
Google shows support for LGBT Olympians - coloneltcb
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&authuser=0&ei=rCT0UvnANsH_igLy2IDQCw&ved=0CBgQ1S4
======
sethbannon
For those unfamiliar with the issue of gay rights abuses in Russia, this
article offers a fine history:
[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/12/gay-
ri...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/12/gay-rights-and-
putins-olympics.html)

~~~
vidoc
Didn't Utah get the winter Olympics a few years ago ? :)

~~~
aray
Utah, while prohibiting gay marriage, nevertheless still let gay people meet
(gatherings), distribute information, and speak publicly about the topic.

~~~
osipov
Russia allows these things too except for the part of getting minors involved.

EDIT: The Wikipedia article is full of hedging on this topic, e.g.

\- "According to _some commentators_..."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Bans_on_....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Bans_on_.22homosexual_propaganda_to_minors.22)

\- "Under the statute it is _effectively illegal_",
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#National_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#National_laws)

Since when did journalists become legal scholars? Shouldn't we evaluate laws
based on legal outcomes, not on a journalist's speculation?

~~~
Lazare
You're getting a lot of downvotes, but I see most people aren't bothering to
explain your error to you. Let me help:

We're concerned with the amount of oppression _actually_ occurring in Russia,
and with the actual life of actual gay men and women in Russia. Your comments
and links focus on the laws, but it is very possible to pass a wonderful
sounding law and then ignore it in practice. In fact, Russia's predecessor,
the Soviet Union, was famous for doing just this. Their constitution
guaranteed a wide range of freedoms which were never actually enjoyed by the
subjects of the Soviet empire.

If we want to evaluate the drafting of a law, we would _of course_ turn to a
legal scholar; their views on phrasing are critical. But if you want to know
about life on the street, you turn to a journalist.

You stress the word "effectively" in the phrase "effectively illegal", as if
this undermines the importance. It does nothing of the kind, because we want
to know if you can hold an actual gay pride parade in Moscow (which you
cannot), not whether any given law, if read and applied fairly, would ban gay
pride parades (which it arguably does not).

And I see this same mistake (trying to analyse the laws rather than their
application) repeatedly in your comments and in the sources you cite. You're
effectively arguing that it doesn't matter if a law is being used to repress
and hurt people, if you can find someone arguing that the law shouldn't be
used this way. As if this magically makes the actual harm to actual people go
away. But this is nonsense.

At the end of the day, their are gay pride parades in, eg, Utah, but not in,
eg, Moscow. And everything you've said and linked to does not address this
core point, that homosexuals are being brutally repressed in Russia, and not
in the US.

~~~
mlvljr
Gay pride in Moscow? You must be nuts, honestly :)

Neither do we want it here, nor feel the necessity to allow, either
practically, or legislatively, period.

As for the alleged atrocities happening to those against whom the law is
aimed, let's read the paper linked.

~~~
JulianMorrison
You have no right to stop it. And your lack of "want" is disgusting
homophobia.

~~~
mlvljr
No, we have every right to decide for ourselves and our children here :)

(also, no phobia, but given your language, well -- disgust you back, to say
so)

~~~
JulianMorrison
For yourself, yes.

For the other people who might be gay, and for the children who might be gay
(at least 1% of them even at maximum oppression, and much more in an accepting
society), no. You have no right to interfere, to force your unscientific and
bigoted ideas on them, or to harm, oppress or imprison them. Your law is
wrong. Your culture is wrong. Stop.

~~~
mlvljr
I already made myself quite explicit here, I think -- _the rules_ governing
the situation, and the where it actually goes (whether it is legal to promote
being gay or to have six wifes, etc.) is a matter of collective choice --
which the overwhelming majority here has made long ago, and which is now
formalized by the law.

And exactly matching your point on the colorful percentage varying depending
on the established attitude, we plain prefer our future to remain 99% hetero
(and not, say, become 80%), that simple :)

Speaking of culture, mine, I believe, is, sadly, better than yours (again,
bigot you back!), as is my understanding of what is actually happening here.

