The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Rage Racer]

If that's correct it must only be on a technicality, such as an infinitesimally small number of minority groups in the country under the Iron Curtain.

Lolwut? Don't you know that countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc were in the Union? And Russia itself is far not a mono-national country (Caucasians, Tatars, Bashkirs and over 100 other nationalities - where do you think they were all this time in the USSR?). And all these people were living together, working together and building communism together. Because the ideology of communism makes no difference in nations, races or cultures - the Fraternity of peoples.

And it isn't like it's lasted, since modern-day Russia is hardly free of racism.

Not disputed. The Glasnost (or "publicity", what you call "freedom of speech") led to the rise of nationalism and separatism, which also caused a lot bloody conflicts - the Nagorno-Karabakh war, the Chechen war (which is still not over), 1991-93 South Ossetian and Abkhazian wars, the civil war in Tajikistan, and others.
Modern-day Russia is full of racism (or, closely - nationalism), not even "hardly free of". This is the echo of the Soviet Union's collapse.

Or this, which has come to light fairly recently.

Rodnina says her Twitter account was hacked. There was no reason for her to post that.

Still, at least Obama wasn't shot in the face.

The only surprising thing here is that the Caucasians didn't shoot first.

 

[homeforsummer]

Lolwut?

Nice link. The very same paragraph you linked to ends with this sentence: "With multiple nationalities living in the same territory, ethnic antagonisms developed over the years".

Yeah, I'm sure racism simply didn't come up in the Soviet Union...

Rodnina says her Twitter account was hacked. There was no reason for her to post that.

Given the second link I posted on the subject, I don't buy the "hacked" explanation for a second. If she was hacked she'd have expressed outrage that such a thing happened, rather than saying "I don't see what the big deal was anyway".

The only surprising thing here is that the Caucasians didn't shoot first.

I don't understand what you mean. You aren't surprised that two white Russians shot a man for little more apparent reason than having dark skin?

 

[Rage Racer]

"With multiple nationalities living in the same territory, ethnic antagonisms developed over the years".

Yeah, I'm sure racism simply didn't come up in the Soviet Union...

Perhaps it was so, but in the '50-'70s, there was no such thing as ethnic enmity in the Union. And it was the "publicity" that has pulled the trigger in the late '80s.

Given the second link I posted on the subject, I don't buy the "hacked" explanation for a second. If she was hacked she'd have expressed outrage that such a thing happened, rather than saying "I don't see what the big deal was anyway".

Sound strange to me, too, but who knows. Maybe she just reposted someone else's picture as a joke and did not assume that she'll be lighting the Olympic fire and this story will get spotted by the world's politicians.

I don't understand what you mean. You aren't surprised that two white Russians shot a man for little more apparent reason than having dark skin?

I'm not surprised by the fact of another hassle between native Russians and Caucasians.
I'm surprised that a Russian fired first. Because Caucasians (Chechens, Dagestani, Ingushs, etc) are more likely to be agressive and provoke conflicts. Most of them carry knives or guns (even illegal guns). An accidental touch of one in a crowd may result in a blade or a bullet to your stomach.

I don't know much how is it in your country, but here, racism (nationalism) works in both ways.
Or a minority attacking the majority is not racism?

 

[homeforsummer]

Anyone attacking anyone based on ethnicity alone is racism.

You should stop dressing up racism with the word nationalism too. Nationalism is an attachment to and support for one's nationality. Racism is the unfair or unequal treatment of others based on their race. It's possible to be nationalist, or racist, or both, but one does not automatically mean the other.

 

[Rage Racer]

Hmm... okay.
Because what our media often calls "nationalism" is actually chauvinism or xenophobia.

 

[Danny]

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality. Via BBC.

 

[Callum B]

Wow that was... long. But also insightful.
Additionally about Ellen... I'm one of those teenagers whose dream has been crushed! A very unlikely dream but one non the less.

