Amnesty International shows solidarity with Budapest Pride


Amnesty International members participated in the Budapest Gay Pride march in solidarity with Hungarian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, who continue to face widespread hostility and discrimination in the country. Amnesty International believes that this year’s Budapest Pride provides an excellent opportunity to counter intolerance and celebrate the rights and dignity of LGBT people in Hungary and across Europe.


  1. Oh ffs,
    I'm a scientist and i'm here to tell you there is no evidence proving it to be logical infact there is evedence to the contrary. All the evidence YOU THINK YOU HAVE has been disproven.

    It is illogical and it is harmfull to be gay and you silence decent like the rest of society by propagandizing it as phobia with the help of the gay dominant media and assuming it to be illogical. NOW WHOS THE SECRET POLICE.

    This isnt an opinion, YOUR NOT THAT LUCKY, its science.

  2. Ya know the hardest part of society today is deciding who to silence…
    Do you dislike what I say about the nature of equality and genders?
    Do you want to silence me?
    Well I hold truth as my highest standard, I think NO ONE should be able to silence another. If we live in a society that can so easily silence groups, then you are just promoting the exact thing which you understand to destroy equality.

    The cause of all this is bias, and i dont think you have what it takes to stop yourself.

  3. @sqekcx
    Nice theory, bra
    Well, It was gonna be either one or the other of those options. Either its nones business what you do or its everyone’s business.

    Rather than proposing a system for the whole of the human race, as your doing there. (QED i dont have that level of control over society, nore do i want it.)
    I tend to take the view that if its illogical then you dont have the right to tell people to stop bugging you about it and doing it in secret is no consolation.

    Pretty simple actually.

  4. @MrDarkbloom Both parties.

    The purpose of genes is to reproduce, there is no scientific evidence for a benefit to gayness, indeed it actually seems to be not intentional. In short, they dont pass on their genes which could contain vital information like immunity.
    What this means in practical terms is; if they arnt passing on their genes, well, what are they doing? Consuming resources, indeed when they go into retirement it is OTHER PEOPLES CHILDEREN that will pay their social security.


  5. @Mattyb88ful
    Aha, that is precisely the misunderstanding i'm talking about.

    By your logic, the less children people have, the more contribution they should make to education for the rest of us.
    If theoretically this were promoted until 99% of the population support 1% of the children then this should mean that education was excellent and this should totally mean that this 1% could run the economy well enough to support the 99% right, right?
    This is whats called a “logical absurdity"


  6. Continued part 2
    Its also called a “thin end of the wedge argument”.

    Getting back to facts now; it is well understood by economists that in an ideal world, with zero inflation and death, the correct ratio of parents to children is 1:1 and this allows replacement in jobs and can fund social security aswell as education. If I were to say 1:99 then this would result in the reverse of the same logical absurdity above. Or perhaps you would like to suggest a better ratio?

    Continued part 3.

  7. Continued part 3
    There is only one group that benefits from the pink pound;
    the government,
    and it doesnt matter what government either, Hitler or even George Bush, lets not assume that this extra money goes towards anything other than bailing out the banks or the EU so they can bail out Greece.

    You did not disprove my assertion about consuming resources which are non-renewable such as gasoline. You instead quoted the old argument about the public purse. Which is changing the subject some.

  8. @Mattyb88ful
    2- Ideally children need a proper family environment with both parents. Their not acting in the childs interest if they choose to have children without providing this.
    These heterosexuals aren’t diseased like gays because If they fail to get a mate this is because of natural selection. Not because they have "chosen to be different."
    3- Ive already explained this, the purpose of DNA is to reproduce.
    4- The world is not overpopulated this is a lie, watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY

  9. @Mattyb88ful
    "monopoly on the definition of a family"
    1. >"Trying to disprove the definition of a healthy family which contain members from both sex"

    "Homosexuality is not a choice."
    2. >Trying to disprove free will exists

    "Naturalistic logical fallacy"
    3. Now thats allot better…
    "The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them"

    I didnt say that, i said HEALTHY.

  10. @Mattyb88ful I respect your attempt at identifying a fallacy. However, if your really being reasonable, this fallacy turns on your own argument.

    If person X says that gayness is good because its a different type of love, and perhaps go on to say, i personally know many pleasant gay people.

    Then they are committing this fallacy, because they are saying that this means that it is healthy. When being pleasant or having a love of something doesn’t guarantee health. Is is the case with fixation.

