Russia - Gay Rights - Sochi Olympics Megathread

[Aurora Novus]

Yes people who engage in a very promiscuous

Homosexuality is not inherently promiscuous.

sxual lifestyle and spreading Disease is none of my business... wait yes it is because that shit permeates throughout society.

No, it's none of your business. No one's forcing you to go out and have sex with homosexuals.

I didn't say Homosexuality=effeminimity (though whoevers catching is likely effeminant), i said Homo culture is.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that either. Care to provide any evidence of that?

Further more, why is that a problem again? Why is it wrong for something to be effeminent?

Also "manly" isn't necessary masculine either,

...yes it is. The very definition of something being "manly" is that it is masculine. You could interchange "manly" and "masculine" in my post.

Homosexuals who behave like normal people I have no problem with.
It's the Freaks in the "Pride" parades and demonstrations that I despise.

1) All homosexuals, even those "freaks", are acting like "normal people".
2) Those people are not freaks. They're people, with thoughts and feelings of their own, who are not ashamed of their sexual orientation, and who want to put an end to mistreatment by people like you.

Pleasure is =/= to Hedonism
Hedonism is the obsession with pleasure as lifes primary Good.

Well then you're just flat out wrong. Homosexuality does not promote the idea that pleasure is the ultimate good.

It is immoral when done in excessively perverse ways

Define "perverse".

, and to the overindulgence and lack of any other concerns/responsibilities.

Not necessarily, no. That something may be risky doesn't make it immoral. It's only when you bring harm to those who've not consented to i, that you've done something immoral.

Also what makes it a positive thing in itself?

That people find pleasure in it makes it positive for those people. Nothing is "positive" or "negative" within itself. Positivity and negativity deal directly with how peope respond to things.

It is when done immorally, or would you say Sexual acts are never immoral?

I would say sexual acts that do not cause unconcsented harm are not immoral. Homosexuality does not cause unconsented harm.

Neither are gay pride chants and screams about "oppression".

Please give me an example of a pride parade where they are arguing against something that is not truly oppressive.

Then show me that this is happening on such a wide scale, in such a harmful manner, that is justifies banning them.

So what? It's essentially a "keep bedroom business privite".

Big deal.

That is the immoral proposition. There is no reason why it should be forced to be kept private. That choice should be up to the individual. Further more, this law is only being enacted against homosexuals; heterosexuals are not being forced to abide by the same rules.

Finally, it's a ban on speech, and the free expression of ideas and viewpoints. It's anti-intellectual, anti-critical thinking. It's the spirit of totalitarianism. Again, that is the definition of barbarism. And that's what makes it so horrifying. It's punishing people for inherently harmless things, even good things. It's immoral.

But we beleive there is something wrong with it and therefore we don't want to see it on display in public.

You are wrong in your belief, it's as simple as that. There is nothing wrong with it. You have no justification to make that claim.

A "mere differance in orientation" can be quite significant.

A sexual orientation is inherently amoral. It cannot be right or wrong. It simply is.

Whats to show support for?

Homosexuals and their rights, which you apparently don't want them to have.

Once I find the videos again and get a translation I will try to link that to you, as a Russian acquantance of mine has talk to me about this issue.

I'll wait.

[Shofercia]

Some ideas are, and some ideas aren't. Culture is about ideas that stay. There are also Government Ideas and Cultural Ideas. It's an extremely complex topic, especially when it comes to Russia.

So you admit that ideas can be a part of culture. At least we have a starting point.

Ok... did I ever say that ideas weren't part of Culture? Nope. I did say that Government's Ideas didn't usually influence Cultural Ideas in Russia.

I can raise my arm in the next ten seconds. Doesn't mean that I will. Government can influence culture, but that doesn't mean that it will.

Not what you said however. You said government does not influence culture.

Correct. Just because A does not influence B, doesn't mean that B influences A.

However, this is all rather irrelevant, as my argument is that the Russian government is responding to a pre-existing culture of homophobia.

Climate would be a more appropriate terms. Russian Culture is permanent. The climate of Homophobia, much like Stalinism, is temporary.

Really? Is that why the Proposition Process, a huge part of California's Culture, is constantly dissed by the Government?

You'll have to elaborate on what you're talking about, though it's a bit of a tangent really. This wouldn't negate what I've said in any way.

It negates your claim that in a Democracy, the Culture shapes the Government. It actually doesn't, primarily because of those pesky things called Lobbyists. Have you heard of them?

By extraordinarily homophobic, I was referring to groups that don't have a 50% approval rating. Hence the term I used was extraordinarily, which is a harsher term than just deeply homophobic.

So then you (1) admit that Russian society is deeply homophobic, as I've been saying all this time, and (2) that you are attempting to shift goal posts?

Further more, I'd say 44% of people thinking homosexual acts should be criminalized is evidence of a society that is "extraordinarily" homophobic.

