The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Pete05]

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.

There's a saying that goes:

If it quacks like a duck & looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
He's not fooling anyone

 

[FoolKiller]

FYI @Rage Racer

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.

I think that jumping on him in this way is far from constructive. Our own personalities will be affected by our culture. If a person grows up in a culture that thinks a certain way they will be fully engulfed in the message that is the way it should be. You see it in politics and religion all the time. It is the same reason why presidential elections in the United States come down to the same handful of states every time. All the others are set in the same pattern generation to generation.

Granted @Rage Racer took on some poor debate tactics and dug himself into this hole, but as a guy who lives in a state where gay marriage is illegal and our governor is actively fighting in courts to not recognize a gay marriage from another state (to the point that the state attorney general asked to be removed from the case) I can understand how he got to this point. I see it around me every day.

I also understand his reaction to defend his culture. Even disagreeing with many of those around me I hate hearing Kentucky stereotypes being taken seriously because I also know that there are areas that have large diversity. No one is fleeing the state for fear of persecution.

As a victim of negative cultural media portrayal (The most positive few we have is Justified) I think we owe it to him, and much of Russia to not take media at face value. I'm not saying that Russia should get a complete pass for their laws, but Ridge Racer didn't write the laws. I don't even know if it was a ballot initiative or just passed by the government.

Truth is, despite all the negative media, I haven't heard a story that goes beyond the public gang raping of women or anything else that has happened in America or Europe in the last 20 years. Maybe some of you are too young to know how things were in the 80s and even into the 90s in our "advanced" cultures. Russia is where the US was during my childhood. Cultures evolve. That takes time. You can't just shame them into reaching your stage of acceptance.

Even my own personal views have changed in the last 20 years. And that is because I outgrew my upbringing.

 

[Joel]

Yeah, I understand what you mean, and I can certainly understand wanting to correct misinformation and defend your country's name. What I'm saying is that the smokescreen of correcting western media bias is getting a bit stretched out here. There's clearly more at play at and some point you have to call a spade a spade.

I certainly don't blame Rage Racer for the laws. But to try and turn it around and say that it's actually all OK and just media bias and it's the gay's fault for having illegal parades is going beyond defending unfair media. If he doesn't support the laws or that aspect of his culture, he hasn't done a very good job of making it clear.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, I understand what you mean, and I can certainly understand wanting to correct misinformation and defend your country's name. What I'm saying is that the smokescreen of correcting western media bias is getting a bit stretched out here. There's clearly more at play at and some point you have to call a spade a spade.

I certainly don't blame Rage Racer for the laws. But to try and turn it around and say that it's actually all OK and just media bias and it's the gay's fault for having illegal parades is going beyond defending unfair media. If he doesn't support the laws or that aspect of his culture, he hasn't done a very good job of making it clear.

From what has been said I think he might agree with many of the laws. Fact is, so do many Americans I know. But in both cases a lot of ignorance, lack of experience or information, combined with a culture that would equally stigmatize him for trying to know more makes it hard for him to see another view.

I argue that it is on him to learn more, but I don't see him as any worse than Americans who support bad economic policy, school policies, or vote just to not have the other guy in office. People have a heavy group mindset. If the group says it is good they follow along. But let's be honest, the fact that he has come on here and is willing to engage in this debate and put his views out to be challenged makes him better than most. Even more so that it didn't involve stating his case and stomping off at the first challenge.

He is engaging appropriately. Let's give him that much credit.

 

[LeMansAid]

I agree with you @FoolKiller. The very first interaction I had with @Rage Racer was in this thread where I said something along the lines of - Your attitudes will evolve over time. Looking back, you might be embarrassed about some of the things you said, but worse will be looking back at the people you hurt.

Some may want to redress their aims, and recognise that an even remotely malleable person is worth working with, rather than against.

 

[Aki Ko]

I just realized the title of this thread was changed.

I guess it's more appropriate in this day and age.

 

[LeMansAid]

I just realized the title of this thread was changed.

I guess it's more appropriate in this day and age.

While what's considered appropriate may change over time, what is more appropriate does not.

There's a saying that goes:

If it quacks like a duck & looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
He's not fooling anyone

You ok to have that principle applied to camp guys and butch girls?

Apparently, along with others, you would also deem @Imari gay.

 

[Pete05]

While what's considered appropriate may change over time, what is more appropriate does not.

You ok to have that principle applied to camp guys and butch girls?

Apparently, along with others, you would also deem @Imari gay.

