The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Joel]

What is "normal" anyway?

 

[Aki Ko]

What is "normal" anyway?

Whatever society deems as normal. I ask people this as well.
One person's normal can be different from another person's normal. That's why I get very annoyed when people deem 'this' or 'that' isn't normal; it's not normal for you. It's normal for someone else.
So in my opinion, there is no such thing as a definite "normal".

 

[Carbonox]

What is "normal" anyway?

Guy with a wife, 2 kids, dog and white picket fence.

 

[FoolKiller]

Whatever society deems as normal. I ask people this as well.
One person's normal can be different from another person's normal. That's why I get very annoyed when people deem 'this' or 'that' isn't normal; it's not normal for you. It's normal for someone else.
So in my opinion, there is no such thing as a definite "normal".

There is an actual type of sociology known as deviant sociology. Deviant is not defined as any specific actions, but deviating from the societal norms of the community in which you live. In a community that is racist or opposed to homosexuality abnormal or deviant would be openly flaunting your sexuality or acting as if you are equal to everyone else despite your race or sexuality.

So in Russia, being openly homosexuality and trying to teach others that you are equal and not a negative influence is not normal.

And that is why Russia gets bad press as a whole. If a societal opposition to homosexuality on some level weren't part of the society the acts that get them bad press wouldn't be accepted or allowed to happen.

 

[DK]

A 'deviation' is not a person's fault, and it's obviously not a reason to put anyone into a Gaswagen (let's not dramatize).
Gay couples cannot make children, that's why it's "not normal". Infertility is "not normal", too, but it's not a Nazi approach on infertile people. Agree?

I don't see Russian neo-Nazis hunting infertile people with impunity, do you?

 

[Rage Racer]

I don't see Russian neo-Nazis hunting infertile people with impunity, do you?

Oh, yeah, we have Gay Safaris on our streets, when neo-Nazis drive jeeps and hunt gays with guns equipped with Gay Sensors.

[sarcasm mode OFF]
Well, I don't see them hunting anyone with more impunity than other criminals have in this country.
And, BTW, the Article 282 ('Incitement to hatred') is the favourite article for neo-Nazis to get their asses on a prison plank-bed (and even get them used in the way they hate )

'Wrong' is more like something that is considered immoral. I don't think conditions you can't do anything about have anything to do with morality?

What is "normal" anyway?

'Normal' in terms of natural body functionalty and reproductivity.
Able to live, walk, work, make children, et cetera.

Once again you are making claims that you can't back up.

Like what? About Ukrainians being as homophobic as Russians?

By specifically targeting them with laws that have no basis in reality, logic or rights.

Damn, how 'targeting'? By not legalizing their marriage? In this case, there are sooo many states in Europe to be called 'gay targeters'.

So why are you not asking why they are targeting people who have done nothing wrong?

Told about ^targeting^.

OK so women who have been through the menopause are 'not normal' as well, can you point out to me the Russian laws that state they should not publicly talk about the menopause please?

While your at it the ones that ban discussions on infertility would be good as well!

Now unless you can show them, your own point highlights the illogical discrimination in place.

Is there any law forbiding to discuss or publicly talk about homosexuality?
I just felt like you think I live in Saudi Arabia.

Besides, I didn't say the people are not normal, I said the ailment is not normal (to have).

Are you serious? I don't think you understand either the weight of the words you're using or the context. No, I don't think diabetes is "wrong", I don't think epileptics are deviant.

Then what?
OK, let's use the word 'undesirable'. Do you desire anyone to be epileptic? I guess you don't.

My parents are infertile and can't have children, I really don't see how you separate that from "gay couple can't make children" in that sense. But gay couples CAN and DO have children, there's nothing wrong with that... although presumably you disagree?

Child adoption... This is how gays reproduce.
However, I tend to think that two fathers or two mothers are still better than none. But it's just me. The majority of Russian people oppose the idea of child adoption by gay families - "This is dewbachery! They'll hurt the child's mental health!".

The upshot of what you're saying is that because a statistical "norm" is a heterosexual breeding couple with no incidence of Downs, epilepsy or diabetes then that's how society should be forced to be in law. Would you say that's correct?

I didn't mean it so bad to be 'not normal'.

 

[Carbonox]

'Normal' in terms of natural body functionalty and reproductivity.
Able to live, walk, work, make children, et cetera.