I'd disagree, and say that majority requires it to be homophobic, and I'd also say that asking my opponent to use proper definitions isn't shifting goal posts. It's merely asking my opponent to use proper definitions. And I've already explained the reason for Homophobia in Russia, so you asking me to admit it doesn't actually get you any brownie points.

Obviously neither is acceptable, but one should notice a difference between most people saying "we don't want Gays" and most people saying "isolate the Gays!" It's important to note these differences if one is to work to improve Gay Rights in Russia, isntead of just going "dat Russki Kultur, sho unshivilized!"

In other words, you're not going to deny that Russian culture is homophobic, and are instead resorting to attacking me for pointing that out. Righto.

I am pointing out that you are bullshitting, out of your ignorance, about Russia. It's more of an honest statement, than an actual attack.

I am very well aware, but you, very clearly, aren't:

Which literally does not negate anything I've said at all. You've just shown that (1) for centuries there have been anti-homosexual laws in place in Russia, and that (2) Russian gays were driven underground, and formed a "sub-culture". You've literally only supported my case. Thank you.

You do comprehend that Laws refer to Government, and Culture refers to Culture, right? You were talking about the Russian Culture being Homophobic, not the Russian Laws. I should further point out that their were little to no laws about women engaging homosexual activity, and that Peter the Great was borrowing from his neighbor's examples, (i.e. not Russian Culture, but foreign culture,) when he criminalized gayness in the military.

By shitstorians.

"Shitstorian"?

The term is self-evident. It needs no explanation.

Ivan the Terrible went insane after the assassination of his wife, so that's not exactly a shining example.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I said, as far back as Ivan the Terrible, people were using accusations of homosexuality as a means of attacking and discrediting people. Someone attempted to do this towards Ivan himself. That is evidence that as far back as then, Russian culture was homophobic, and viewed homosexuality as shameful and worthy of criticism and attack.

In California's Culture, being black is not a bad thing. Yet people criticized Obama for being black. In politics, you will get attacked over every little thing. That doesn't mean that society condones most of those attacks. This is also known as common sense.

And since Peter the Great criminalized it, and even then, only in the army, I'm going to go on a limb here, and say that *gasp* it must've been legal before it was criminalized!

Which doesn't mean homophobia wasn't a part of the culture prior, which I have provided evidence to suggest. Not to mention, Peter the Great was in power in the 18th Century. Pointing out homophibc laws as far back as three centuries ago doesn't really help your case that Russia doesn't have a long history of homophobia.

My argument is about Russian Culture, not Russian Government. Thus far you've shown a remarkable ability to confuse the duo.

[Aurora Novus]

Correct. Just because A does not influence B, doesn't mean that B influences A.

That wasn't the argument I put forth. Don't be dishonest.

Climate would be a more appropriate terms. Russian Culture is permanent.

What are you talking about? Culture isn't "permanent" in any sense of the term. Culture can change, just like anything else. Culture changes as history progresses.

The climate of Homophobia, much like Stalinism, is temporary.

It's been around for over 300 years, and it's getting worse with every poll.

It negates your claim that in a Democracy, the Culture shapes the Government. It actually doesn't, primarily because of those pesky things called Lobbyists. Have you heard of them?

No, it doesn't. An isolated case does not disporve anything, and in addition, I was speaking of properly functioning democracies. America is by no means a properly functioning democracy. Further more, since you're not elaborating on it as I requested, I see no reason to pay it anymore mind.

I'd disagree, and say that majority requires it to be homophobic

76% of people think homosexulity is immoral. That's a super majority, and by definition, homophobic. You lose.

Further more, 44%, while not a "majority", is by no means negligable. It's a mere 7% off from a majority. In a country as large is Russia, that's a lot of fucking people. We're not talking about some fringe idea here.

, and I'd also say that asking my opponent to use proper definitions isn't shifting goal posts.

You didn't ask me anything. I said Russian culture is deeply homophobic, and you responded by saying it was "extraordinarily" homophobic. That wasn't what I said. Hence, shifting goal posts.

It's merely asking my opponent to use proper definitions. And I've already explained the reason for Homophobia in Russia, so you asking me to admit it doesn't actually get you any brownie points.

No, you really haven't actually. You've jumped between saying government doesn't influence culture, while pointing out that laws that are homophobic. you haven't explained at all why that is, and in fact, by saying that government doesn't influence culture, you've only left two other possible options: That the russian culture influenced government to make these laws (meaning russian culture is homophobic), or that russian culture and government evolved on completely different lines, yet carried the same ideas all throughout. In either case, you're forced to concede that Russian culture is homophobic.

I am pointing out that you are bullshitting, out of your ignorance, about Russia.

...by conceding that I'm right. Impeccible logic.

You do comprehend that Laws refer to Government, and Culture refers to Culture, right? You were talking about the Russian Culture being Homophobic, not the Russian Laws.

So you're denying that Russian laws are a reflection of Russian culture?

Then explain (1) the statistics I gave you above, and (2) the history of cultural admonishing that I pointed out.

