How does a law that bans gay propaganda to kids have anything to do with Olympics? They don't ban gay sportsmen or anything, I don't see why they are making such a big thing around it during the Olympics...has nothing to do with Olympics.
I wonder if Olympics were held in USA this year, would those same magazines put NSA logos and colors all over their screen just to show that spying on own citizens is bad? Or would google put DO NOT TRACK logo on their doodle? I doubt...
Yes, gay propaganda, like kissing your loved one in public. Or admitting that you find someone of the same sex "hot". I'm pretty sure gay athletes are not feeling like the big welcome mat has been rolled out for them at this year's Olympics, and Russia totally deserves to be publicly pilloried for it.
I doubt that gay athletes are thinking about promoting homosexualism among kids in Russia, they have more interesting and important things to do on Olympics games. The only people who seem to be bothered so far are the media outlets looking for bold titles.
There are so many gays in Russia and I have several gays friends back there, and they live the same life as none gay people. There is NO law agains gays in Russia, the law is agains propaganda of homosexuality to kids, thats it. A lot of Russian artists and media hosts are gays and they never hide it and Russians don't really care about it as much as Western media does.
I doubt that gay athletes are thinking about promoting homosexualism among kids in Russia,
Yeah, but we all know what this law actually involves, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
The "anti-propoganda" law essentially bans gay pride events and public defence of gay rights. It was backed by a president who directly equated homosexuality and paedophillia. That's not a gay-friendly environment, by any stretch of the imagination.
This is good old-fashioned minority-hate-stirring, and it should be roundly condemned. That fact that there are no explicit laws banning homosexuality in Russia is nearly irrelevant.
You'd be wrong, I suspect they are all deeply concerned about just what displays of public affection are considered acceptable at these Games. It's hardly fair to force them to have to face this distraction whilst they are trying to compete in a sporting event. Shame, Russia, shame.
your examples are pathetically absurd, what next, getting thrown in jail because you admire your next door neighbours body, because he goes to the gym while you stay inside all day?
We're talking about a country that put members of a rock group in jail for several years for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" when they peacefully protested against Putin. I don't think it's unreasonable, bearing that in mind, to expect that a law banning "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" will be used to prosecute people engaging in public displays of same-sex affection. Unless you have some evidence that this has been specifically excluded in the law? I mean, I'd love to be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure this is a law designed to force the gay community underground once again.
So instead of evidence, you've stated a case of a rock group who vandalised a church... Well that proves it then! Russia is obviously clearly a "baddie".
notifying the public of atrocities committed by the military / government is also illegal, and gets you tried under espionage laws, really reeks of freedom doesn't it?...
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.
Gay people are more attractive, and have more sex. They are also more successful in business due to their inbuilt GAYDAR system, which enables better networking.
Whether or not homosexuality is "innate" is entirely irrelevant to its morality. Even if it was completely a choice (as it is to some extent for bisexual people) it would still be completely okay. Personally I feel like LGBT campaigns do themselves a disservice when they focus on this argument.
Furthermore, if you're going to consider "making assertions without scientific evidence" as sufficient grounds to ban speech, you're going to be silencing a lot of people before you're done.
Saying something is innate is maybe, possibly something technically incorrect, from a biological perspective. As is saying pretty much anything about human personality and behaviour.
The reality of the political struggle is that gays are and have been oppressed, mistreated, abused, raped, labeled insane, labeled as dangerous, killed, maimed or criminalized for the "crime" which is not a crime, not to anyone with a decent sense of morality. Political messages need to be simple. "They are how they are and they do harm to no one." To try and pick apart a political slogan demanding equality and tolerance with a semantic argument as if it was a statement of biological fact betrays an intention.
Alan Turing, war hero, scientific hero & intellectual hero was convicted and chemically castrated for homosexuality. He was driven to suicide. One of many.
Sometimes in history there is a line and you can stand on one side of it or the other.