I don't think nature ever intended everyone to be able to make a kid. Hence why infertility is a rather prominent issue.

 

[Imari]

No. "Dislike" doesn't mean "persecute/try to destroy".
Homosexuality is as 'wrong' (in our society) as other forms of deviations - infertility, diabetes, epilepsy, Down syndrome, etc. You don't target diabetics for their problem, but you know that diabetes is 'wrong', correct?
But officially it's not a disease, since Russia joined the ICD-10, which does not call homosexuality a disease.
And not necessary 'to be cured', as no one has a clue how to 'cure' it.

English isn't your first language then?

"Wrong" is not the correct word to use if you're describing a disease or something that is out of the person's control.

I maintain that you're tripping over your own words. Infertility, diabetes, etc are not deviations. These are medical conditions. Necrophilia is a deviation. Infertility, diabetes, etc are not wrong, they're just conditions that people have. There is nothing morally unacceptable about them. Necrophilia is morally wrong.

Use your words correctly, and you may get better results. In a sensitive topic such as this, the choice of words is very important.

That's what our society thinks. As for me, I have a little doubt about this, but I'd like to see some research works if there is any 'gay gene'.

Read up more on genetics. Most genetic diseases do not have a specific gene that codes for them. They have a bunch of genes that happen to turn up together. And it's not just one bunch, there's usually lots of different sets of genes that can cause the same symptoms.

Do you start to see how it might be difficult to narrow down out to the entire human genome the specific genes that influence sexuality? It may be all of them, for all we know, and it's simply a complex interaction between them all that determines sexuality.

...and hunt gays with guns equipped with Gay Sensors.

In the West we have Gaydar.

 

[TenEightyOne]

OK, let's use the word 'undesirable'. Do you desire anyone to be epileptic? I guess you don't.

No, I don't desire that people (or more people) be epileptic. That means something different from describing epileptics themselves as "undesirable".

Child adoption... This is how gays reproduce..

No, that's how gay people adopt the reproduced offspring of others. Gay people can and do have their own children sometimes, you know.

The majority of Russian people oppose the idea of child adoption by gay families - "This is dewbachery! They'll hurt the child's mental health!".

Finally, we're getting somewhere.

 

[Scaff]

Like what? About Ukrainians being as homophobic as Russians?

Do you not recall this....

!I wouldn't be surprised if some people think that Putin wants to start the WW3 to kill all gays on the planet (calling it Final Solution of Gay Question)."

...now you can stick all the smilies you want after it, its still a path you like taking the second an issue or potential issue with Russia is mentioned.

Damn, how 'targeting'? By not legalizing their marriage? In this case, there are sooo many states in Europe to be called 'gay targeters'.

Why are you asking me a question I have already addressed?

Yes it is targeted, in exactly the same way that clause 28 was in the UK. You may remember I mentioned that and stated as much! Given that why are you asking me about a point I raised and addressed?

Told about ^targeting^.

That doesn't answer the question.

Is there any law forbiding to discuss or publicly talk about homosexuality?
I just felt like you think I live in Saudi Arabia.

Russia has a ban on "the promotion of homosexuality to minors", which quite clearly makes it illegal to discuss the subject in any space that minors could be present, which is just about every public space.

Now as I asked can you point me to the laws that read the same for the infertile and menopausal women?

Oh and away we go with the strawman patriot defense again.

Besides, I didn't say the people are not normal, I said the ailment is not normal (to have).

Its not an ailment and as such you are once again talking nonsense.

Then what?
OK, let's use the word 'undesirable'. Do you desire anyone to be epileptic? I guess you don't.

Every time you have to describe a friend to someone do you use the term 'heterosexual'?

If not then why do you need to distinguish in this case?

 

[Rage Racer]

English isn't your first language then?

"Wrong" is not the correct word to use if you're describing a disease or something that is out of the person's control.

Of course it's not.

Okay, let's use the word "special" then.

Do you not recall this....

!I wouldn't be surprised if some people think that Putin wants to start the WW3 to kill all gays on the planet (calling it Final Solution of Gay Question)."

...now you can stick all the smilies you want after it, its still a path you like taking the second an issue or potential issue with Russia is mentioned.

That was sarcasm, but there really are people paralleling Putin with Hitler. Even in this thread.

Why are you asking me a question I have already addressed?

Yes it is targeted, in exactly the same way that clause 28 was in the UK. You may remember I mentioned that and stated as much! Given that why are you asking me about a point I raised and addressed?

