinismul nu este calea dreaptă, este doar a cale obişnuită, o cale care eu personal nu o urmez pentru că nu cred în acel sistem de valori. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nu, nu ne credem mai buni ca toţi ceilalţi. Mândria este un pācat grav. Şi eu cred în libertate, numai cā pentru mine, a se avantaja de libertatea de-a nu crede în Dumnezeu, o libertate pe care o avem de la El, are consecinţe grave, adicā iadul. Deci faptul cā nu vā duceţi la preot sā vā ilumineze înseamnā cā nu aveţi argumente pentru el, iar într-o zi, poate prea târziu, veţi regreta decizia dvs. de a-L respinge pe Dumnezeu. Ştiu cā uneori e foarte greu de crezut în Dumnezeu; chiar eu am avut o crizā de necredinţā în ultimele zile, dar Diavolul, care duce la asemenea episoade, poate fi şi trebuie învins prin puterea Mântuitorului. Biruitorul 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cât despre respectul tău pentru libertate: libertatea ghidată este un concept aproape contradictoriu. Nu poţi să fie liber dar şi ghidat în acelaşi timp. Îmi aduci amine de filozofia lui Sukarno, conducător autoritar al Indoneziei, care crede în "democraţie ghidată". Acea democraţie era la fel de adevărată ca şi cea din "Republica Democratică a Coreei de Nord"! Cred că vezi aberaţia în conceptul de democraţie, sau libertate, ghidată! Liberalismul în care crezi tu este unul economic. Nu are nimic cu liberalismul social. Politica ta de privatizare este de piaţă liberă şi nu are nimic cu libertatea individuală din punct de vedere de drepturi sociale. Foarte multe guverne de dreapta - exemplu bun fiind administraţia Pinochet din Chile - au fost pro-piaţa, au privatizat totul, dar au susţinut un sistem autoritar. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Da, liberalismul meu se concentreazā pe principiile economice şi am o mare admiraţie pentru luptātorul liberal anti-comunist Pinochet. Aproximativ asta mi-e viziunea: o Românie unde statul face foarte puţin, şi unde spaţiul lāsat liber de stat e ocupat de o BOR cu o putere realā, unde fumul cārnii ereticilor arşi pe rug îmi întâmpinā nasul zi şi noapte (ultima parte a fost în glumā). Când vorbesc de libertate ghidatā mā refer, de exemplu, la interzicerea canibalismului şi a incestului, fiindcā cum am arātat mai sus, au fost cazuri. Sau vreţi sā dām voie şi la din astea? În principiu, dupā mine poţi face ce vrei cât timp ce nu contrazice principiile BOR. Şi fiindcā BOR este foarte tolerantā şi dā voie la multe, nu vād asta ca o restricţie prea semnificativā. Biruitorul 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is how marriage is defined. Whay gay communities around the world try to do is change the definition to cover homosexual relationships. While I am against gay discrimination, I am also against gay parenthood and gay marriage (I would vote this way). I precise more: I would be for a same-sex union that is not called marriage, but which grants the same tax/inheritance/etc rights as marriage, but not the right to adopt children. Dpotop 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, a lot of people think like that. I think that's just one perspective of marriage, and I think most LGBT people in Romania would be happy with just civil unions. On the other hand, I just don't see the point of giving gay and straight couples practical equality, but calling their partnership a different name just because... well, just because they somehow have to have different names. But, as I said, for most LGBT rights organisations, it's the rights that count, not the semantics. As to gay adoption, I agree that this is more controversial than marriage and to be perfectly honest, I've only supported gay adoption and parenthood recently. However, I have personally talked to same-sex couples in other parts of Europe, and combined with scientific studies, I can say that the family environment in these contexts is not much different from a heterosexual couple. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't insist very much on personal experience when dealing with homosexuality. I've met some, too, but not militants for gay rights, just friends that happened to be gay (only men). And I can tell you that each of them had been molested as a child (after a time, you learn this sort of things). In case you are curious, I'm not member of some religious society that would explain some sort of guilt feeling of my friends (BTW, they had no such feeling). :) I'm not jumping to conclusions, and I don't consider these people as sick (neither did them, BTW). But my experience comforts me in thinking that homosexuality is rather acquired than innate (which is opposed to today's mainstream theory regardig homosexuality). This is why I tend to support the fight against child abuse rather than support gay rights. Dpotop 19:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, whether homosexuality is acquired or innate is somewhat beside the point. The more important distinction is whether it is voluntary or involuntary, and I think children getting molested and then turning out to be homosexual is not a voluntary process. In any case, even if homosexuality were to be voluntary, I wouldn't have anything against them, because in a free and