You know what? Homosexuals are being killed in the Middle East right now but for some reason, the rest of the world doesn't care. There are no similar campaigns on the scale of gay marriage campaigns to stop the mass killings of homosexuals in the Middle East. Aren't there more important battles to focus on?
Of course there are and of course people care. Most of the people focused on the Russian situation are Russians. The situation is regressing and it's acute.
BTW, this is the second red herring you've flung into the fray.
Those who support the rights of homosexuals better hope they cannot prove a genetic link. With the technology we have today many will ask to screen for it and the fight over their right to end pregnancies because of that will be far nastier than that over ending the pregnancies of birth defects and such.
It's not a ludicrous opinion because scientists have yet to determine any gene that causes homosexuality. I encourage you to Google yourself for research papers that definitively prove the causes for homosexuality. None exist.
It's a preference. As long as people with aligning sexual orientation can express this under conditions of consent, where's the problematic element? Where's the harmful or damaging part of this?
If it's a personal preference, then this has to do with culture, not biology. If it's a cultural thing, then you should realize there are different cultures out there, and one culture has no right to impose itself on others. As they say, when in Rome do as they Romans do.
I can confirm that there are gay artists, filmmakers, etc in Russia and it is common knowledge that they are gay, and they are not persecuted in any way. They are just not holding gay parades or teaching 6 year olds about gay sex. So as long as the gay athletes are not doing that, they will be perfectly fine.
For many Russians, teaching young children about gay sex is a problematic element, and I think you should respect their view when it comes to THEIR children.
> "If it's a personal preference, then this has to do with culture, not biology"
I didn't say personal preference, I said preference. It's not a choice you make, but it is an orientation. Why do you prefer members of the opposite sex? Did you choose this?
> "teaching 6 year olds about gay sex"
I doubt that actually ever happens.
> "For many Russians, teaching young children about gay sex is a problematic element, and I think you should respect their view when it comes to THEIR children"
So I should moderate my reasonable behaviour because you feel awkward explaining it to your kid? Your communication problems mean I shouldn't hold hands with or kiss someone of the same gender, in case they see it?
> I didn't say personal preference, I said preference. It's not a choice you make, but it is an orientation.
Straight sexual orientation is clearly biological. So it's not a question of choice. As far as I can tell, there is no such clear view on homosexuality - i.e. personal choice may be a big factor there. Even if it is largely biological, there are different ways in which a particular culture deals with certain biological functions. E.g., women may have to cover their hair in public in some cultures, while in others not covering their breasts is normal. The same issue is with Russia: open demonstration of your gay orientation is just not acceptable in the Russian culture. The West has to just live with it, in the same manner as it lives with the fact that Muslim women wear headscarves in their home countries.
> So I should moderate my reasonable behaviour because you feel awkward explaining it to your kid? Your communication problems mean I shouldn't hold hands with or kiss someone of the same gender, in case they see it?
Remember, it's reasonable in your culture, not in mine. My culture is not a communication problem.
> "Remember, it's reasonable in your culture, not in mine."
It's not really, Ireland is as backwards as anywhere else on the issue.
> "My culture is not a communication problem"
Your culture is not an excuse for discrimination any more than it might be an excuse for enforced dress codes or genital mutilation. It's all disgraceful behaviour, no matter how you might like to dress it up as your culture or tradition (and therefore somehow deserving more respect).
"Tradition" and "culture" simply translate to "fear of change". If your culture is a culture of repression then no, I do not have to respect it.
> genital mutilation. It's all disgraceful behaviour, ... If your culture is a culture of repression then no, I do not have to respect it.
Right there, you violated a human right, freedom of religion. Would Orthodox Jews, for example, agree that circumcision is "repression", "disgraceful behaviour" and "fear of change", "dressed up" like a tradition?
Which is even more worrying, you are trying to enforce these views not only in your own country, but in countries foreign for you.