Well, I think I'm not quite aware of the meaning of the word 'target' in this context.
I've read about the Section 28 and it looks pretty similar to the Milonov's law.
May I ask you, was it a problem in Britain to discuss or publicly talk about homosexuality from 1988 to 2003 and was Thatcher blamed on "Nazi approach" on the gay community?

Russia has a ban on "the promotion of homosexuality to minors", which quite clearly makes it illegal to discuss the subject in any space that minors could be present, which is just about every public space.

Now as I asked can you point me to the laws that read the same for the infertile and menopausal women?

I don't think "the promotion to minors" and "propaganda" equal to discussion. I they do, how come I read such discussions in newspapers (even in pro-Kremlin press, like KP and MK), or see them on TV?

Menopause happens to every woman at a certain age, so there's nothing 'abnormal' about it. But that doesn't matter, because I do not state it needed to ban propaganda of anything 'abnormal', and homosexuality as well.
I just mean, the Milonov's law is not so dangerous and harmful to the LGBT community as the Western politicians and journalists are trying to depict it.

Every time you have to describe a friend to someone do you use the term 'heterosexual'?

If not then why do you need to distinguish in this case?

Distinguish as "desirable or not"? I use it when I talk about acceptance of something by the society.

Also, I have a question to all readers of this: Do you call a person who does not wish to exile/cure/kill homosexuals and considers them full-fledged members of the society, but opposes the legalization of gay marriage, a homophobe?

 

[Scaff]

Of course it's not.

Okay, let's use the word "special" then.

Lets not.

Well, I think I'm not quite aware of the meaning of the word 'target' in this context.
I've read about the Section 28 and it looks pretty similar to the Milonov's law.
May I ask you, was it a problem in Britain to discuss or publicly talk about homosexuality from 1988 to 2003 and was Thatcher blamed on "Nazi approach" on the gay community?

Yes she was (as were others who supported it and yes it did cause problems for the LGBT community.

Which is exactly why I have such as issue with the Russian law, this country has tried that approach and it didn't and doesn't work to do anything but isolate and marginalise a community unjustly.

And yes we did have similar attitudes towards the LGBT community in the UK when the law was put in place, but that was a quarter of a century ago.

I don't think "the promotion to minors" and "propaganda" equal to discussion. I they do, how come I read such discussions in newspapers (even in pro-Kremlin press, like KP and MK), or see them on TV?

And how balanced is that discussion in the press?

Menopause happens to every woman at a certain age, so there's nothing 'abnormal' about it. But that doesn't matter, because I do not state it needed to ban propaganda of anything 'abnormal', and homosexuality as well.
I just mean, the Milonov's law is not so dangerous and harmful to the LGBT community as the Western politicians and journalists are trying to depict it.

Based on the experiences of friends in the UK I seriously doubt that is true and once again you are highlighting that by using the term 'abnormal'

Would you find it acceptable if everyone on the site started to refer to all left handed people as 'abnormal' simply because of a fact of birth? What about those with (insert your own eye colour here) colored eyes?

Distinguish as "desirable or not"? I use it when I talk about acceptance of something by the society.

Answer the question please. Yes or No, do you use the term 'heterosexual' when you describe your friends to someone who hasn't met them yet.

Also, I have a question to all readers of this: Do you call a person who does not wish to exile/cure/kill homosexuals and considers them full-fledged members of the society, but opposes the legalization of gay marriage, a homophobe?

If you oppose the legalization of gay marriage then you don't consider the LGBT community to be 'full-fledged members of society', if you did you would have no problem with the legalization.

As such your question makes no sense at all as it written.

However would I consider someone who is opposed to gay marriage to be homophobic, given that the only reason to oppose different rights for the LGBT community are irrational fears then it would seem to fit quite well.

 

[Imari]

Of course it's not.

Okay, let's use the word "special" then.

Do you know what it means when you describe someone as "special"? It means that they're retarded, or otherwise mentally handicapped.

Excellent choice.

 

[FoolKiller]

So, I recently learned an interesting historical fact (thanks Drunk History) about the founding of the US. Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a military strategist who was run out of Germany and eventually found his way to the US at the request of George Washington. See, the American military was just a bunch of guys trying to make their way. They needed no military before this point because the British was their military. Von Steuben trained the men up, taught them how to fight with their bayonets so well that they actually won a battle with no ammo. Ultimately, he created a whole book of military strategy that was the base for the US Military for 100 years (which puts us near World War I, and the beginnings of new weapons of war).