Further more, I'd argue that no, laws and culture are not inseperable. Culture influences laws, by influencing the people who make them, and laws influence culture, in so far as the next generation raised under them. It's absolute lunacy to believe otherwise.

I should further point out that their were little to no laws about women engaging homosexual activity, and that Peter the Great was borrowing from his neighbor's examples, (i.e. not Russian Culture, but foreign culture,) when he criminalized gayness in the military.

Sexist homophobia is still homophobia. Further more, borrowing political ideas from another country does not make it any less of a part of your own culture. Arguably, if homosexuality wasn't already looked down upon by the population, Peter never would have kept power by banning such a thing. Further more, if Russia wasn't homophobic before Peter's legal acts, as well as those who followed him, it certainly became such as a result.

The term is self-evident. It needs no explanation.

No, it's not. What the fuck is a "shitstorian"?

In California's Culture, being black is not a bad thing.

That is debatable.

Yet people criticized Obama for being black. In politics, you will get attacked over every little thing. That doesn't mean that society condones most of those attacks. This is also known as common sense.

It is arguable that there is a very large portion of the population that has racst tendancies, and therefore, yes, attacking Obama was appealing to at least a large sub-culture of Americans. America further more does have a large cultural history of racism, and some argue it still pervades to this day. So you're really not helping your case here when you bring this up.

Finally, it would not be the case that someone of sound mind would attack the credibility of a country's authoritarian leader, unless they thought it was something that would actually rile people up. Not to mention, this was done to people other than Ivan, as I pointed out. And again, the history of organized violence against homosexuals.

You're basically telling me that, yes, Russian laws have for a long time been homophobic, and yes, Russian people, for a long time, and condoned and supported homophobic ideas, but that somehow, Russian culture isn't homophobic.

What the fuck is culture to you? Because clearly we must be opperating in very different definitions. That, or you're just being dishonest.

My argument is about Russian Culture, not Russian Government. Thus far you've shown a remarkable ability to confuse the duo.

Not really. All those statistics I cited from Wikipedia earlier were not government laws, but dealt with culture. Further more, government and culture are not mutually exclusive. They intertwine.

[Aurora Novus]

Really, I am just absolutely astounded that you can sit there and admit to me that Russian society has a history of people treating homosexuals poorly, and that currently, a super majority of people have negative views of homosexuals, and yet claim to me that Russian culture is not, nor has it ever been, homophobic.

Before we go any further, I must know the absolute lunatic definition of "culture" you are using, because by all conventional definitions, the above is clear evidence that Russian culture is, and has been for a very long time, homophobic. Even when government laws were more leniant towards homosexuals, it was still public opinion that homosexulity was a sign of corruption and immorality. If public opinions are not culture what the fuck is according to you?

[Australasia]

If someone thinks that homosexuality is of the same degree as pedophilia, then that person needs to have his brain checked, or at least try to live in reality for starters.

Tell that to the Occupy Pedophilia folks in Moscow. Why is homophobia so prevalent there? It makes the Bible Belt look tolerant!

Ironically those neo-Nazis attack gay kids. Weirdos.

The situation has gotten so concerning that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has demanded that Russia take measures to protect gay kids (due both to the attacks and to other homophobic tensions).

[Australasia]

I don't know if he has one personally, but Russian culture is and always has been deeply homophibic and authoritarian. This is nothing more than a political move on his part.

I can't say I can blame the government for doing something it's people overwhelmingly approve of, but that doesn't make it any less barbaric and horrifying.

What's "Barbaric" or "horrifying" about it?

Barbaric and horrifying because it's backward, in violation of human rights, and is harming children:

There is unfortunately a lot of conjecture based debate here, which obviously is going to simply lead to an endless "No, I'm right, you're wrong" back-and-forth between the participants. I would advise everyone here, those who are standing behind the homophobic policies in particular, to read and go through the following:


1. http://www.unfe.org - the United Nations site dedicated to LGBT rights

2. http://www.icj.org/russia-human-rights- ... ganda-ban/ - ICJ commentary regarding rulings against Russia in regard to international law on the topic

3. http://www.ijrcenter.org/2012/12/03/un- ... wFyvC.dpbs - International Justice Resource Center commentary on the same

4. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/un-r ... ghts251112 - UN Human Rights Committee ruling in favour of equal rights and against the discriminatory and invalid statute

5. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/un-d ... -law190813 - United Nations Human Rights Office demands that Russia repeals the homophobic statute

6. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... IY20130522 - The Council of Europe (which Russia is a member-state of) calls on Russia to protect LGBT rights properly

7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11598590 - European Court of Human Rights fines Russia for infringing on gay rights

8. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/russia-l ... 2013-09-04 - Amnesty International statement

9. http://americablog.com/2013/06/human-ri ... ussia.html - Human Rights Watch statement

10. http://www.comingoutspb.ru/en/en-news/u ... ofthechild - the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issues a statement condemning the invalid Russian statute for harming the wellbeing of LGBT children


Also, in addition, here's a link to the UN global gay rights thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=254588&p=15789012#p15789012 (the OP in particular contains a vast amount of important information, including information on global gay rights and the facts on the United Nations Human Rights Council's vote in favour of a resolution affirming gay rights as human rights)

Anyone should feel free to reference this post whenever required, and I strongly encourage everyone to do so.

