Let's break down the modern, flashy PR move and check some reality:

LGBT rights in Romania (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Romania) - Decriminalized in 1996 - Gender identity: change of legal sex allowed since 1996 - Discrimination protections: protections since 2000 (still don't national ones in the U.S.) - No marriage - No civil unions - Adoption HAAAHAHAAH cmon be serious

LGBT rights in the UK (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_King...) - Decriminalized in the 60s - 80s, way before 1996 - Gender identity: change of legal sex allowed since 2005, way after Romania - Discrimination protections: protections since 2010, way after Romania - Civil unions in 2005 - Marriage in 2014 - Adoption since 2005 / 2013

It's very easy for an outsider to judge it like that. You can't compare the UK with an ex-communist, very religious country. These things can't really change overnight, it takes a few generations. So yeah, I wouldn't advise any gay people to go to Romania.

As someone who grew up in Transilvania I would disagree you have as much freedom and influence in Cluj as a member of the LGBT community as in London.

Yes the laws are a bit lacking but if you have the money you could actually change that.

Nobody really cares what your sexual preference or orientation is in Transilvania and most of the younger generation are very open minded so you don't have anything to worry about.

I echo that. Also, I'm pretty sure that even in such an "ex-communist, very religious country" there are LGBTs and areas (probably Bucharest) where LGBTs are rather accepted. If de-jure-acceptance instead of just de-facto is a dealbreaker for you I suggest come back in a couple of years/decades :-(

>>> You can't compare the UK with an ex-communist, very religious country.

Yet the above website did just that.

UK wasn't part of the Soviet bloc until 1990, so a bit unfair to compare in my opinion. You either care about LGBT rights or getting some shitty Cuban oranges for your kids at least once a year. I think a lot of societies in the Eastern Europe went through tremendous changes in the last 20 years. Not saying it's all happy happy joy joy now, just that we should consider this in some context.

And by "electorate" you mean "primates whose brains evolved to solve survival tasks they faced on the savannah, which didn't include practicing logic or empathy."

Upvote for responsible internetting and so-rare-so-refreshing humility.

The preferred term by make-up artists is "spackled".

Here's some decent background:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-sanest-arguments...

I don't think the article you are linking is a good source. The first paragraphs are full of ad hominem attacks.

For Newsweek, what comes out of it is clicks, obviously.

Well, four votes within 60 years isn't exactly "continually", but I'll cede that point. Lots of Portlanders believe that fluoride is just fine, thank you (though the most recent vote was 60%-40%, sadly.)

Our ancestors were on the brink of starvation for most of history; only for a small slice of time have we* had caloric abundance. Humans turn to eating when facing all kinds of physical and emotional stressors; "simply eating less" is simplistic logic that doesn't hold water in practice.

*not everyone, of course.

There are many more attendees of M.A. meetings than there are of people in recovery, trying to quit reading because it's had life-altering effects on their minds.

"Addiction isn't a problem" is the biggest myth perpetuated in the smoking community. I'm not trying to make pot out to be any more or less monstrous than it is, but to claim that addiction isn't something that happens is to hide one's head in the sand.

> There are many more attendees of M.A. meetings than there are of people in recovery

A lot of people are forced to (or "elect" to) mandatory drug treatment/counseling as an alternative to harsher sentencing for first-time marijuana offenses.

Success rates are obviously low for these, for the same reasons that requiring all college students who ever drink alcohol to attend AA meetings would have low "success" rates.

You can't assume all people who attend drug treatment actually have a drug problem.