Now, I can find people who are willing to quote the founding fathers, call themselves a patriot, and describe the US as a country founded on Christian values that do not accept homosexuality who will at least know that von Steuben was a military strategist often credited for helping us win our independence. They may even call him a hero or the reason we won.

I wonder if they know he was run out of Germany for being homosexual, and that the founding fathers knew this (or suspected) and rewarded him with a Congressional pension and a home where he lived with a man he met when he was brought in as a translator for von Steuben and the troops.

Von Steuben was forced to leave Baden (a German state) where he was threatened with prosecution for homosexuality.[17]When he joined Washington's army at Valley Forge in February 1778 he was accompanied by two young European aides, one aged 17. Despite rumors about his parties, there never was an investigation of Von Steuben and he received a Congressional pension after the war.[18][19]

He never married and had no children. He left his estate to General Benjamin Walker and Captain William North, who had served as his aides-de-camp during the war, and with whom he had had an "extraordinarily intense emotional relationship

 

[niky]

If you teach a child from elementary school that homosexuality is normal, I think it may affect his/her sexual development.

You don't actually... know... any gay people, do you?

You can teach children self expression. You can't teach them who they want to have sex with and how they want it.

Guy with a wife, 2 kids, dog and white picket fence.

Two point five kids, mind you. Two point five kids.

 

[Rage Racer]

You don't actually... know... any gay people, do you?

No... I don't...

Yes she was (as were others who supported it and yes it did cause problems for the LGBT community.

Which is exactly why I have such as issue with the Russian law, this country has tried that approach and it didn't and doesn't work to do anything but isolate and marginalise a community unjustly.

And yes we did have similar attitudes towards the LGBT community in the UK when the law was put in place, but that was a quarter of a century ago.

I assume that Russian society has the same view on this as the British had in the '80s. We're on the same stage now. I can tell you that young people here are generally more tolerant to the LGBTs than the older, Soviet-grown generations. So it won't stay forever as it is.

And how balanced is that discussion in the press?

As balanced as it can be when real LGBT activists are invited on TV to be on the opposite side in the discussion. I've seen some, but that was a long time ago, when the law was just signed. Today, the media has other things to talk about.

Based on the experiences of friends in the UK I seriously doubt that is true

Look at some states of the USA having similar gay-targeting laws. I don't think the gays of Alabama feel so oppressed and isolated by the government on their Land of The Free. Or they do?

Also, if homosexuality can't be even talked about on public in Russia, what do you think is this?

Photo taken on September, 21st, 2014 in Moscow.

Would you find it acceptable if everyone on the site started to refer to all left handed people as 'abnormal' simply because of a fact of birth? What about those with (insert your own eye colour here) colored eyes?

No, of course. As well as skin tone etc.
However, left handed people face difficulties when they use some equipment, and in the past, this used to be considered 'abnormal' by the society and parents tried to re-teach their left handed children, but it didn't do any good.

Answer the question please. Yes or No, do you use the term 'heterosexual' when you describe your friends to someone who hasn't met them yet.

No, I don't have to, because:
1) Hetero is the 'default' sexuality to me;
2) I don't usually end up in situations when someone's orientation is important to know.

If you oppose the legalization of gay marriage then you don't consider the LGBT community to be 'full-fledged members of society', if you did you would have no problem with the legalization.

As such your question makes no sense at all as it written.

However would I consider someone who is opposed to gay marriage to be homophobic, given that the only reason to oppose different rights for the LGBT community are irrational fears then it would seem to fit quite well.

In this case, you may label over 70% of Russian population as 'homophobes'. But when a gay person (a sportsman, businessman, traveller or anyone else who may be interested to visit RF) sees the '70% of homophobes' label, he probably thinks 'oh, crap, I'll never visit Russia, they'll lynch me there!'. Am I not right?

Also, what if it's just the different understanding of the term 'marriage' why this society opposes that idea?

Do you know what it means when you describe someone as "special"? It means that they're retarded, or otherwise mentally handicapped.

Excellent choice.

*%$🤬#@& I'm annoyed by this words choice, I'll just say that all of this "abnormal/deviant/etc" is how the Russian society calls it. I may change my opinion, but the masses of people around me - they won't so quickly.