 

[niky]

I was expecting it to be all about the gay uncle theory, but it's quite a bit more than that. Thanks for the link. 👍

 

[Danny]

Uh-oh. We've been caught again.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Uh-oh. We've been caught again.

No amount of facepalm can express how ridiculous that post is. I'd bet £5 that she could be certified mentally ill.

 

[Liquid]

Why is the word 'liberal' thrown about and ascribed to literally and absolutely everything which opposes conservatism?

 

[TheCracker]

People with strong christian morals sure have a lot of free time on their hands don't they.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why is the word 'liberal' thrown about and ascribed to literally and absolutely everything which opposes conservatism?

Because on a social spectrum liberality is the opposite of conservatism. Politically it's usually used to refer to the "centre ground", a place that sits between extremist socialist or conservative policy. I deliberately didn't use the word "Communism" as that's a doctrine rather than a position on the spectrum.

 

[Liquid]

Because on a social spectrum liberality is the opposite of conservatism. Politically it's usually used to refer to the "centre ground", a place that sits between extremist socialist or conservative policy. I deliberately didn't use the word "Communism" as that's a doctrine rather than a position on the spectrum.

Yes, of course that's true in the traditional left/right spectrum but you can find any conservative editorial on a subject which is apolitical and the word liberal is still the most evil, vitriolic insult imaginable.

Even when conservatives disagree with each other the word liberal is tossed around like the pig at the party. I recall on this very forum someone called Piers Morgan a liberal because they disagreed with something he'd said. It's become a byword for "I am butthurt because you disagree with me" but it is another matter entirely so let's not go further into it here.

---

That blog is one of the worst, most twisted, most laughable, most straw-clutchingly embarrassing things I have ever read in my life.

which means that Elsa must take her rightful position among her people, as queen. (Right to be queen: make what you want out of this one.)

This could be inadvertently the funniest thing ever written.

 

[PeterJB]

It seem there's a lot people can take from that film, as I found an article recently saying it's one of the most Christian movies of the year.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why is the word 'liberal' thrown about and ascribed to literally and absolutely everything which opposes conservatism?

Because, if you divide the people so that they are busy fighting each other they don't see the real enemy.

 

[niky]

I think the word doesn't mean what they think it means. I've heard it used to describe everything from socialism to communism.

-

The moment anyone uses liberal as an insult, I start to feel sorry for them. The fact that they think that being open-minded is the most abhorrent, immoral and inexcusable behaviour a human can engage in speaks volumes about them.

-

But that woman above? Total trolling. Totally.

 

[Carlos]

I don't know much how is it in your country, but here, racism (nationalism) works in both ways.
Or a minority attacking the majority is not racism?

That last sentence, man o man I'm sometimes really furious about this. I have a colleague (from Suriname) and she is all about 'yeah look how you treat us, when I walk somewhere people look at me'. Her FB page is filled with anti racism (positive racism), Rosa Parks things etc. She is driving my mad with these things.

 

[Rich S]

I diminish the "violence" if it is actually exaggerated in your mind. You probably imagine Russia as a big ghetto or a concentration camp where gays are being hit, tortured, killed and it's not against the law. If you really do, I can honestly tell you're wrong.
All I want is to tell the truth to everyone in this thread.

I imagine Russia as being hazardous for gays to admit to being gay, or to act gay in any way. Much like an F1 Q session changes and becomes a bit scary for the driver when the wind increases like at 2013 US GP qualifying. The lap times might not increase much but the possibility is there to get blown off line and crash. The possibility for gays to be blacklisted from jobs, or to be beaten up in childhood is high. It doesn't mean that gays will be blacklisted or beaten, but it might happen.

We do not have officials here in the USA trying to get a "gay flogging in town square" bill passed to "punish gays for their discrace."

 

[White & Nerdy]

I find it interesting when people say their sexual identity doesn't define who they are, then turn around and talk about oppression because some places still think a man and a man isn't marriage. If homosexuality isn't who you are, then you technically aren't being oppressed. You have the same property, voting, employment, and other rights as anyone else. Gay sex between consenting adults is legal everywhere in the U.S. now, and even in Russia they can't stop you.