I've met 'camp' guys that are straight and 'butch' girls that are straight too.
I've also met their polar opposites and all sorts in between.
I've never met @Imari so.....

I'd be considered 'straight-acting' but I'm not straight.

 

[LeMansAid]

I've met 'camp' guys that are straight and 'butch' girls that are straight too.
I've also met their polar opposites and all sorts in between.
I've never met @Imari so.....

I'd be considered 'straight-acting' but I'm not straight.

It's about uniformly applying principles. That's what I'm getting at.

Often people "cherry pick" their attitudes based on what's socially the more widely acceptable in a particular environment, rather than adhering to a principle. If you want to draw conclusions based on "looks like" on one thing, you need to be willing to accept others doing the same on other things, and you yourself should also do the same on the other things, for equivalency. I try to apply the same standard of evidence across the board. Here, that might appear to some that I choose not to recognise homophobia, or that I make presumptions about homosexuality, when in reality I'm only applying the same standard of evidence in both situations. The one in the middle is viewed as left by the right and right by the left, but is actually constant in their application.

So basically, apply the same to @Rage Racer that you would apply to someone with "mannerisms" as @Imari has put it.

The principle/standard shouldn't change with the topic.

 

[Aki Ko]

Oh, here we go with the related topic of stereotypes.

I don't get how someone can act 'gay' like I don't get how someone can act 'straight'. Being a gay person and "behaving like a gay guy" are two separate things that shouldn't be correlated with each other. One is just having a sexual trait that is just a feature of yourself. The other is following the unnecessary, inaccurate stereotypes that has been passed down by ignorant, closed-minded individuals which hasn't been challenged by most people; they just listen and take that stereotype as a fact when it definitely shouldn't.
The same can be said for straight people; guys do not have to go to the gym everyday (although exercise is good) and chase girls around like how their dad did during their age, and girls do not have to put on make-up (I hate how make-up is used as a cover for natural beauty) and go on diets to maintain their size so they can be deemed as "attractive".

As I said before, sexual attraction doesn't define you as a person unless you choose to go down for a life that is nothing but sexual desire; if you want to do that, then by all means go for it. Who am I to dictate what people do? Who are you to dictate how others live without them asking their permission to be judged? (What I mean is that you can only truly judge when someone asks you on their life. You can judge in private within your mind all you want, but you don't have the right how to tell how that person should live. You do not control the person, you do not own the person, you are not related to the person, you keep to yourself.) If you think otherwise, please do explain that to me.

As guilty as I am by doing this, there is no actual way of determining who is gay, straight, bi, etc just by looks (unless you have a damn good gaydar). Some fit the stereotypes just by looks, but it is not a guarantee that that is true. Every person has their own definition and differences that cannot be classified as one group- there's just too many common characteristics that can be plucked and neglect all the other aspects that make that person unique. You might have to get to know the person, and that could takes weeks, months, or even years. (Even then, you still won't know 100%. People are subjected to change, and you can't predict that change until it happens.)

This is just me getting a small rant out....

 

[Rage Racer]

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.

You might say, LGBT communities are sponsored by Kremlin so they show themselves off stereotypically.
Also, Tesak is already in prison if you're unaware.

@FoolKiller
I agree here - if LGBT organizations had chosen a different strategy of promoting their interests, they probably would reach some positive results in Russia and the gay propaganda law wouldn't even appear.

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!

I remember that well, but that's not the point. I don't condemn or approve their policies, it's their own concern. What I'm talking about is, Obama had condemned Russia for that law, but does he condemn his own states for "No Promo Homo" like that? Same question about the press.

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

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

If you're holding an unauthorized rally (no matter if it's about LGBT or not), the law enforcers will ask you to stop it. If you resist, they will use force to maintain order, nothing personal.

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

Yes society describes it as 'wrong', but no one wants to hear about it , if they are not discussing it at the moment.

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.

...

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.

First, this law does not make me any happy.
Second, there is no law containing "homosexual lifestyle" or any other "lifestyle" term.

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.

The same kind of harm that public nudity would do in the West or a woman with uncovered head would do in Iran. Doing what I've told is questionable to be qualified as 'propaganda', but in any case, it won't be liked by the most people around.
But why would they need to do so? I do believe that most homosexuals are not stereotypic, Conchita Wurst-like freaky crossdressers. What's the problem then?

Really. Based on what?

History, traditions, morality, the Family Code, people's mentality, etc etc.