 

[Scaff]

I assume that Russian society has the same view on this as the British had in the '80s. We're on the same stage now. I can tell you that young people here are generally more tolerant to the LGBTs than the older, Soviet-grown generations. So it won't stay forever as it is.

You would think then that countries would learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than repeating and seeming to be rather proud of doing so.

As balanced as it can be when real LGBT activists are invited on TV to be on the opposite side in the discussion. I've seen some, but that was a long time ago, when the law was just signed. Today, the media has other things to talk about.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to those who now have their right curtailed by law.

Look at some states of the USA having similar gay-targeting laws. I don't think the gays of Alabama feel so oppressed and isolated by the government on their Land of The Free. Or they do?

I can tell you for a fact that they most certainly do feel oppressed and isolated by the government.

Also, if homosexuality can't be even talked about on public in Russia, what do you think is this?

Photo taken on September, 21st, 2014 in Moscow.

Its a lot harder to arrest an entire group of people in front of the world's media than it is to target individuals and small groups.

No, of course. As well as skin tone etc.
However, left handed people face difficulties when they use some equipment, and in the past, this used to be considered 'abnormal' by the society and parents tried to re-teach their left handed children, but it didn't do any good.

Then why do you seem to be defending a law that is doing exactly the same thing?

No, I don't have to, because:
1) Hetero is the 'default' sexuality to me;
2) I don't usually end up in situations when someone's orientation is important to know.

Then why should any other form of sexuality need to be used as the primary description for anyone?

In this case, you may label over 70% of Russian population as 'homophobes'. But when a gay person (a sportsman, businessman, traveller or anyone else who may be interested to visit RF) sees the '70% of homophobes' label, he probably thinks 'oh, crap, I'll never visit Russia, they'll lynch me there!'. Am I not right?

Given that they potentially risk arrest based on Russian laws I wouldn't blame them at all.

Not only that they may well feel justified to not support a government that curtails rights based upon sexuality.

Would you want to travel to a country in which (as a hypothetical example) you could be arrested for promoting 'a Russian lifestyle' to children?

Also, what if it's just the different understanding of the term 'marriage' why this society opposes that idea?

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

 

[Imari]

Also, if homosexuality can't be even talked about on public in Russia, what do you think is this?

Civil disobedience to make a point.

Or are you going to claim that blacks weren't oppressed in the States either, because they had black pride marches?

 

[Pupik]

I don't think nature ever intended everyone to be able to make a kid. Hence why infertility is a rather prominent issue.

Yes, let's just wait around for virgin births. "Prominent" does not equal "most" in this case, by any stretch of imagination nor actuality.

It still means nothing in terms of what people choose to do with their own reproductive organs, though.

Look at some states of the USA having similar gay-targeting laws. I don't think the gays of Alabama feel so oppressed and isolated by the government on their Land of The Free. Or they do?

Alabama has no laws which specifically target gays; although the state hasn't recognized gay marriage...yet.

 

[Carbonox]

Yes, let's just wait around for virgin births. "Prominent" does not equal "most" in this case, by any stretch of imagination nor actuality.

It still means nothing in terms of what people choose to do with their own reproductive organs, though.

I don't know what you're saying here. Is it a counter-argument? All I was trying to say was that there are quite a lot of couples who want kids, but are suffering from infertility, hence the "prominent issue".

 

[Rage Racer]

Alabama has no laws which specifically target gays; although the state hasn't recognized gay marriage...yet.

Uhm... Are you sure?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ies-similar-to-russias-ban-on-gay-propaganda/

You would think then that countries would learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than repeating and seeming to be rather proud of doing so.

When the time is right. You can't force people to be tolerant.
What would happen if Putin suddenly decided to legalise same-sex marriage right now? People would think "WTH? Are you turning our country into Sodoma? In Soviet Union, we never had such crap! We are not Gayrope!", and protests would be a lot more massive than the pro-LGBT ones we have today.
Many people here oppose their mentality to the European "total tolerance".

I can tell you for a fact that they most certainly do feel oppressed and isolated by the government.

How much do you hear about the anti-gay law in Russia, and how much do you hear that about Texas?

I'm sure that's a great comfort to those who now have their right curtailed by law.

But you were saying they can't even talk about their orientation on public.

Its a lot harder to arrest an entire group of people in front of the world's media than it is to target individuals and small groups.