~~~
eropple
A culture that oppresses people because of their genetic makeup is literally
never _better_.

~~~
mlvljr
No one speaks of oppression here -- those genetically different should possess
all the usual rights (and even public sympathy to the complications their
relative loneliness brings, not hatred).

Rights, but not the means to "convert" others in a long-term -- as where the
society as a whole goes is a holistic choice, with the voices of 1% playing
roughly proportional role.

~~~
eropple
Of course nobody speaks of oppression. Except the ones who do and spend time
in jail for it.

And, no, the majority does not get to dictate the public behavior of the
minority, so far as it does not harm others, except in a society that has
internalized the intrinsic subhumanity of that minority. Which you have.
You've washed your brain and I am done with you.

It's amazing that there are people who still think that letting gay people be
publicly gay _makes more gay people_. Regressive parts of the U.S. have that
problem, too, but at least they're dying off.

~~~
mlvljr
>> You've washed your brain and I am done with you. >> Of course nobody speaks
of oppression. Except the ones who do and spend time in jail for it.

Sounds more like me being done with you, honestly, but farewell (and good luck
supporting non-existent jailed public homosexuality evangelists) :)

------
boyter
The LGBT Russia thing is totally blown out of proportion.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/203382931/Russian-Lgbt-Law-
White-P...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/203382931/Russian-Lgbt-Law-White-Paper)

Before you decide to down-vote me into oblivion and accuse me of hating
minority groups please read the white paper linked above. Note I am not
affiliated with the person who wrote it or scribd. I just want people to see
both sides of the argument.

EDIT - And what a surprise down-voted. Seriously did anyone clicking the down
arrow actually read the paper? Considering how long it is and that this post
is 5 minutes old I seriously doubt it.

~~~
magicalist
Still reading, but impressions on the intro and first chapter: what a totally
bizarre paper. It's a "white paper", but it's written as an autobiographical
narrative of his research process. And usually "Executive Summary" does not
refer to a top 10 list.

It's very obviously written for the purposes of advocacy, despite
protestations that it's not. The defense of this law seems to be:

1) It's not that bad. It doesn't target the LGBT community, it just bans any
sort of public acknowledgement of a class of people that just _happens_ to
include LGBT folks.

2) The media has blown this way out of proportion by saying what the law only
implies. Also by not mentioning that the law was enacted to protect the
children. Why don't they mention the children?

3) Even if the law is that bad, it hasn't been enforced much yet.

4) Even if the law is bad, those guys over there are just as bed.

Oh yeah, definitely want to consider both sides of this argument.

Just out of curiosity, boyter. When you refer to "both sides", how would you
sum up the other side in one sentence? "It's not that bad" is not, in fact, a
defense of anything.

~~~
magicalist
_" Would the US government and news media (all owned by multinational
conglomerates) implement a enormous propaganda campaign demanding the repeal
of Russian Federation Federal Law No. 135-FZ because of the potential revenue
loss a company in violation could incur with a 90 day suspension resulting in
lower than projected revenues leading to a negative impact on the company’s
stock price and ultimately causing a negative impact on key US economic
indicators?"_

 _" With all that in mind, we can conclude that the only accurate, fact-based,
logical answer to the question is YES"_

Wow, just wow.

This guy is a nutjob. He argues with a straight face that the Russian law
isn't targeting the LGBT community, just non-traditional sexual relationships.
He's either a liar about his long involvement in the LGBT community or he's
learned absolutely nothing from it, as it's classic couching of terms as
cover.

He even brings up the (unenforceable) anti-sodomy laws in US states,
discussing how the majority of them are actually written to outlaw sodomy
(non-vaginal intercourse) between any two people, not just same-sex couples,
but they were used as tools to specifically target homosexual long after they
were no longer (or rarely) enforced against heterosexual people. And yet he
can't seem to connect the dots.

In any case, this goes from infuriating to fucking stupid pretty quickly.
Check out the pages culminating in the conclusion I quoted above on page 70.

~~~
boyter
Personally I ignored the conclusion's. I am more interested in the
facts/citations which appear to be correct.

------
paul_f
I couldn't care less about anyone's sexual preference. But I find it wholly
unfair that someone could change from a man to a woman and then compete
against other women. That is something altogether different and should not be
accepted in the Olympics in my opinion.