[Volnotova]

Yes "harmless", ignore that fact that STD rates among Homosexuals are much higher, that "gay culture" is essentially effeminant, hedonistic, debauched and annoying as hell.

I am neither effeminate or hedonistic, thank you very much. (Assuming you include bisexuals in your imaginary "gay culture")

Also, are all homosexuals somehow infected by STDs? No.

And that's essentially what the laws against, the nauseating display of it in society, so far as i've seen it's not actually illegaly to be Gay in Russia, their not executing them in the street.

Nauseating?

[Free Tristania]

You do not see it as barbaric or horrifying that a society is overwhelmingly against people for something so harmless, and has laws against the mere act of supporting it in speech? Do you really not see how?

Yes "harmless", ignore that fact that STD rates among Homosexuals are much higher, that "gay culture" is essentially effeminant, hedonistic, debauched and annoying as hell.

And that's essentially what the laws against, the nauseating display of it in society, so far as i've seen it's not actually illegaly to be Gay in Russia, their not executing them in the street.

I'd say that the Russian laws are a bit like Section 28 (Britain, 1988) and no one was bitching about the Brits. It's just convenient for the Western press because their corporate and political bosses are pissed off about their oligarch friends being kicked out of Russia and about Putin giving them the middle finger on Syria. So all in all: they are a being a bunch of hypocrites about it.

[Australasia]

Yes "harmless", ignore that fact that STD rates among Homosexuals are much higher, that "gay culture" is essentially effeminant, hedonistic, debauched and annoying as hell.

And that's essentially what the laws against, the nauseating display of it in society, so far as i've seen it's not actually illegaly to be Gay in Russia, their not executing them in the street.

I'd say that the Russian laws are a bit like Section 28 (Britain, 1988) and no one was bitching about the Brits. It's just convenient for the Western press because their corporate and political bosses are pissed off about their oligarch friends being kicked out of Russia and about Putin giving them the middle finger on Syria. So all in all: they are a being a bunch of hypocrites about it.

International human rights organisations did complain, and when the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Britain to repeal it, Britain did.

[Free Tristania]

I'd say that the Russian laws are a bit like Section 28 (Britain, 1988) and no one was bitching about the Brits. It's just convenient for the Western press because their corporate and political bosses are pissed off about their oligarch friends being kicked out of Russia and about Putin giving them the middle finger on Syria. So all in all: they are a being a bunch of hypocrites about it.

International human rights organisations did complain, and when the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Britain to repeal it, Britain did.

The UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee of the Rights of the Child are self-appointed committees run by and for people with too much time on their hands that like having their hands on other peoples' money. Maybe you should read up on the Section 28 and to see why they came up with it in the first place. Guess what: I agree with a Section 28.

[Australasia]

International human rights organisations did complain, and when the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked Britain to repeal it, Britain did.

The UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee of the Rights of the Child are self-appointed committees run by and for people with too much time on their hands that like having their hands on other peoples' money. Maybe you should read up on the Section 28 and to see why they came up with it in the first place. Guess what: I agree with a Section 28.

Oh what lies. Judges of both Committees are assigned protect international human rights law, and are elected by the United Nations General Assembly. Jealous much?

Yes, it was a homophobic and backward measure which harmed children and was rightfully repealed by Britain.

I suppose you're not very pleased to be leaving in the modern world, and neither do you have any respect for human rights?

[Free Tristania]

The UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee of the Rights of the Child are self-appointed committees run by and for people with too much time on their hands that like having their hands on other peoples' money. Maybe you should read up on the Section 28 and to see why they came up with it in the first place. Guess what: I agree with a Section 28.

Oh what lies. Judges of both Committees are assigned protect international human rights law, and are elected by the UN General Assembly. Jealous much?

Yes, it was a homophobic and backward measure which harmed children and was rightfully repealed by Britain.

And yes: elected by another non-elected board that is only looking after perpetuating its own existence. No the reason why they came up with it is this. And I quote:

Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: "We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family...
That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. ... Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book called The Milkman's on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.[13]

Jill Knight, Conservative MP. She introduced the legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

And, sorry, I find the family and particularly the rights of children to be more important than the rights of some activists - which should actually have been put away in a mental institution.

[Australasia]

Oh what lies. Judges of both Committees are assigned protect international human rights law, and are elected by the UN General Assembly. Jealous much?

Yes, it was a homophobic and backward measure which harmed children and was rightfully repealed by Britain.