It's not much harder, and it's not the cause.
Any massive meeting requires a permission from the city authorities. This one had it, it was a part of the "Peace March". I don't know if the rainbow flags were arranged with the government, or they weren't but the law enforcers didn't care... Anyway, if the government wanted them not to be shown, it wouldn't be a problem for OMON forces to handle this kind of crowd.

Civil disobedience to make a point.

Or are you going to claim that blacks weren't oppressed in the States either, because they had black pride marches?

If it was a classic disobedience, it would be wiped out by teargas / water cannons / other "democracy tools".

But there wasn't any law about "black propaganda" in the States, or there was?

Then why do you seem to be defending a law that is doing exactly the same thing?

I'm not defending it, I just say it's not so oppressive and harmful as the poiticians and societies of EU and US were drawing it.

Then why should any other form of sexuality need to be used as the primary description for anyone?

Where did I say that?

Given that they potentially risk arrest based on Russian laws I wouldn't blame them at all.

Not only that they may well feel justified to not support a government that curtails rights based upon sexuality.

Would you want to travel to a country in which (as a hypothetical example) you could be arrested for promoting 'a Russian lifestyle' to children?

First, the law provides a fine as the main punishment, so what you mean by "arrest" must be the kind of "arrest" when police takes its "customer" to a local police station to fill the protocol of administrative offense and let go. The same as what happens when cops take a person away for being drunk on public.

Second, what is "Russian lifestyle"?
Well, let's take Orthodox Christianity. I am Orthodox, but I don't feel it necessary to yell about it everywhere or convince the local children to switch their religion to Orthodox. So I think I wouldn't cause any trouble in that hypothetical country with an "anti-Orthodox" law.

Or, another example: Latvia has a ban on "communist propaganda" - and any symbols of Soviet Union demonstrated on public. I'm not a communist, but if I was, I think I would be able to refrain myself from waving a red banner on the streets of Riga if I really had to visit it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

I mean that most Russians understand the term 'marriage' as a union of a man and woman only.
As for me, I would accept the idea of same-sex unions that have equal rights with the traditional 'marriage' but are not called 'marriage'. Like it's done in some states of the US.

 

[Scaff]

When the time is right. You can't force people to be tolerant.
What would happen if Putin suddenly decided to legalise same-sex marriage right now? People would think "WTH? Are you turning our country into Sodoma? In Soviet Union, we never had such crap! We are not Gayrope!", and protests would be a lot more massive than the pro-LGBT ones we have today.
Many people here oppose their mentality to the European "total tolerance".

In the mean time lets stop people discussing it in a number of ways, because that's not going to continue to reinforce stereotypes and cause division is it?

How much do you hear about the anti-gay law in Russia, and how much do you hear that about Texas?

What does Texan have to do with it.

But you were saying they can't even talk about their orientation on public.

No. I have said the law is written in such a manner that you could be arrested for discussing it in public.

It's not much harder, and it's not the cause.
Any massive meeting requires a permission from the city authorities. This one had it, it was a part of the "Peace March". I don't know if the rainbow flags were arranged with the government, or they weren't but the law enforcers didn't care... Anyway, if the government wanted them not to be shown, it wouldn't be a problem for OMON forces to handle this kind of crowd.

It is harder, to do so without drawing attention to it. That was the point I made.

If it was a classic disobedience, it would be wiped out by teargas / water cannons / other "democracy tools".

Disobedience =/= violent protest.

But there wasn't any law about "black propaganda" in the States, or there was?

Yes there was.

I'm not defending it, I just say it's not so oppressive and harmful as the poiticians and societies of EU and US were drawing it.

I think you have most people here fooled on that, as attempting to justify a loss of right for no valid is defending it in my view.

Where did I say that?

You have mentioned a number of time that you would not feel comfortable explaining to people a homosexual friend, which raises the point 'why would you need to'? After all you don't do it for the heterosexual ones.

First, the law provides a fine as the main punishment, so what you mean by "arrest" must be the kind of "arrest" when police takes its "customer" to a local police station to fill the protocol of administrative offense and let go. The same as what happens when cops take a person away for being drunk on public.

All of which is beside the point, the law removes rights from people for no valid reason.

Second, what is "Russian lifestyle"?
Well, let's take Orthodox Christianity. I am Orthodox, but I don't feel it necessary to yell about it everywhere or convince the local children to switch their religion to Orthodox. So I think I wouldn't cause any trouble in that hypothetical country with an "anti-Orthodox" law.