------
ck2
I realize the difference with Russia is that it is practically illegal for
LGBT to exist but let's talk about the USA for a moment where 33 states refuse
to consider legalizing gay marriage and a few are even testing of the idea of
emergency suspending ALL marriages just so people who are gay cannot marry if
they cannot be excluded separately.

There are still plenty of places in the USA where you could be killed for
being gay, the difference is not by the state but by individuals.

So we are not exactly a shining beacon ourselves.

~~~
olegious
From the white paper linked below-

"Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a
crime."

~~~
shalmanese
All state based sodomy laws were invalidated by Lawrence vs Texas in 2003
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)).
The only reason the laws are still on the books is because they've been
knowingly superceded.

~~~
osipov
Check out the Supremacy Clause
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)

"The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is
acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers."

Congress does not have an authority to govern sexual conduct. Just because
enforcement of sodomy laws has been unpopular long before 2003, doesn't mean
they don't exist.

~~~
Lazare
...wow. You really don't understand how the US legal system works, do you?

Hint: The Supremacy Clause limits federal law; the product of the legislative
branch. Lawrence v. Texas is court decision; the product of the judicial
branch. That's like saying the second amendment requires the legalisation of
marijuana because pot is a type of rifle. ><

------
justinzollars
I'm proud the tech community is so solidly behind LGBT issues.

~~~
pyrocat
LGB at least.
[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BKgdvjmFK4c/TwN5PxXVH1I/AAAAAAAAAr...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BKgdvjmFK4c/TwN5PxXVH1I/AAAAAAAAArs/4sOWo1Bpmv0/s1600/LGB-
and-also-T-6501.png)

~~~
devilshaircut
Just LG I think many people would say, actually.

I've come to the point where I think the acronym is silly. I think right now
we are up to "LGBTQIAPK". I may be a little out of date on that.

The fact is, some of the issues between the groups in the acronym are shared
and some aren't. At one point in time, banding together for them was probably
useful if not necessary. Today I think each group would be better going it
alone, as they all have very unique concerns.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Our shared problem is patriarchy and gender roles. "Why would a man take the
inferior role" is behind phobia of gay men and trans women. "Don't let a woman
get out of her place, as a sex object for men" is behind phobia of lesbians
and trans men. Banding together makes sense.

~~~
waps
With the exception of T in sports, unless they compete in their "old" gender.
Men and women's bodies are different due to chemical reasons, not just looks.
Transgender operations only change the looks, not the chemical reality
underneath.

So the outcome of that is obvious : either disallow people to choose gender in
sports, or live with the knowledge that all female records will be broken by
(ex-)men in no time whatsoever.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The actual scientists, who aren't bigots, have concluded that trans women have
no testosterone advantage. After a year or two, a trans woman on testosterone
blockers and estrogen (or surgery and estrogen) has the musculature of a
woman. Bone mass doesn't change, but that's a disadvantage - more weight to
lug around. This is why the olympics and other sporting bodies allow trans
women to compete as women.

------
taopao
It's more than just the games. The laws are effectively sanctioning violence
against gays.

[http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/03/russia-sochi-games-
highli...](http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/02/03/russia-sochi-games-highlight-
homophobic-violence)

------
Sergiu37
Well the olympics already discriminates against mens in women competitions and
vice versa. But anyway LGBT support or condamnations is pure bullshit and
should not be in the Olympics.

To much sex talking. Just because there's so much sexual media doesn't mean
that the LGBT should get their part of the attention on the news. We should go
the other way and talk less about sex in the media.

~~~
seivan
I guess it's not really your fault that you connect LGBT ot sex. Your society
really did fail you.

------
tareqak
Too bad encrypted.google.com doesn't have doodles.

~~~
robotfelix
It's not a doodle, it's a footer.

And for those who for whatever reason cannot see it on Google, it reads: "The
practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility
of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic
spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship,
solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter

~~~
socksy
It's a doodle too, try going to a google homepage where it's the 7th already:
[http://google.ru](http://google.ru)
[http://google.co.uk](http://google.co.uk) etc