And yes: elected by another non-elected board that is only looking after perpetualing it's own existence. No the reason why they came up with it is this. And I quote:

Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: "We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family...
That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. ... Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book called The Milkman's on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.[13]

Jill Knight, Conservative MP. She introduced the legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Representatives to the UN General Assembly are sent by the governments of the world's nations. A majority of these are elected governments. Including Britain's of course.

Oh please, there's no reason to believe what a right-wing homophobic nut who introduced a now-defunct statute which violated human rights and the wellbeing of children says.

[Free Tristania]

And yes: elected by another non-elected board that is only looking after perpetualing it's own existence. No the reason why they came up with it is this. And I quote:

Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: "We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family...
That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. ... Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book called The Milkman's on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.[13]

Jill Knight, Conservative MP. She introduced the legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Representatives to the UN General Assembly are sent by the governments of the world's nations. A majority of these are elected governments. Including Britain's of course.

Oh please, there's no reason to believe what a right-wing homophobic nut who introduced a now-defunct statute which violated human rights and the wellbeing of children says.

Of course. Don't believe the facts. Yes: the UN representatives are elected by our non-elected representatives without us having a say in it. Most people here would not even want to be in the UN.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Representatives to the UN General Assembly are sent by the governments of the world's nations. A majority of these are elected governments. Including Britain's of course.

Oh please, there's no reason to believe what a right-wing homophobic nut who introduced a now-defunct statute which violated human rights and the wellbeing of children says.

Of course. Don't believe the facts. Yes: the UN representatives are elected by our non-elected representatives without us having a say in it.

So are a vast number of government functionaries in every system. That's kind of what makes actual government possible.
Better demand the dismantlement and nullification of every single position (and the work accomplished) of everybody but the legislature members, the President (assuming we're talking about the US, then) and a tiny handful of token positions, I guess.
Foreign policy positions are something that has historically always been left out of direct elections, and rightfully so.

Most people here would not even want to be in the UN.

source?

[Australasia]

Representatives to the UN General Assembly are sent by the governments of the world's nations. A majority of these are elected governments. Including Britain's of course.

Oh please, there's no reason to believe what a right-wing homophobic nut who introduced a now-defunct statute which violated human rights and the wellbeing of children says.

Of course. Don't believe the facts. Yes: the UN representatives are elected by our non-elected representatives without us having a say in it. Most people here would not even want to be in the UN.

It's you who refuses to believe the facts here, standing behind a defunct statute which violated human rights and harmed the wellbeing of children.
Yeah, the last time I checked Britain was a democracy - so it's your elected government which is sending representatives to the UN.
And even more lies - good grief!

In almost every single nation on Earth, and most certainly in pretty much every single developed democracy in the world (including a solid majority of people in Britain), a majority of people support the United Nations: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/17/uni ... bal-image/ & http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/17/glo ... d-nations/

Why are you so obsessed with lying?

[Free Tristania]

Of course. Don't believe the facts. Yes: the UN representatives are elected by our non-elected representatives without us having a say in it. Most people here would not even want to be in the UN.

It's you who refuses to believe the facts here, standing behind a defunct statute which violated human rights and harmed the wellbeing of children.
Yeah, the last time I checked Britain was a democracy - so it's your elected government which is sending representatives to the UN.
And even more lies - good grief!

In almost every single nation on Earth, and most certainly in pretty much every single developed democracy in the world (including a solid majority of people in Britain), a majority of people support the United Nations: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/17/uni ... bal-image/ & http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/17/glo ... d-nations/

Why are you so obsessed with lying?

Only liberals believe Pew.

[Free Tristania]

So are a vast number of government functionaries in every system. That's kind of what makes actual government possible.
Better demand the dismantlement and nullification of every single position (and the work accomplished) of everybody but the legislature members, the President (assuming we're talking about the US, then) and a tiny handful of token positions, I guess.
Foreign policy positions are something that has historically always been left out of direct elections, and rightfully so.

So you're against democracy ? With unelected officials or officials elected on promises which they will not keep ruling the masses. Let's look at democracy at work: Norway ECC and EU referendums ? The people voted no. The same goes for Norway. The same goes for the Dutch whose 2005 referendum was ignored by Brussels and their own semi-elected government.

Most people here would not even want to be in the UN.

source?

Ask the common man in the street. Something armchair liberals never do.

[Caecuser]

So are a vast number of government functionaries in every system. That's kind of what makes actual government possible.
Better demand the dismantlement and nullification of every single position (and the work accomplished) of everybody but the legislature members, the President (assuming we're talking about the US, then) and a tiny handful of token positions, I guess.
Foreign policy positions are something that has historically always been left out of direct elections, and rightfully so.

So you're against democracy ? With unelected officials or officials elected on promises which they will not keep ruling the masses. Let's look at democracy at work: Norway ECC and EU referendums ? The people voted no. The same goes for Norway. The same goes for the Dutch whose 2005 referendum was ignored by Brussels and their own semi-elected government.

Most people here would not even want to be in the UN.

source?