  11. @Mattyb88ful
    “Why must they have children?”
    I've explained all that.
    You are showing a bias; you can’t admit your wrong.

    "Gayness [is a myth]"
    I proved; Gayness is a illness, sanctioned by society

    "You're a fucking dictator. Mind your own fucking business."
    Since when is providing evidence dictatorship. I’ve spent my own time talking to you. I have been selfless.
    Would you rather I not try to find the truth? Or if I do find truth I’ll just keep it to myself and to hell with everybody else

  12. @Mattyb88ful Oh you've just given up now.

    Not only are you presenting no counter evidence, but your arguments are one sentence long and can be summarised as punch and Judy pantomime "ohhh- no it isnt".
    This is not how you win an argument, a proper scientific argument-with rules.

    You’ve lost the argument.

    Lately I was reading about genetics and it is possible that gayness is a ‘deliberate handicap’, but its still illogical. There are allot better handicaps that could be had.

  13. @Mattyb88ful Oh, you didnt understand…

    If it is not a choice you are arguing against free will and insisting we live in a deterministic universe. The same as Christians.
    This is not true, evolution proves we improve through selection. (provided you breed) That is to say, we can use our minds to imagine ourselves differently and change.

    Therefore it is impossible to be out of control of your personality without it being an illness. And being unable to evolve (breed) is an illness.

  14. @Mattyb88ful Your assuming emotions are always right. Emotions can result from mental illness aswell as any natural causes. If emotions are right then homophobia is also right, also genetic and also unavoidable.
    It’s a matter of where the feelings come from and weather they are healthy. Any sane person would question their feelings using logic. Their expression of feelings is a choice

    “If you want to see it as illness then fine.”
    It IS an illness. It conforms to the medical definition of one.

  15. @Mattyb88ful No, your lieing to yourself. I've done my best to explain to you the medical definition. I've explained that the purpose of DNA is replication. This is no where near being an opinon, because it is evidenced in this way.

    You said it was their emotions. I pointed out your assumption; It is not a matter of only acting on feelings, its a matter of if they are healthy.
    I've proved it isnt healthy now. You can either challange these well established facts or admit i've caught you out.

  16. @Mattyb88ful Yes but there is an agreed definition of what the DNA is supposed to do, there is an agreed definition of a departure from illnus.

    Do you really expect everyone on the planet to agree to the same dictionary? Not very likly is it. But The one i'm using is a real definition and your argument is simply that we should change it so your bias can become acceptable.
    You managed to touch apon a subject of much rage to me; the subtle change of definitions to suit poletics. Well done you!

  17. @Mattyb88ful "This doesn't mean we should reproduce." …perhapse, but if every human has a chance of evolving a usefull gene and, ideally speaking, only the strongest genes are domenant, then, reducing the number of humans passing on genes will reduce our success rate.
    And, concidering that we have a falling birthrate, and there is no such thing as overpopulation, just starvation. And that this low brithrate will create economic stress as retirment happens, especially gays…

    Continued A1.

  18. @Mattyb88ful @Mattyb88ful Continued A1

    Having less humans is akin to having less neurons in a brian, you lose thinking power. Your collective genetic evolution gets smaller.

    "naturalistic fallacy" Nonono this is a straw man and disanalogies, i strongly encourage you to read the statments as if i'm not making a 'pleasant=good' argument because then you may see my actual points. As i've said before i'm making a 'healthy=good' argument. Cognative dissonance much?

  19. @Mattyb88ful Once again, the punch and judy argument "ohh yes it is" over population.
    No, i've already showd you a video on overpopulation falsity.

    "Was 0.5 billion, now 7 billion, then 12 billion"
    All i read here is 7 is higher than 5 and 12 is higher than 7. Do you really know what the max sustainable population for the planet ear is?

    "More than enough reproduction is taking place"
    How much is enough? How much is healthy? Now your making the pleasant = good argument.

  20. @Mattyb88ful I am interested in the answer but i'll have to turn that one back on you.

    Its the PRO gay argument that should be explaining when there is enough genes in the pool… to justify their choices. Marko? polo, marko?, polo.

  21. @Mattyb88ful "Why must people… justify their lifestyle choices?"

    Why do justify that i'm not a dictator? Or the re-incarnation of jeezas

    Because people DO have to justify themselves. Theres no human right that says you can be illogical.

    Assuming that everything you do is right is blind faith. Your faith in gays is just as flawed as the christians faith in god. Neither of you explain your evidence.

    Also, this is why you are mistaken, you think that having a little debate is dictatorship.

Comments are closed.