Or, another example: Latvia has a ban on "communist propaganda" - and any symbols of Soviet Union demonstrated on public. I'm not a communist, but if I was, I think I would be able to refrain myself from waving a red banner on the streets of Riga if I really had to visit it.

No lets stick with Russian lifestyle, because you question clearly highlights the point.

I ask back what is a homosexual lifestyle?

So now given that no 'standard' exists for both how comfortable would you be, given that you can now be arrested for something that is not fixed and is utterly subjective (and you don't get to set those terms). You could potentially be arrested for anything the law deems is Russian lifestyle, regardless of how accurate that is.

I mean that most Russians understand the term 'marriage' as a union of a man and woman only.
As for me, I would accept the idea of same-sex unions that have equal rights with the traditional 'marriage' but are not called 'marriage'. Like it's done in some states of the US.

Then its not a marriage is it.

A few points here, you have (as most Christians do) taken and redefined marriage to suit your own purposes, you don't get to do that.

Secondly, how about heterosexuals pick another word and we give Marriage to same-sex unions

 

[Danny]

Supreme Court Will Not Hear Any Same-Sex Marriage Cases.

 

[Joel]

Reminds me of this (language warning).

 

[Rage Racer]

In the mean time lets stop people discussing it in a number of ways, because that's not going to continue to reinforce stereotypes and cause division is it?

What does continue to reinforce stereotypes are public gay parades. When our TV news show gay parades in France / Germany / UK / anywhere else, all those men in female clothes etc, people who watch this think: "Damn, this is disgusting! I'd hate this to happen in my city!".

What does Texan have to do with it.

Texas is one of the states having "No Promo Homo" laws similar to the Russian one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ies-similar-to-russias-ban-on-gay-propaganda/

Disobedience =/= violent protest.

A protest doesn't have to be violent to be against the law and subject to bust.
You probably have seen many photos of Russian gay activists beaten hard by the police after an illegal rally. It wasn't homophobia that has brought this on them - it was their disobedience.

You have mentioned a number of time that you would not feel comfortable explaining to people a homosexual friend, which raises the point 'why would you need to'? After all you don't do it for the heterosexual ones.

Uhm, I think there's some misunderstanding, I did not say anything about introducing a gay friend, or that I feel it necessary to mention anyone's orientation.

No lets stick with Russian lifestyle, because you question clearly highlights the point.

I ask back what is a homosexual lifestyle?

So now given that no 'standard' exists for both how comfortable would you be, given that you can now be arrested for something that is not fixed and is utterly subjective (and you don't get to set those terms). You could potentially be arrested for anything the law deems is Russian lifestyle, regardless of how accurate that is.

Homosexual lifestyle? Uhm, I don't know exactly, perhaps, it's behaving like a metrosexual (meticious about grooming and appearance, etc) + actual homosexuality. Neither of this is punished by any Russian laws.

Does an average gay person in Europe feel it as his/her duty to wave a rainbow flag anywhere he/she likes and whine about his/her orientation on a crowded street? If not, there's nothing to be afraid of from the Russian law enforcers.

When I am abroad, I do not yell "Hey, I am Russian, look at me! You must tolerate me!" on public, or block any streets with a "Russian parade". It would just look ridiculous, no matter if banned by a law or not. Besides, I'd be coming to that country for something other than this, so I'll have some better things to do.

Then its not a marriage is it.

A few points here, you have (as most Christians do) taken and redefined marriage to suit your own purposes, you don't get to do that.

Secondly, how about heterosexuals pick another word and we give Marriage to same-sex unions

No, 'marriage' is already reserved to heteros.

 

[Scaff]

What does continue to reinforce stereotypes are public gay parades. When our TV news show gay parades in France / Germany / UK / anywhere else, all those men in female clothes etc, people who watch this think: "Damn, this is disgusting! I'd hate this to happen in my city!".

Hate to break it to you but not everyone thinks like that, but good job on re-enforcing those stereotypes again.

Texas is one of the states having "No Promo Homo" laws similar to the Russian one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ies-similar-to-russias-ban-on-gay-propaganda/

Which I will quite happily condemn to the exact same degree I do Russia's law. You seem to forget I did the exact same thing in regard to the UK's old Clause 28!

A protest doesn't have to be violent to be against the law and subject to bust.
You probably have seen many photos of Russian gay activists beaten hard by the police after an illegal rally. It wasn't homophobia that has brought this on them - it was their disobedience.