Women and racial minorities were persecuted because of what they are, not "a part of who they are". If you yourselves maintain that one's sexual orientation is merely a part of their identity, rather than a defining trait, you cannot then compare it to a multi-hundred-year struggle for the end of skin-color-defined discrimination and violence.

 

[Azure Flare]

I find it interesting when people say their sexual identity doesn't define who they are, then turn around and talk about oppression because some places still think a man and a man isn't marriage.

I'm bisexual, but IT. IS. NOT. ALL. I. AM!

If homosexuality isn't who you are, then you technically aren't being oppressed. You have the same property, voting, employment, and other rights as anyone else. Gay sex between consenting adults is legal everywhere in the U.S. now, and even in Russia they can't stop you.

In some states, I can be fired from my job just because I have a boyfriend.

In fact, at the place I work, sexual discrimination is not covered under the zero-tolerance policy. So actually, only a few people there know I'm bi.

Women and racial minorities were persecuted because of what they are, not "a part of who they are". If you yourselves maintain that one's sexual orientation is merely a part of their identity, rather than a defining trait, you cannot then compare it to a multi-hundred-year struggle for the end of skin-color-defined discrimination and violence.

Gay people have been oppressed just as long as women and minorities.

 

[Scaff]

I find it interesting when people say their sexual identity doesn't define who they are, then turn around and talk about oppression because some places still think a man and a man isn't marriage.

So a trait has to be the only defining thing about someone before it can be oppressed does it?

Have a think about how utterly ridiculous that statement actually is.

Does the colour of someone skin totally define who they are? No.
Does someones gender utterly define who they are? No.
Does someones sexuality utterly define who they are? No.

If homosexuality isn't who you are, then you technically aren't being oppressed.

Nonsense.

You have the same property, voting, employment, and other rights as anyone else. Gay sex between consenting adults is legal everywhere in the U.S. now, and even in Russia they can't stop you.

Apart from not having the same rights in regard to marriage. You seem to have missed the rather obvious difference in your own example.

Women and racial minorities were persecuted because of what they are, not "a part of who they are". If you yourselves maintain that one's sexual orientation is merely a part of their identity, rather than a defining trait, you cannot then compare it to a multi-hundred-year struggle for the end of skin-color-defined discrimination and violence.

As above the colour of your skin and/or gender doesn't totally define a person, in the exact same way that sexuality doesn't totally define who someone is.

It is however a part of what defines them that they have no choice over and most certainly can be discriminated over, and you most certainly can compare them.

The argument you are putting forward can be used (and has been) to justify discrimination against skin colour and gender in the past (and still is today in parts of the world). Its a nonsense argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

 

[White & Nerdy]

@Scaff Ah, but there's more. Most of what I was already typing when you posted can serve as a response to your post.

In some states, I can be fired from my job just because I have a boyfriend.

In fact, at the place I work, at sexual discrimination is not covered under the zero-tolerance policy. So actually, only a few people there know I'm bi.

Two sides to that story. First, fixing the law to cover that could easily morph into reverse oppression against religious organizations. (And yes, I'm a Christian, I beleive that the universe and all life were created by God, I belive homosexual acts are sinful, and I do not believe calling such acts sinful constitutes "hate".)

And second, it would be an imperfect solution anyway. Remember that quite a lot of employment, possibly including @Azure Flare's, is "at will" which means you can be let go for any reason at all, or none at all. If the compnay needs to reduce headcount to save money, that'll provide all the excuse he needs to get rid of you - and there's a good chance no one will ever figure out that's why you ended up on the layoff list. Such "legal protection" wouldn't really protect you from a boss who really doesn't like LGBT - if he wants rid of you, he'll find a way.

Gay people have been oppressed just as long, as women and minorities.

