So, how are things waaaay over there on the wrong side of history?

Yes, because I was asking only about economic standing, of course...

You keep arguing with logical fallacies, but I'll respond anyway. Russia is doing quite well and just became the 5th largest economy[1]. They also have a news station (Russia Today) which reports on real issues - unlike western "mainstream" media. You act as if Russia is some backwater slump and not a growing modern nation. Meanwhile the western world is teetering into bankruptcy. You won't know which side of history is right until it actually becomes history.

[1] http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/

America grew very well economically while - and partly due to - using African slaves. The European empires dominated the planet economically while believing they had a divine mandate to exploit the savages. Wealth generation has nothing to do with the goodness of a behaviour or attitude.

Do you think stance on gay rights is the cause of economic problems or Russia's current situation?

It's possible that some day the entire world will despise homosexuality, or that the entire world will be fine with it. Both of those scenarios could happen regardless of whether countries currently on one side or the other end up as the world powers.

Personally I believe that gay rights will keep on improving, not get worse, and therefore you are on the wrong side of history. But I could be wrong about that, so it's fine if you disagree with my prediction. Just, disagree with it using relevant logic, not unrelated situations.

It's interesting that you talk about others' logical fallacies, yet you started the thread with a fallacy (appeal to majority).

If you remember to control for oil wealth when graphing "acceptance of homosexuality" against per capita GDP you'll probably be surprised by how well correlated they are...

Yes, you're in great company there, with well-respected allies like Iran, Uganda and Afghanistan. Congratulations.

When in a hole, stop digging.

I have registered an account on HN simply to respond to you. You are a despicable piece of worthless trash. Thank you.

As much as I agree with this sentiment, I think it's better to downvote him to invisibility and not respond to his comments.

[golf clap]

These are the kinds of attacks that people who stand for traditional marriage have to face. A bigoted army of people who can't muster a better argument than vulgar name calling. The irony is that they claim to stand against intolerance...

By using euphemisms like "stand for traditional marriage" you automatically lose the argument. You do not have to defend straight marriage. No one is against it. There's nothing to stand for. In fact you are against the other things. Your position is one of sanction and oppression, not support.

It's changing the definition of the word, so yes there is something to stand for. If you don't believe marriage needs defending, look at the rates of marriage. Now the meaning of marriage has been diluted so much, no one wants to get married anymore - there's no point except to possibly get benefits from the state.

I could have just as easily said people who use the term "homophobic" automatically lose the argument, as there's no fear involved. This is a battle of semantics - and if we want a quality debate then we need to keep definitions consistent.

From where do you derive your definition of traditional marriage?

I couldn't care less about a debate with "people" like you. I want you to stop denying us our civil liberties.

Yet you make very many posts to this thread, instead of just ignoring the trolls.

Persecution complex, much?