Ask the common man in the street. Something armchair liberals never do.

You're making a very general statement about liberals here, why on Earth would people not want to be in the UN?

[Free Tristania]

So you're against democracy ? With unelected officials or officials elected on promises which they will not keep ruling the masses. Let's look at democracy at work: Norway ECC and EU referendums ? The people voted no. The same goes for Norway. The same goes for the Dutch whose 2005 referendum was ignored by Brussels and their own semi-elected government.



Ask the common man in the street. Something armchair liberals never do.

You're making a very general statement about liberals here, why on Earth would people not want to be in the UN?

How about it's useless ? When (almost completely disarmed - at the UN's orders) Dutch UN troops were in Srebrenica in 1995 - surrounded by Serbs - the UN refused air strikes and refused to help them out. In fact: it forced them to surrender and the result was the 1995 Srebrenica massacre where some 9000 Muslim men were slaughtered by the Serbs.

[Shofercia]

Correct. Just because A does not influence B, doesn't mean that B influences A.

That wasn't the argument I put forth. Don't be dishonest.

You were trying to phrase my argument as an either/or. I pointed out that it could be neither. This was about you misreading my argument, not me claiming something about your argument. Don't be dishonest.

Climate would be a more appropriate terms. Russian Culture is permanent.

What are you talking about? Culture isn't "permanent" in any sense of the term. Culture can change, just like anything else. Culture changes as history progresses.

Just because something adapts to change, doesn't make it temporary. For instance, Leo Tolstoy and Alexander Pushkin are part of Russian Culture. Permanently.

The climate of Homophobia, much like Stalinism, is temporary.

It's been around for over 300 years, and it's getting worse with every poll.

That's a rather ignorant thing to say, considering that Lenin legalized Gay Rights less than a century ago, so claiming that Gay Rights have been on a downward spiral for 300 years is not merely ignorant; it's utter bullshit.

It negates your claim that in a Democracy, the Culture shapes the Government. It actually doesn't, primarily because of those pesky things called Lobbyists. Have you heard of them?

No, it doesn't. An isolated case does not disporve anything, and in addition, I was speaking of properly functioning democracies. America is by no means a properly functioning democracy. Further more, since you're not elaborating on it as I requested, I see no reason to pay it anymore mind.

Lobbyists aren't an isolated case. But perhaps you can give us an example of a properly functioning Democracy in your book, because, apparently America isn't... American Democracy attacked in a Gay Rights Thread about Russia, Tiger's Theorem was right!

I'd disagree, and say that majority requires it to be homophobic

76% of people think homosexulity is immoral. That's a super majority, and by definition, homophobic. You lose.

Further more, 44%, while not a "majority", is by no means negligable. It's a mere 7% off from a majority. In a country as large is Russia, that's a lot of fucking people. We're not talking about some fringe idea here.

I went on to specify that I was talking about degrees, a part that you've "heroically" omitted from your post.

and I'd also say that asking my opponent to use proper definitions isn't shifting goal posts.

You didn't ask me anything. I said Russian culture is deeply homophobic, and you responded by saying it was "extraordinarily" homophobic. That wasn't what I said. Hence, shifting goal posts.

So you mean that you made a factually incorrect statement about Russia, and I corrected it? Yes, that's true. The term you used also had a more severe degree than just saying "deeply", which is a term that you downgraded to only after I corrected you.

It's merely asking my opponent to use proper definitions. And I've already explained the reason for Homophobia in Russia, so you asking me to admit it doesn't actually get you any brownie points.

No, you really haven't actually. You've jumped between saying government doesn't influence culture, while pointing out that laws that are homophobic. you haven't explained at all why that is, and in fact, by saying that government doesn't influence culture, you've only left two other possible options: That the russian culture influenced government to make these laws (meaning russian culture is homophobic), or that russian culture and government evolved on completely different lines, yet carried the same ideas all throughout. In either case, you're forced to concede that Russian culture is homophobic.

Saying "please concede to my factually wrong claim" or saying "your forced to concede to my factually wrong claim" doesn't actually make your claim factually right, no matter how many times you break up my posts, only to omit part of my argument. Your mistake is that you continue to presume that in Russia, Government and Culture are extremely closely linked, since that's probably the case wherever your from. That's incorrect. What is your expertise on Russia?

I am pointing out that you are bullshitting, out of your ignorance, about Russia.

...by conceding that I'm right. Impeccible logic.

Accusing you of bullshitting about Russia, is not at all the same as conceding that you are correct. It's like really not the same. It's like totes not the same.

You do comprehend that Laws refer to Government, and Culture refers to Culture, right? You were talking about the Russian Culture being Homophobic, not the Russian Laws.

So you're denying that Russian laws are a reflection of Russian culture?

Then explain (1) the statistics I gave you above, and (2) the history of cultural admonishing that I pointed out.

Further more, I'd argue that no, laws and culture are not inseperable. Culture influences laws, by influencing the people who make them, and laws influence culture, in so far as the next generation raised under them. It's absolute lunacy to believe otherwise.