open society everyone should be free to do what they want with their lives as long as they don't affect anyone else. For that reason, supporting the fight against child abuse only in order to diminish the prevalence of homosexuality is not a good thing (because child abuse is also heterosexual, and its negative effects are not "homosexuality" but rather the emotional pain that affects people when they are involuntarily assaulted). Rather than trying to diminish the number of people who are gay, or suppressing their means of expression, such as the gay parade, I think it's much more important to accept them. In Western Europe, gay parades barely attract any public attention, apart from people turning out to see them as part of the diverse cultural landscape of a given city. Still, it is encouraging to see that at least the Romanian authorities are not homophobic, unlike those in Poland or Russia, who, on top of social intolerance, added fuel to the fire by condemning gay pride parades and even banning them. I expect that in five years we will look back on GayFest as something that takes place in Bucharest normally, in the same way that we now view things like bilingual signage as normal. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 06:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Romanian authorities will do everything Westerns ask them to in hope that, by being the one ruling when RO will join EU, they'll get another 4 years to enlarge their wealth by not necessarily legal means. Poland has still dignity. It deserves to be part of Europe more than any other country on this side of the Iron Courtain Anonimu 13:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But don't you see that these things are good for Romania as well? Both domestically and internationally. Domestically, the people of Romania gain more rights and we have a country founded on equality, tolerance and freedom, while internationally, Romania gains a better image. Isn't it shameful for you when you see that the news talk about "violent clashes" at the GayFest? Don't these propagate a bad image about Romania worldwide? As to Poland, I think Poland least deserves to be part of the EU out of the New Member States, and it is rapidly becoming the EU's sick man, a status it will probably maintain even when RO and BG join the union. The government is talking about instituting a virtual theocracy, with public displays of the ten commandments, inciting people to violence against LGBT people, continuing to uphold its ban on voluntary abortion, etc. Those are not modern, secular European values (because Europe is secular, remember). My role models in the New Member States would be the Czech Republic and Estonia, countries which have oriented themselves westward, have opened up, and are now not only well-perceived abroad but are doing very well domestically. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not good for Romania. Domestically, some groups gain collective rights and get positive discrimination. But it's still discrimination and thus an infringement of the rights of the majority. Internationally, we politically prostitute ourselves. Romania doesn't agin a better image, but the image of a whore who would do anything for money. It's not more shameful than seeing the Romanian authorities accepting a festival of people with psycholsexual disorders. Europe wasn't secular and will never be. Anonimu 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm not getting it, but where is the positive discrimination in LGBT rights? Positive discrimination means giving a group (usually a minority) more rights than the "dominant group" in order to redress previous injustices. In the case of LGBT people, positive discrimination would be giving them a set quota of uni places or parliamentary seats, or set quotas of children to adopt, or bigger pensions, or free transport, because they're LGBT. These things were never asked for and will never be [despite people like you saying "they will want more rights, forever"], because they are discriminatory against the majority. But by giving marriage to same-sex couples, you're simply giving them the exact same rights as the "dominant majority". There is absolutely no positive discrimination in that, and no infringement of majority rights. It's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand, but what disadvantage to hetero couples have from the legalisation of same-sex marriage? Where is the discrimination in that? It's not as if the state is only allowed to marry 500 couples a year and will introduce a quota of 200 marriages for same-sex couples out of those. I suppose you find that ethnic minority rights are positive discrimination too? [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Poland is looking pretty bad right now because some forms of extremism are showing themselves (including anti-gay activism). However, I think that Poland is a good democracy when it comes to representativity. In a democracy, the oppinions of people are represented, not imposed top-down depending on the current international consensus. It's up to the people to decide what to do, not up to the "international community". Once people realize they are free, they