A while ago there was news about a couple in Germany who had sex on a parking lot near a supermarket, and who were arrested for that. Was that "repression", "fear of change", or "discrimination"?
> Right there, you violated a human right, freedom of religion
I did no such thing. Your rights end where mine begin. No matter how core it is to your religion, you may not injure or kill me.
> A while ago there was news about a couple in Germany who had sex on a parking lot near a supermarket, and who were arrested for that. Was that "repression"
Nobody is arguing for that, nobody wants to see you have sex. Maybe some day we'll be perfectly accepting of sex in public, but I feel you are trying to conflate different arguments.
I want the right for informed, consenting adults to be able to have sex in the privacy of their own homes should they so desire, and to not be cast as demons in the society they live in - this talk of corrupting youth is archaic garbage. Sure, your culture loves it, but that's because it has some growing up to do.
> No matter how core it is to your religion, you may not injure or kill me.
Well, you should respect my religion or at least be sensitive about it (if you want to have some dialog). When I come to your country, I won't make a fuss seeing gays kiss. When you come to my country, do not go protesting the fact there no gays kissing in public.
> Maybe some day we'll be perfectly accepting of sex in public, but I feel you are trying to conflate different arguments.
It's the same thing. Having sex in public is not dangerous to anyone, it's someone's natural function. It is simply in the Western culture, when done in public, it produces a cultural shock. Kissing gays produce a similar shock in Russia.
> this talk of corrupting youth is archaic garbage.
Is the prohibition to have sex in public archaic garbage? How about smoking marijuana? I accept that it may be ok for Dutch people and it may not be ok in US. I also have my own views on that, but I am not imposing them on these countries.
> Sure, your culture loves it, but that's because it has some growing up to do.
You are suggesting my culture is inferior to yours, and you are allowed to teach me about that. How nice is that? My feeling is that it's not just your view, it's a common view in the West, and that's the main problem in the West vs. Russia dialog.
> You are suggesting my culture is inferior to yours
I am doing no such thing. I am stating that any culture which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is broken. That includes my culture, your culture and many other cultures. Remember I said "Ireland is as backwards as anywhere else on the issue"?
> West vs. Russia
I'm a boat trip and a long walk away, not that far west.
Yes. I do agree with you. But why constantly tell (or imply to) people they're bad/evil for not believing in homosexuality? Unless there's scientific proof, you will never change their minds.
> "But why constantly tell (or imply to) people they're bad/evil for not believing in homosexuality?"
If someone said that to me, "I don't believe in homosexuality", I wouldn't call them bad or evil, though I might try to convince them they're wrong. Sexual preferences exist whether you believe in them or not.
> "Unless there's scientific proof, you will never change their minds."
You limited the terms to genetics. It may not be genetic. If it were, I suspect these same people would seek the "cure".
There's plenty of research on the subject, working theories and all. Can't claim to be up on them, to be honest.
The most interesting research I've read was into health aspects of homosexuality. By far the greatest risk discussed in each paper was depression related to discrimination and homophobia.
Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I would tell you that in person, and honestly there is no argument that would convince you that human rights is not propaganda so technically there is no way of going forward here... Scratch that, I probably wouldn't converse with you.
It's easy positive publicity. Same reason why AT&T "took a stand" against the anti-gay propaganda law. Same reason why some politicians are calling for a boycott against the Olympics. In fact, I'd wager it's the same reason why Google decided to publicly support the movement against SOPA some time ago.
If these companies were truly concerned about human rights, they would take a look at themselves first.
Just the West trying to make Russia look like the only barbarians in the world. Hoping that we all forget about the damage they (colonial powers) have inflicted on the world over the past centuries, not to mention the NSA crap going on now, what better to distract people than some vapid finger pointing at Russia for banning gay propaganda.
I wonder if Olympics were held in USA this year, would those same magazines put NSA logos and colors all over their screen just to show that spying on own citizens is bad? Or would google put DO NOT TRACK logo on their doodle? I doubt...