I am stating a fact that Russian Laws aren't a reflection of Russian Culture, as there was absolutely nothing in Russian Culture about Collectivization, until Stalin came to power. To argue otherwise, is to ignore facts because they don't fit your needs. I already explained the statistics - they're a reflection of Stalinism and Decadent 90s. Neither are a part of Russian Culture. So, according to you, it's absolute lunacy to believe actual facts? Ok... Fun fact: under Stalinism, it was the law. In numerous Soviet Movies made under Stalinism, Russian/Soviet Culture argued that it should not be the law, with Alexander Nevsky being a masterpiece. In the US, the Vietnam War Draft was the law. This didn't stop America's Culture from rebelling against the War in Vietnam. Culture doesn't influence every single bit of legislation, anymore than law influences every single bit of culture. To believe otherwise is absolute lunacy.

I should further point out that their were little to no laws about women engaging homosexual activity, and that Peter the Great was borrowing from his neighbor's examples, (i.e. not Russian Culture, but foreign culture,) when he criminalized gayness in the military.

Sexist homophobia is still homophobia. Further more, borrowing political ideas from another country does not make it any less of a part of your own culture. Arguably, if homosexuality wasn't already looked down upon by the population, Peter never would have kept power by banning such a thing. Further more, if Russia wasn't homophobic before Peter's legal acts, as well as those who followed him, it certainly became such as a result.

Yes it does. Foreign Culture isn't Russian Culture. The name gives it away. Which is why when Peter's Law came down, a Gay Subculture easily developed. Again, what you have to comprehend is that Laws are Laws and Culture is Culture. They don't always have to agree with one another.

The term is self-evident. It needs no explanation.

No, it's not. What the fuck is a "shitstorian"?

I stand by my claim that it's self-evident. If you don't get it, not my problem.

In California's Culture, being black is not a bad thing.

That is debatable.

No, not really.

Yet people criticized Obama for being black. In politics, you will get attacked over every little thing. That doesn't mean that society condones most of those attacks. This is also known as common sense.

It is arguable that there is a very large portion of the population that has racst tendancies, and therefore, yes, attacking Obama was appealing to at least a large sub-culture of Americans. America further more does have a large cultural history of racism, and some argue it still pervades to this day. So you're really not helping your case here when you bring this up.

Did it ever occur to you that political attacks aren't always Culturally driven?

Finally, it would not be the case that someone of sound mind would attack the credibility of a country's authoritarian leader, unless they thought it was something that would actually rile people up.

You're presuming that those who engage in political attacks are always of sound mind? Sounds like a "Fair and Balanced" claim

You're basically telling me that, yes, Russian laws have for a long time been homophobic, and yes, Russian people, for a long time, and condoned and supported homophobic ideas, but that somehow, Russian culture isn't homophobic.

Russian people have also been supportive of Gay Rights prior to Stalinism. There was also the case of Lenin decriminalizing Homosexuality. There was also a point of not bugging Gays inside their homes prior to Stalinism. And Peter's Law was equivalent to Don't Ask Don't Tell. Does DADT make Hollywood, Homophobic? Because according to your logic, or lack thereof, apparently it does!

My argument is about Russian Culture, not Russian Government. Thus far you've shown a remarkable ability to confuse the duo.

Not really. All those statistics I cited from Wikipedia earlier were not government laws, but dealt with culture. Further more, government and culture are not mutually exclusive. They intertwine.

Generally, they don't intertwine. You cited a public opinion poll, and those can change rather quickly. In 2003, most Americans supported attacking Iraq. In 2006, most Americans thought it was a mistake. That's why I differentiated Climate from Culture, a differentiation that you've failed to grasp.


All that said, what the fuck are you trying to do? Let's assume, hypothetically, that North is South, South is North, and your factual inaccuracy is actually what's going on. Well, in that case, Gays really have no hope in Russia. Outside countries cannot influence Russia beyond a marginal extent. It's similar with China. There's a Homophobic Climate. The Government supports it. And now, according to you, so does Russian Culture. Congratulations, you've just proved that Gays have no hope for a better life in Russia. Tesak thanks you, as your arguments fulfills his propaganda needs in a most perfect fashion. In fact, if I was for oppressing the Gays in Russia, I'd say absolutely nothing about your argument. I'd love it. It'd suit my needs perfectly! Unfortunately for you, I don't support anti-Gay Laws in Russia.

[Aurora Novus]

-snip-

Really, I am just absolutely astounded that you can sit there and admit to me that Russian society has a history of people treating homosexuals poorly, and that currently, a super majority of people have negative views of homosexuals, and yet claim to me that Russian culture is not, nor has it ever been, homophobic.

Before we go any further, I must know the absolute lunatic definition of "culture" you are using, because by all conventional definitions, the above is clear evidence that Russian culture is, and has been for a very long time, homophobic. Even when government laws were more leniant towards homosexuals, it was still public opinion that homosexulity was a sign of corruption and immorality. If public opinions are not culture what the fuck is according to you?