are no more behaving like mad teenagers (like Poland does now). Also, when saying that EU is secular, well, this did not prevent Greece and Poland from being accepted and faring quite well economically. While I (myself) support the idea of a laic EU, the facts show that economy, rather than laicity, are the key point. Dpotop 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know if this was your intended meaning, but there is indeed no strong link between economic performance and religiosity/secularism. Even though it is interesting to note that countries are wealthier in Europe tend to be more secular. However, I would say that the EU is more preoccupied with political freedom than with economic performance. For the EU, it is not economy that is the key point, even though that may be changing now due to the absorption cost of the new member states. However, even in the case of Romania, EU pressure has not really been centred on economic growth or even other economic indicators, but rather on political freedom, which includes secularlism (not in Romania's case). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In Poland's case, EU leaders have not urged the coutry to adopt economic reforms to reduce unemployment, which is the highest in the EU, but have rather condemnded it for being anti-LGBT. What amazes me, however, is that such intolerance can take place in an EU country and the EU does basically does nothing about it. It is quite hypocritical that it took action against Austria for its anti-Semitism, but no action against Poland for its homophobia. The EU should have suspended Poland's voting rights as soon as the League of Polish Families entered government (the Austrian case, with Joerg Haider, was very similar). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Poland and Greece are, however, quite different. Officially, Greece has an established church, and prosyletising is banned, but in reality society there is somewhat liberal and religiosity isn't that high (in comparison to Poland, not the rest of the EU). Poland is interesting in that, legally, it is very liberal. Besides its restrictive abortion law, it has anti-discrmination laws, no established church, etc. Thus, in Poland it's more a case of societal attitudes, spurred on by a conservative government, running amok. A lot of the conservative sentiment in Poland is, however, due to the government, I would say, operating in what was quite a fertile context for such sentiment. The country didn't have these problems under the social democratic administration, however. In fact, it was quite close to passing a same-sex union law. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For those who already believe me to be a "Mad Hatter liberal" or whatever, this may come as yet another confirmation: I agree with Ronline in his support for basic human decency. Basic human decency, as in: the thing which the Orthodox Church has been spitting on for hundreds of years. Btw, Dpotop, can you see the sheer producerism and totalitarianism of the cause of "Romanian identity" on this very page? Dahn 07:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see you point concerning totalitarism, but that does not make me a supporter of the gay cause (being an "enemy of the enemy" is not good cause enough).
 * My point is that, given my experience, I can see homosexuality a bit like excision (take this comparison as something less strict as it looks like, but which helps me present my position):
 * it's something that is often acquired by external intervention
 * it's something that the bearer should not feel guilty about (I remind you that in some societies women gain sociat status only when excised). In particular, homosexuals are normal.
 * it's something I wouldn't want for my children. However, if my children would be homosexual, I would still accept them.
 * This is the position, I believe, not only in Romania, but in much of the western world, despite recent legal developments. I was really relieved to see that much of the Romanian press reflects this position. One of my favourite articles is . I believe this a good article because it reflects the position of moderate Romanians : don't care about what people do in their beds, but reject the "rub it in your face" policy of Romanian western-money-supported rights agencies. Dpotop 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, where I live in Washington State (U.S.) we don't have gay marriage, but we have plenty of gay people of both sexes raising children, either their own biological children (gay identity does not necessarily mean lifelong, exclusive homosexuality, and there is also artificial insemination) or children they've adopted (there are no requirements about sexual orientation in the adoption laws here). So far, after a few decades of experience, there is nothing to suggest that they are notably better or worse parents than anyone else; somewhat surprisingly, their children are no more likely to turn out gay than other kids.

As for "bolnavi psihici", "perversiune" etc., I'm pretty sure that most psychologists and psychiatrists today would be more likely to use such terminology to characterize acute homophobia than homosexuality.