BTW, when Putin is asked by anyone, "Y U NO legalize gay marriage??", he usually uses Muslims as an excuse: "Well, can you imagine gay marriage in Chechnya?"
Seriously, how would you answer this question?

@Noob616
First, I don't defend that law, I would like to have these two moronic 'morality fighters' - Milonov and Mizulina - removed from the Duma, if I could.

Second, I almost wasn't talking about my own views, all this "wrong, abnormal, deviant", etc - I was talking about the view of the majority of Russian society, mostly Soviet-grown generation. I was saying "we" as "Russian people", but my own personal view is... a bit different.

And third, I know our media exploits stereotypes, but the Western press imposes the stereotype about "Russian state homophobia", too. A certain someone in this thread had paralleled Putin with Hitler. This is pure political propaganda. That's why I started this discussion. Mass media have a label to stick on the enemy, and they were doing it. But today, there is another, more impressive one. And another story...

 

[huskeR32]

I do believe that most homosexuals are not stereotypic, Conchita Wurst-like freaky crossdressers. What's the problem then?

As long as you continue to say things like this, you're going to continue to come off as bigoted.

What does it matter if somebody crossdresses or not? Why does that need to be labeled "freaky?" If you're not OK with all of the ways people might choose to express their homosexuality, then you're not truly OK with homosexuality at all.

 

[BobK]

What does it matter if somebody crossdresses or not? Why does that need to be labeled "freaky?"

Possibly he used the "freaky" modifier to distinguish between non-freaky and freaky crossdressers? If he felt that all cross-dressers were freaky, I'd think he'd have left the word out as redundant.

If you're not OK with all of the ways people might choose to express their homosexuality, then you're not truly OK with homosexuality at all.

When someone "expresses their homosexuality" by grabbing my crotch, that doesn't mean I'm not OK with homosexuality in general. It does mean I'm very much against that particular means of expressing it. Yes that's happened.

 

[huskeR32]

When someone "expresses their homosexuality" by grabbing my crotch, that doesn't mean I'm not OK with homosexuality in general. It does mean I'm very much against that particular means of expressing it. Yes that's happened.

I knew somebody was going to take it there. That's not expressing anything, that's sexual assault. Clearly, that lies outside the bounds of what I'm saying.

 

[BobK]

I knew somebody was going to take it there. That's not expressing anything, that's sexual assault. Clearly, that lies outside the bounds of what I'm saying.

Yes, it clearly is sexual assault. Which makes it a totally impermissible way of expressing sexual interest. Since it's a guy-guy interest, it's also expressing homosexual interest. So just why is it outside the bounds of what you're saying?

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKiller
I agree here - if LGBT organizations had chosen a different strategy of promoting their interests, they probably would reach some positive results in Russia and the gay propaganda law wouldn't even appear.

Whoa! I am not saying it justifies that law in anyway. I am talking about public opinion and stereotypes.

That law should never exist in a country that wishes to call itself free. In the US we allow groups like Neo-nazis and the KKK to speak and march. Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society.

 

[Scaff]

Possibly he used the "freaky" modifier to distinguish between non-freaky and freaky crossdressers? If he felt that all cross-dressers were freaky, I'd think he'd have left the word out as redundant.

Unless he wishes to emphasis that he considers cross dressing freaky, and given the overall tone of his posts I would personal consider that more likely.

 

[niky]

History, traditions, morality, the Family Code, people's mentality, etc etc.

Nope. Nope. NOPE. etcetera.

Gay partnerships feature prominently in written history. Traditions, even for Abrahmic religions, include polygamy, too. And we frown on that now.

BTW, when Putin is asked by anyone, "Y U NO legalize gay marriage??", he usually uses Muslims as an excuse: "Well, can you imagine gay marriage in Chechnya?"
Seriously, how would you answer this question?

Because one minority has the right to dictate the laws of the land? Does he forbid Muslims from having multiple wives because the Orthodox Christians would frown on it? Yes, polygamy has no legal basis there, but they are not regarded as criminal.

-

Consenting adults have the right to enter into any marriage contract they want. They should have the right to enter into such a civil contract with no limitations imposed by the state.

The only time the State should intervene is if the marriage is entered into via coercion or force. Period.

 

[huskeR32]

Yes, it clearly is sexual assault. Which makes it a totally impermissible way of expressing sexual interest. Since it's a guy-guy interest, it's also expressing homosexual interest. So just why is it outside the bounds of what you're saying?

Fine.

If you're not OK with all of the ways people might choose to express their homosexuality (that aren't crimes and/or an infringement on another person's rights and well-being), then you're not truly OK with homosexuality at all.

