Just like in this country, consumption of alcohol is not criminalized. That does not mean you can buy it for children, give it to children, or publically advocate or advertise children’s consumption of alcohol. Same with homosex in Russia. It is not criminalized but indoctrination of children into homosex behavior is.
If homosexers are demonstrating homosex techniques and sexualization in public to children. they will likely face legal consequences at some point.
What is a homosexuality technique.
We just had a whole thread on veiled broadbrushing. This is another example of such. Bet that person who complained about falsehoods won’t say Boo! about this and others posts I’ve seen that are similar to what he was calling a falsehood the other day.
As I thought, wanting it both ways.
It involves singing the musical “Gypsy” really loud.
Couldn’t the parents just change the channel?
Its a internet show on a channel that only has LGBTQ programing so you cant find it by mistake
Not today they don’t.
Tu quoque doesn’t work.
Hypocrisy can be pointed out. You don’t have to like it. I can also see why certain people want to defend it. 
Also, his OPINION and stating of such does not make it a FACT.
Who shows up to a straight pride event outside of trolls though? I was trying to read up on it to see…why. And I read that brad Pitt is their mascot and they want Milo to be their main speaker.
That seems like a troll party, thought maybe not as hateful to gays as you’d immediately expect?
LMAO even after all this time your posts are hilarious.
Please describe what these techniques are in the context of what is prosecutable under Russian law.
Do you accept it as normal?
Oh Lordy… another who is confused about Tu quoque LoL…
Referencing a comparable event for the purpose of assessing the intellectual honesty and hypocrisy of a party is not a tu quoque logical fallacy. It is only when that reference is used to assert the truth or falseness of a statement that a tu quoque logical fallacy is made.
You people really thought you learned something the first time someone said “tu quoque”. You thought that you could pass the observation of your hypocrisy off to a “tu quoque fallacy” thereby freeing you to be hypocritical. Hahahahahaha… but instead, those who try to use such tricks simply show themselves ignorant of what a logical fallacy is AND they show themselves to be proud hypocrites at the same time.
Lordy lordy. 
clsssic.
To your mind what would and what would not be allowed under the law so that the State could effectively protect children?
I would have to poll the parents of the children to answer that…
You would leave this up to the parents? Too many diverse opinions out there.
What do you see as a good scenario to protect the children of heterosexers from gay indoctrination?
No, today is Sunday. They never did discriminate or even ask.
The Russian law was made to support the families of children. Any law like that in another country would likewise be legitimate if it reflects the mores of traditional families of that country.
Or actually - in my opinion… the mores of traditional families of specific state and local areas. The federal government should stay out of it and allow states and locals to decide.