Sorry but are you saying that holding a peaceful, but unotherised rally is worthy of being 'beaten hard'?

Uhm, I think there's some misunderstanding, I did not say anything about introducing a gay friend, or that I feel it necessary to mention anyone's orientation.

I only ask as you do seem rather obsessed with describing it as 'wrong', so how exactly would you deal with it?

Homosexual lifestyle? Uhm, I don't know exactly, perhaps, it's behaving like a metrosexual (meticious about grooming and appearance, etc) + actual homosexuality. Neither of this is punished by any Russian laws.

So you have no idea, and yet you seem quite happy to have a law framed in a manner that you are incapable of even defining.

Does an average gay person in Europe feel it as his/her duty to wave a rainbow flag anywhere he/she likes and whine about his/her orientation on a crowded street? If not, there's nothing to be afraid of from the Russian law enforcers.

The level of intolerance you show here is incredibly telling, and you can't help by build on thsoe stereotypes can you.

Let me ask you, what harm are they doing if they wish to do that and why should it be illegal. The later point being the key one.

When I am abroad, I do not yell "Hey, I am Russian, look at me! You must tolerate me!" on public, or block any streets with a "Russian parade". It would just look ridiculous, no matter if banned by a law or not. Besides, I'd be coming to that country for something other than this, so I'll have some better things to do.

That's not the point, its that the law is worded in a way that allows anything to be considered an X Lifestyle. Without an actual definition is a blanket tool that can be miss-used.

No, 'marriage' is already reserved to heteros.

Really. Based on what?

 

[NotThePrez]

A protest doesn't have to be violent to be against the law and subject to bust.
You probably have seen many photos of Russian gay activists beaten hard by the police after an illegal rally. It wasn't homophobia that has brought this on them - it was their disobedience.

So a small, nonviolent & non-confrontational protest = being beaten by the police? That is incredibly horrifying.

 

[FoolKiller]

What does continue to reinforce stereotypes are public gay parades. When our TV news show gay parades in France / Germany / UK / anywhere else, all those men in female clothes etc, people who watch this think: "Damn, this is disgusting! I'd hate this to happen in my city!".

While I don't th HK government should regulate marriage at all, and will take equal recognition of all marriages between consenting adults as a consolation, I do see a point here.

Anytime a group goes out and thrusts the stereotypes it is accused of in the faces of those who disapprove I believe that they are doing more harm to their cause than good. A gay man who only crossdresses for a parade and then acts over-the-top while there reinforces the image of the stereotypes they are trying to beat. This goes the same for pro-gun advocates putting videos of themselves mishandling a gun or yelling "YeeHaw" while shooting randome stuff online and animal rights or environmentalists destroying private property that they see as a symbol of what they oppose. Even race and religion based groups do this. You gain very little ground by doing these kinds of things.

That said, they need to do something or they will be ignored. If they walked quietly down the streets in suits and ties you wouldn't see them on the news or hear their grievances. There is a balance in peaceful protest and possibly civil disobedience without being a nuisance or offensive. If you're going to block streets let the local law enforcement in on your plan. If they won't help then march down the sidewalks chanting loudly. You don't unexpectedly disturb necessary functions of the city and but you can get attention.


Of course, if human beings didn't seem to have a natural tendency to be prejudiced bigots, afraid of anything they don't understand none of this would be necessary.

Want to make them go away and quit getting in your face? Treat them exactly like you would everyone else. Suddenly, they just become another citizen living their lives.

 

[DK]

What does continue to reinforce stereotypes are public gay parades. When our TV news show gay parades in France / Germany / UK / anywhere else, all those men in female clothes etc, people who watch this think: "Damn, this is disgusting! I'd hate this to happen in my city!".

Of course, Glorious Vladimir would not want his subjects to see gay people who don't look stereotypical. It would confuse the Occupy Paedophilia-types.

 

[Joel]

FYI @Rage Racer you've gone far beyond defending unfair media coverage of Russia. You've shown your true colours here and it's not pretty. You're defending these laws to validate your own views which you know deep down are wrong. As per usual, there's a legitimate argument that the west is perceiving Russia unfairly. You acknowledge that, and then keep on going and try to claim that what Russia's doing is no worse than anyone else.

We can all see through it. Call me biased all you want but I don't know how you can sit there and defend these laws. "Texas sucks too lol" isn't a good argument.