The length of time is only part of it, and not even the main part. You said it yourself - there is a difference between "what you are", things that are integral to you such as your race and gender, and "who you are", the things you do and say. Urges, instincts, and other such things are on the border. While they may be innate, some inborn, some developed after birth, we are not totally unable to resist or avoid displaying them. So while, for various reasons, some men may find themselves attracted to other men, they can still consciously avoid acting on that attraction. A woman or a black man could not "consciously avoid" being female or black, literally because that is who they are and it is plain for all to see.

And that, Scaff, is the bulk of my point against you as well. Race and gender are expressed as physical properties. Other characteristics, including sexual orientation, are technically invisible until revealed by outward choices and behavior.

But then, it is possible to oppress in ways that depend entirely on concealable outward displays. There is also no question that some behaviors, and the instincts that lead to those behaviors, should be oppressed. And, additionally, there are wildly different levels of oppression, some of which are already illegal. So while the threat of job loss for sexual orientation may qualify as oppression, it is certainly not on the same level as, say, being treated as property because of the color of your skin.

 

[Danny]

I'm bisexual, but IT. IS. NOT. ALL. I. AM!

Absolutely not. You forgot annoying.

 

[Azure Flare]

Absolutely not. You forgot annoying.

"Nuisance" could be used to describe you.

 

[Daniel]

Absolutely not. You forgot annoying.

And a Nissan test driver.

 

[White & Nerdy]

The Premium forum is leaking.

 

[Azure Flare]

This'll fix that:

(Regular gray stuff just isn't appropriate for the topic of this thread.)

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff Ah, but there's more. Most of what I was already typing when you posted can serve as a response to your post.

Two sides to that story. First, fixing the law to cover that could easily morph into reverse oppression against religious organizations. (And yes, I'm a Christian, I beleive that the universe and all life were created by God, I belive homosexual acts are sinful, and I do not believe calling such acts sinful constitutes "hate".)

Providing equal rights, and that is what is being discussed doesn't turn into reverse oppression against anyone at all.

People would still remain free to say that they oppose same sex marriage, but would not be able to discriminate on that basis, that doesn't remove any right at all from those that oppose it at all.

You believe that homosexuality is a sin, I don't think that constitutes 'hate', simply ignorance. I 100% uphold your right to hold that opinion, but just as I would fight for you to retain that right I would fight just as strongly should you try and use that opinion in an attempt to remove the rights of others.

And second, it would be an imperfect solution anyway. Remember that quite a lot of employment, possibly including @Azure Flare's, is "at will" which means you can be let go for any reason at all, or none at all. If the compnay needs to reduce headcount to save money, that'll provide all the excuse he needs to get rid of you - and there's a good chance no one will ever figure out that's why you ended up on the layoff list. Such "legal protection" wouldn't really protect you from a boss who really doesn't like LGBT - if he wants rid of you, he'll find a way.

Apart from it would give you redress under the law should it be proven (and it can be and has been many times in the past for many forms of discrimination).

Once again this exact same (non)argument was an is used to oppose equal rights based on gender and race, its as nonsensical when used against sexuality as it is against gender and race.

 

[Daniel]

Two sides to that story. First, fixing the law to cover that could easily morph into reverse oppression against religious organizations.

How so?

So while the threat of job loss for sexual orientation may qualify as oppression, it is certainly not on the same level as, say, being treated as property because of the color of your skin.

It's still definitely up there. If someone treated you lowly because you were gay, black, or a strong, independent woman who don't need no man, it is definitely considered oppression.

Black people in the 60s weren't slaves, but they were still looked down upon. In the end, saying to someone "You can't marry because you're black!" is the same as saying "You can't marry because you're gay."

Going back to what you were originally saying, I think it does count as oppression.

If homosexuality isn't who you are, then you technically aren't being oppressed.

You may think of homosexuality as a sin, and gay marriage illegitimate. But marriage has lasted longer than Christianity has, so the church doesn't really get to define it.