By the way, on two topics that were brought up here (1) worldwide, most HIV-positive people are heterosexual (it isn't even close), and (2) no reliable study has shown that gays are more likely than straights to molest children. And, by the way, if someone is going to cite Paul Cameron to the contrary, please have a look at this:, which is to say, you might as well cite your priest. In fact, rather remarkably, "Adult males involved in 'normal' heterosexual relationships present a statistically higher risk to both girls and boys". See also,. - Jmabel | Talk 08:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Joe. Perhaps interestingly, given the levels of opposition in most parts of the Western world, LGBT rights is one of those things that there are no good reasons against. Any arguments against homosexuality and LGBT rights can be systematically and cleanly refuted, but too often people choose to ignore them, branding you as "anti-Christian" or whatever else. Homophobia just comes about due to this culture of intolerance and fear that is in many ways the result of church-based doctrine. The only way to solve this would be to teach LGBT issues, including the scientific view of homosexuality, in highschool, as happens in some countries. ACCEPT tried to push for this during the PSD government but it was rejected. [[Image:Gay flag.svg|20px]] Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 08:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "teaching homosexuality"?! You probably mean "teaching safe sex", which is OK and not specific to hetero and homo, but aside from this I am against the shool teaching any kind of sex. To actually "learn sex" you should be major and then choose to go to a tantra school, not a public school. Dpotop 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "teaching homosexuality", but rather "teaching the scientific view of homosexuality". That is, in the same way people are taught evolutionism, they should be taught that homosexuality is normal, not a disease and the other scientific perspectives on this. More importantly, LGBT issues should be taught as part of history/social issues, alongside the feminist movement, civil rights in the US, minority rights in Romania, etc. Romania can only move forward by teaching the Hădăreni and Târgu Mureş clashes, as well as the implications of Article 200 and the LGBT struggle for equality. I remember that ACCEPT has some proposal to teach some of these things back in about 2003, but it was rejected. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest to the proponents of "rationality" in th treatment of sex-related stuff to read the following article (in French). The paedophile proponents of lowering the age of consent (and other propostreous stuff) simply state that choosing the age of 16 years is not rational. Humans are very much not rational, and this is normal. Dpotop 16:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as bad (and scary) as this newfound pedophile movement may be, I do agree with them that the age of consent should be lowered to 13/14, as it is in countries such as Spain, Germany, Italy, Hungary, etc. I think at that age people and can make a decisions whether to have sex or not, and as long as other countries have this law in place, it should be OK. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you really think a 14-year-old girl or boy is mature enough from a psychological point of view to be able to reject predatory behavior of a 30 or 40 or 50 years old? Are you nuts? This is not about sex between teenagers (which is never a problem in the western world), it's about paedophiles. Dpotop 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And this is just the first problem. How do you decide maturity? Should we take your version, or the version of that paedophile, which also requires minors to play in porno movies? And why not his, since it's "rational". Dpotop 05:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See this map. The age of consent is lower than 15 years in 7 EU countries, including Germany, Spain and Italy. In Romania, it is 15 years. The age of consent is lower than 16 in 15 EU countries. So while I don't support the pedophile movement's lowering of the age of consent to 12, I think lowering it to 14 would be an OK compromise, considering that the countries which have it at 14 years of age don't have any major problems with this and do not have a rate of child abuse higher than those countries which have a higher age of consent. AFAIK, the age of consent does not only cover sex between teenagers. In the Netherlands for example, while the age of consent is 16, the age of consent between teenagers is practically 12, with the state not prosecuting any 12-to-16 year old that has sex with another 12-to-16 year old unless there is a well-grounded complaint. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't get my point, which is that there no "rationality" in choosing this age. 213.103.205.41 09:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but the age of consent must be arbitrary for two reasons: 1) the ability to make a decision pertaining to sex varies among people and 2) sexual responsibility is a gradual process that begins at a certain age and that is not black-and-white. For this reason, setting the age at 16 is arbitrary and cannot really be explained in any way. It's not as if someone magically becomes fully responsible to make a decision at 16, but is utterly irresponsible at 15 and 364 days. Just as its incorrect to say that 1all people become mentally responsible at the same age. Setting the age of consent at 14 is just as arbitrary, as is 18 or 21. However, social experience has shown that a certain age range for consent is optimal, ranging from 14 to 16. What I'm saying is that as long as some countries have set it at 14, and they have no problems with this, keeping it as 16 for other countries is just an infringement of individual liberty. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Domnu Ronline, sunt dispus sa-ti platesc o vizita la un psiholog.Anonimu 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reasons, not ad hominem attacks! Remember that in an open society there should be no taboos. Accepting something and accepting to debate something is not the same thing. While I don't accept pedophilia, I am prepared to debate the issue and consider alternative points of view rather than just say "pedophilia is wrong. full stop." [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are an extremist of the "open" kind, in the sense where your oppinions are really extreme. :) All existing societies have taboos, even the most advanced. And there are some things that are not "debatable" in any western/european society. For instance, paedophilia and cannibalism, even when the victim is willing. Ronline, utopias tend not to work, and when people try to enforce them blindly more harm is done than good. Many people believed in Communism in its first years, because the theory was just as flawless as yours. Dpotop 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But what is the problem with debating things openly? Even the most advanced societies have taboos - true. That doesn't make it right. If something is so wrong as to warrant being illegalised, then an open debate on it won't pose any danger to that status. I think we need to look at cannibalism and paedophilia rationally, and consider other points of view, and I'm pretty sure that the conclusion reached will continue to be that these actions are reprehensible. However, just proclaiming them as taboo indicates a fear and insecurity in discussing them, and a dictatorship of morality. As I said before, debating pedophilia doesn't mean accepting it, it just mean that you are able to act as a free-thinking human and not a machine that is just conditioned to believe this action is "wrong full stop". [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As to cannibalism, I believe that the action between those two people was rational and consenting, and hence should not be criminalised. Why is it that the state must intervene in a situation where two people agreed to do something that was in both of their best interest from their point of view (from our point of view, it was wrong - yes, I agree - but from their point of view, it was what they wanted. And, as long as there are no externalities, it's only their point of view that matters)? More precisely, when someone says he wants to be killed and eaten, and it is proven that he consented, why does he not have that freedom? In my opinion, the justice system should only be there to protect people from coercion or crimes that have an involuntary victim. In the cannibal case, there was absolutely no coercion, and no involuntary victim. For that reason, as a liberal, my response is "It's their business. As an external agent, I don't have a right to interfere. No coercion was taking place." I see the cannibal case as a victimless crime, since there was no victim (the person who got eaten cannot be classified as a victim since he consented and was not coerced into this. Hence, he was not wronged in any way). Some people I've talked to about this looked at me and said "How you can talk about this in such a way! It's cannibalism, for God's sake". My response is, however, that as long as some people have those desires, we can't just ignore them and say "not talking about that". Rather, we have to accept that there's a problem, debate it openly and revise whether our stance on such an issue is really in the best interest and serves any positive purpose. It's sort of the same debate as assisted suicide and euthanasia. The taking of someone's life - including your own life - by itself is not reprehensible. The taking of someone's life without that person's will is what is wrong, and is what constitutes murder. Finally, for something to be classified as reprehensible or illegal, there must be a rational reason as to why it's wrong. Just saying "it's pedophilia" or "it's cannibalism" is not a rational, adequate reason. (I'm not saying there aren't reasons against these things - in fact, there are. However, I don't see (forced) cannibalism as being any worse that murder. They both involve the taking of human life. What happens beyond that point - the consumption of the flesh - is immaterial. Eating the body is no worse than burning the body.) [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Impusca-te omule! Anonimu 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But then, you are surely challenging the foundations of all the current psychological science, and certainly the ones touching the definition of mental illness and Insanity. I'm not against it, but maybe you should start with the foundations, and not with the consequences. :) Dpotop 09:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ma tu esti roman? Ma ofer sa-ti ofer ceva gratis si tu refuzi?!? Anonimu 17:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Da, bine. Voi merge la psiholog când mergi şi tu la unul pentru intoleranţă cronică. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Intoleranta cronica :))) . Serios vorbind, mai bine nu te duce la psiholog ca te baga ala direct la casa de nebuni daca aude ce debitezi. Anonimu 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When talking of "optimality", you are again mixing mechanics and social science. It seems to me that you were seduced by a very simple mechanicist view of human socienty. This view, very popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, is indeed very simple, and has seduced many people. Its problem is that is only works on paper. Human society is only marginally rational. I grant you that you are consistent: you are atheistic, and probably materialistic, which comforts you in choosing this model. In these choices you resemble I hope, however, that you see that this approach has the same fundamental flaw as communism, in assuming that humans are at some level machines, or that they are deterministic/rational/whatever. Dpotop 10:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have it the wrong way round. Communism (at least of the Marxist strain) sees people as irrational. Capitalist economists see people as "rational" human machines. - FrancisTyers 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On age of consent, again, an interesting example from Washington State that tries to square the circle. I'm not sure they picked the best numbers, but I think they picked a good structure. The unqualified age of consent is 18, but a person 16 or 17 may consent to sexual activity with a person not more than 59 months (4 years 11 months) older. (For example it is illegal for a 21 year old to have sex with a 16 year old; it is illegal for a 22 year old to have sex with a 17 year old). I'd probably extend that down and let a 14 or 15 year old consent with someone, say, three years older. Gets rid of the middle-aged predator thing without getting into the silliness where, for example, a 16-year-old is in trouble for having a 15-year-old girlfriend. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this always seemed to me the only reasonable way of doing it. Reasonable in the sense of common sense, and not in Ronline's sense of scientific rationality. Dpotop 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

While reading this article I recalled our discussion. What I found interesting is that in France, the incidence of HIV infection among sexually active male gays is 12.3%, while it is of only 0.2% in the whole population. Based on this info, the French health minister excluded gays from blood donations, which in turn lead to a small scandal. Dpotop 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The American Red Cross (who handle most exchange of human blood in the US) excludes from the general pool blood donations any "male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977." Going way on the precautionary side, that. - Jmabel | Talk 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this considered as a form of discrimination by gay and minorities organizations? Dpotop 06:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, because technically it is discrimination. However, a big issue is not created out of it because it's in the domain of private organisations, in the same way that LGBT rights organisation do not particularly care about discrimination of LGBT people within the church (i.e. gay priests). I'm quite ambivalent about the blood donation issue. On one hand, it's wrong to tell someone that just because they had sex with another man, they aren't able to donate blood, even if they know themselves very well that they may not have AIDS. It's like the way in which they check Middle Eastern people more carefully at airports just because there is a higher rate of "security risk" among Middle Easterners. On the other hand, it can be argued that they're somewhat justified in keeping the ban, because it's clearly not homophobic, bad-faith discrimination (it applies to people from certain countries as well, and to a range of other criteria). Additionally, since donating blood is voluntary, no-one is coerced into anything or is harmed involuntarily. There are several court cases pending on this, I believe. But isn't blood screened for HIV anyway? If so, then what's the point of the ban. And, furthermore, if a gay person actually wants to donate blood, can't he do so without stating that he had sex with a man? It's not as if they can actually check. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The test is not fully conclusive. From what I remember there is a .003 chance of an incorrect result. Becasue a greater proportion of the population is HIV-, most positive readings are usually false-positives, however they are discarded anyway to minimize the chance of an infection. There are however a certain number of false-negative readings which are the main worry of the industry. As a result of these, healthy people can be exposed to the HIV virus. The percent of false-negatives is directly proportional to the number of HIV+ people in a population, thus higher-risk groups are usually excluded from the group of possbile donors. TSO1D 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the false negatives that come when the viral load is still too low to be detected. Such false negatives can also occur just after the infection, or when the treatment works (while the virus still exists in the blood in small quantities). Dpotop 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Anittas
Just a heads-up for anyone who may care: Anittas was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo. As most of you know, Anittas and I have not necessarily gotten along well, and I even started an RFC about him last December, but I felt that in general his conduct had been a lot better lately, and was quite surprised to see him summarily blocked now, especially when there was no willingness to do so when he was making some pretty nasty remarks. Judging by Ronline's comments on User talk:Anittas, I'm not alone in this opinion.

Anyway, "indefinitely" is not necessarily forever, and meanwhile, given that this is not over issues of intellectual dishonesty, I, for one, will still be in touch with him, so he has at least one conduit when he has specific suggestions for improving articles; despite my criticisms of his behavior, he has done some good work, especially at Battle of Vaslui. If I do any edits on his behalf, I will be quite clear about that in the summaries.

Further discussion of this should probably be at User talk:Anittas. - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)