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Why would anyone go to war with Russia over this?

[Shofercia]

-snip-

Really, I am just absolutely astounded that you can sit there and admit to me that Russian society has a history of people treating homosexuals poorly, and that currently, a super majority of people have negative views of homosexuals, and yet claim to me that Russian culture is not, nor has it ever been, homophobic.

Before we go any further, I must know the absolute lunatic definition of "culture" you are using, because by all conventional definitions, the above is clear evidence that Russian culture is, and has been for a very long time, homophobic. Even when government laws were more leniant towards homosexuals, it was still public opinion that homosexulity was a sign of corruption and immorality. If public opinions are not culture what the fuck is according to you?

You really need to stop throwing around terms like "lunatic" and "lunacy" directed at others. It doesn't help you, it just makes your arguments look even pettier than they already are. I mean heck, you're asking me to define "shitstorian"...

Culture, especially as applied to Russia is extremely complex, and I'm scared to discuss such complexities with someone who cannot even tell the difference between Climate and Culture, and someone who's motives I simply don't understand:

All that said, what the fuck are you trying to do? Let's assume, hypothetically, that North is South, South is North, and your factual inaccuracy is actually what's going on. Well, in that case, Gays really have no hope in Russia. Outside countries cannot influence Russia beyond a marginal extent. It's similar with China. There's a Homophobic Climate. The Government supports it. And now, according to you, so does Russian Culture. Congratulations, you've just proved that Gays have no hope for a better life in Russia. Tesak thanks you, as your arguments fulfills his propaganda needs in a most perfect fashion. In fact, if I was for oppressing the Gays in Russia, I'd say absolutely nothing about your argument. I'd love it. It'd suit my needs perfectly! Unfortunately for you, I don't support anti-Gay Laws in Russia.

That said, can you please cite specific examples of Homophobia in works of prominent Russian Cultural Influences, like Tolstoy, Pushkin, Tchaikovsky, Ryazanov, etc. I'm not asking about their personal opinions, I'm asking about examples of Homophobia in works like War and Peace, Irony of Life, etc.

[Aurora Novus]

You really need to stop throwing around terms like "lunatic" and "lunacy" directed at others.

I never directed it at you; I dircted it at whatever insane definition of "culture" you must be using.

It doesn't help you, it just makes your arguments look even pettier than they already are. I mean heck, you're asking me to define "shitstorian"...

I'm assuming it's a made up insult at historians, but I want to know what it is, according to you, because I've never heard of such a pathetic attack before.

Culture, especially as applied to Russia is extremely complex, and I'm scared to discuss such complexities with someone who cannot even tell the difference between Climate and Culture, and someone who's motives I simply don't understand:

In otherwords, you're not going to define it.

Well, then this discussion can go no further, because until you do, everytime I point out cultural homophobia to you, you'll just say "that's not culture!!!" Until we are opporating on a shared understanding of what we're talking about, we can't discuss anything.

All that said, what the fuck are you trying to do? Let's assume, hypothetically, that North is South, South is North, and your factual inaccuracy is actually what's going on. Well, in that case, Gays really have no hope in Russia. Outside countries cannot influence Russia beyond a marginal extent. It's similar with China. There's a Homophobic Climate. The Government supports it. And now, according to you, so does Russian Culture. Congratulations, you've just proved that Gays have no hope for a better life in Russia. Tesak thanks you, as your arguments fulfills his propaganda needs in a most perfect fashion. In fact, if I was for oppressing the Gays in Russia, I'd say absolutely nothing about your argument. I'd love it. It'd suit my needs perfectly! Unfortunately for you, I don't support anti-Gay Laws in Russia.

Meaningless pathos. Whether or not something gives someone "hope" doesn't change whether or not it's true. Furthermore, it's completely ridiculous to say that, because culture exists currently in a form, that can never change. America had a deeply racist culture. That has largly changed. Blacks have far more rights now then they had in the 1800's. Pointing out Russia's deeply homophobic culture does not mean all hope is lost for homosexuals. Rather, it's the first step in improving their situation.

That said, can you please cite specific examples of Homophobia in works of prominent Russian Cultural Influences, like Tolstoy, Pushkin, Tchaikovsky, Ryazanov, etc. I'm not asking about their personal opinions, I'm asking about examples of Homophobia in works like War and Peace, Irony of Life, etc.

Why? I should hardly think the opinions of a few authors outweight the increasing polls of a society over several years. You've been given evidence that the Russian society overwhelmingly dislikes homosexuality. You've been given evidence that this view has permiated society throughout history.

So I'll say it again. Give me you batshit insane definition of culture, or this discussion goes no further. Because by the conventional definition of culture (i.e., the behaviors, beliefs, and characteristics of a particular society), Russia has, and has had for a very long time, a deeply homophobic culture.