Better? Frankly it's ridiculous that you're pressing that point, as if it needs to be explicitly included every time somebody promotes acceptance.

I also support the rights of heterosexuals to express themselves. Do you need me to explicitly state that my support stops at raping a woman?

 

[FoolKiller]

I also support the rights of heterosexuals to express themselves. Do you need me to explicitly state that my support stops at raping a woman?

Considering I know some feminists who think The Man Show is just about going, "Let's drink some beers and rape!" yeah it probably does need to be clarified around some people.

I also had a woman tell me once that the male version of "chick flick" romantic comedies was porn. And I knew a girl who said that looking at porn turned you into a rapist and/or child molester.



None of that means it should be necessary, but I can think of reactions about heterosexuality that would be the same.

 

[Rage Racer]

As long as you continue to say things like this, you're going to continue to come off as bigoted.

What does it matter if somebody crossdresses or not? Why does that need to be labeled "freaky?" If you're not OK with all of the ways people might choose to express their homosexuality, then you're not truly OK with homosexuality at all.

Freaky = very odd, strange, or eccentric. Correct meaning?
Yes, crossdressing is considered freaky in Russia.

Whoa! I am not saying it justifies that law in anyway. I am talking about public opinion and stereotypes.

I'm not defending the law, too, but it wouldn't appear for no reason. With that way the LGBT organizations promote their interests in the Russian society, they were doomed to face nothing but hostility. It only increases homophobic sentiments. And that's why the "homo promo" law was ever possible to sign. It's not Putin's left heel suddenly decided to ban gay propaganda.

That law should never exist in a country that wishes to call itself free. In the US we allow groups like Neo-nazis and the KKK to speak and march. Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society.

Nazis? Wow.
I'm not condemning the US here, but not every country is OK with that. We have Nazi propaganda banned too. And in Germany, this stuff can even get you to prison. I also have told about communists in Latvia. Not every country is so free, and they're not ought to match the American standards of freedom in everything.

Nope. Nope. NOPE. etcetera.

Gay partnerships feature prominently in written history. Traditions, even for Abrahmic religions, include polygamy, too. And we frown on that now.

I don't remember any legal gay unions in the Russian history.

Because one minority has the right to dictate the laws of the land?

First, it's not such a minority in some certain areas (depending on where are you looking). But gays are a soooo small minority everywhere across the country.

Second, it's their land, too. Why should we force them to live in a country that recognizes same-sex marriage? It'll be offensive. Do you know any country with Muslim majority and legal gay marriage? Then why Tatarstan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan (and other Russian republics with Muslim majority) are worse? Why there is no such whining as "Turkey, you must legalise gay marriage!" from the West?

Does he forbid Muslims from having multiple wives because the Orthodox Christians would frown on it? Yes, polygamy has no legal basis there, but they are not regarded as criminal.

Excuse me, do I understand it right that you think homosexuality is regarded as criminal here?

Consenting adults have the right to enter into any marriage contract they want. They should have the right to enter into such a civil contract with no limitations imposed by the state.

Even incest. Or recognize a woman marrying herself.
This is fine, do whatever you want in your land, but most Russian people would not call this "marriage".

 

[FoolKiller]

Nazis? Wow.
I'm not condemning the US here, but not every country is OK with that. We have Nazi propaganda banned too. And in Germany, this stuff can even get you to prison. I also have told about communists in Latvia. Not every country is so free, and they're not ought to match the American standards of freedom in everything.

Free speech only exists when you allow speech you don't like too. There are some exceptions for safety reasons, but being offended is not one of them.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Oh, here we go with the related topic of stereotypes.

I don't get how someone can act 'gay' like I don't get how someone can act 'straight'.

I think for most people how a guy could act "gay" is if he acts like the stereotype of a woman (the "like oh my god did you see those like, new 400$ shoes, they were like, sooo cute" kind). I'm not excusing that type of thinking, just wanted to put the most common acting gay stereotype that's out there for guys as it's amusing to me.

 

[niky]

I'm not defending the law, too, but it wouldn't appear for no reason. With that way the LGBT organizations promote their interests in the Russian society, they were doomed to face nothing but hostility. It only increases homophobic sentiments. And that's why the "homo promo" law was ever possible to sign. It's not Putin's left heel suddenly decided to ban gay propaganda.

You mean people asking to be recognized is a good reason to ban certain people from asking to be recognized? You don't stone Jews and Gipsies to death, do you, or have a law legalizing such due to anti-semitic sentiments? Try to read what you're writing...

I don't remember any legal gay unions in the Russian history.

I don't remember Abrahmic religion promoting monogamy, either. Tradition is such a poor excuse for anything.

First, it's not such a minority in some certain areas (depending on where are you looking). But gays are a soooo small minority everywhere across the country.

Second, it's their land, too. Why should we force them to live in a country that recognizes same-sex marriage? It'll be offensive. Do you know any country with Muslim majority and legal gay marriage? Then why Tatarstan, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan (and other Russian republics with Muslim majority) are worse? Why there is no such whining as "Turkey, you must legalise gay marriage!" from the West?

Yet you force them to live in a land that doesn't recognize their right to marry as many women as they want, and doesn't mandate that all women cover up their bodies and faces in front of strangers. And they're surrounded by heathens who eat pork.

Horrible, don't you think?

-

There is an outcry for Muslim countries to recognize gay rights. But this is sort of lost in the outcry for them to recognize women's rights, first.

Excuse me, do I understand it right that you think homosexuality is regarded as criminal here?

Nope. I'm pointing out the lack of legal recognition of gay marriage and a proscription against the civil union of gay couples. Any publicization of such marriage can be also be considered "gay propaganda," and punished as such.

Even incest. Or recognize a woman marrying herself.

Incest, provided both partners are adults of sound mind and that steps are taken to prevent pregnancy... that's their own problem. A woman marrying herself... I can't even begin to see the glimmering of the shadow of a problem with that. (I mean, I think both situations are pretty stupid, but I would not legislate against it.)

This is fine, do whatever you want in your land, but most Russian people would not call this "marriage".

What about those who would? What about those people who would say women should have equal rights, or that minorities deserve equal representation?

-

Most of what you're doing is rationalizing. You've got a law and a situation that you view as "normal", and you're inventing reasons for them to be that way. Russia has a terrible human rights record, and there's pretty much no defense for it. For the state to sanction discrimination under the guise of "protecting" the discriminated, forcing them to hide themselves, is utter hypocrisy.

-

As I've said before, it's pretty obvious you have no experience with homosexuality or homosexual persons, or any true understanding of the science behind the occurrence of such. Your single-minded defense and rationalization of the situation is rather sad.

 

[GBO Possum]

On the subject of gay marriage:-

 

[huskeR32]

Freaky = very odd, strange, or eccentric. Correct meaning?
Yes, crossdressing is considered freaky in Russia.

Yes, it means that, but it also carries an implied aspect of wrongness as well, at least the way it's usually used here. If your using the word didn't include that implication, then let's just move along.

But gays are a soooo small minority everywhere across the country.

Open gays may be a small minority in Russia, due to some of very things that have been discussed here in the last few pages. In reality, the proportion of gays in Russia is roughly the same as it is anywhere else.*

Regardless, a minority group's size (or lack thereof) is a terrible reason to deny them equality.


*The 10% figure from the Kinsey Reports is probably the most oft-quoted figure for the number of gays in a population, though newer studies are finding that number may be as high as 20%.**

** Sorry for the secondhand source there, the study itself is behind a paywall.

 

[Danny]

On the subject of gay marriage:-

I love Betty Bowers. As a side note, comedienne Deven Green who plays her is absolutely smoking hot if you're into dominatrix types. Language warning.

 

[Imari]

I love Betty Bowers. As a side note, comedienne Deven Green who plays her is absolutely smoking hot if you're into dominatrix types. Language warning.

Is it wrong that I just want to give her a sandwich?

 

[Daniel]

"Acting" Gay.

A mix of social construction and confirmation bias. We attribute flamboyancy and femininity to homosexuality through confirmation bias (we see that flamboyant, effeminate, "out and proud" gay guy) and say "yup, totally knew he was gay."

If you see your average Joe walking down the street, you're not going to assume that he's gay because there's no obvious features. One comment I read on this suggests that some gay guys purposefully act 'gay' as an identifier.

Unless I'm actually in a gay bar, if a guy isn't sending out some flamboyant signals I won't hit on them.

Regarding the gaydar? I don't even have one. I have an oh-god-please-be-gaydar.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Regarding the gaydar? I don't even have one. I have an oh-god-please-be-gaydar.

Actually, that's given me a question for the gay community on GTP. If you see a guy you find attractive, say in a bar, would you try chatting him up? Would you ask if he was gay? Or would you not do anything? Given that there's a fairly small chance that he's gay (~10% IIRC), I find it to be an intriguing social conundrum.