LGBT Relationships "Fake", According to Belarus

[Paledonn]

I think that the U.K. Is morally in the right here on the issue, but was wrong in flying the flag (in Belarus). The U.K. ambassadors either knew that this would upset Belarussians due to the different culture, or were ignorant and incompetent. Either way it's stupid. Offending another country is no way to get cooperation or get change.

By contrast, change normally arrives by keeping one's head down and saying nothing at all...?

No, not saying nothing at all.

Flying the flag publicly is an affront to Belarus. If the dictator backs down after a public stunt like that, they look weak. When a dictator looks weak, things go downhill for them. Flying the flag toughens their stance in this way, along with reactance. "Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion." That's what reverse psychology is based on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

Instead, the diplomats themselves could talk with officials, and the U.K. could use other means to reach citizens. Think how the Cuban missile crisis ended with secret negotiations and a slow backdown, allowing Kruschev to save face.

[Internationalist Bastard]

True
It is interesting though he’s against homosexuality if he’s not religious
What exactly is the justification then?

As I said, he's probably an adherent of Maxim Gorky's ideas on homosexuality, namely that homosexality and homoeroticism is a gateway to fascism and paramilitarism.

I...how?

[San Lumen]

True
It is interesting though he’s against homosexuality if he’s not religious
What exactly is the justification then?

As I said, he's probably an adherent of Maxim Gorky's ideas on homosexuality, namely that homosexality and homoeroticism is a gateway to fascism and paramilitarism.

That is compete and utter rubbish.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As I said, he's probably an adherent of Maxim Gorky's ideas on homosexuality, namely that homosexality and homoeroticism is a gateway to fascism and paramilitarism.

I...how?

Basically, the idea is that homosexuality and homoeroticism open the way for hyper-masculinization being emphasized in society, which will result in men organizing themselves in fraternal orders that have sexual relations all day.

This was official ideology in the USSR.

[Cekoviu]

Looks like somebody pulled a page out of Chechnya's playbook.

[Cranborne]

As I said, he's probably an adherent of Maxim Gorky's ideas on homosexuality, namely that homosexality and homoeroticism is a gateway to fascism and paramilitarism.

I...how?

There were/are gay fascists, to be fair. Ernst Röhm was gay and I wouldn't be surprised if Evola was into homoeroticism.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I...how?

Basically, the idea is that homosexuality and homoeroticism open the way for hyper-masculinization being emphasized in society, which will result in men organizing themselves in fraternal orders that have sexual relations all day.

This was official ideology in the USSR.

I guess I can kinda understand
It still makes no sense but I can objectively see the logic
Why not allow female homosexuality then?

[Paledonn]

No, I mean being a dictator is objectively better if given a choice between the two. Being a dictator allows you to do quite a lot whilst just being gay is...just being gay? As a dictator you could even bring a quick and brutal end to those that would harm the LGBTQ community.

(Image)

EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING

Also to your other post, I was not aware that they had done this before. I wonder what changed/happened to cause this?

[Cekoviu]

I...how?

There were/are gay fascists, to be fair. Ernst Röhm was gay and I wouldn't be surprised if Evola was into homoeroticism.

But being gay didn't make them fascists. I mean, there are millions of gay people around the world and a pretty low percentage of them are fascists

[Internationalist Bastard]

I...how?

There were/are gay fascists, to be fair. Ernst Röhm was gay and I wouldn't be surprised if Evola was into homoeroticism.

I mean there were gay everything
I’m sure there were Gay popes like it’s more common then you think

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

Flying the flag publicly is an affront to Belarus.

I would imagine that was the idea, yes.

If the dictator backs down after a public stunt like that, they look weak. When a dictator looks weak, things go downhill for them. Flying the flag toughens their stance in this way, along with reactance. "Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion." That's what reverse psychology is based on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

This theory assumes, of course, that the flying of the rainbow flag was target at the political leadership to begin with. I suspect that the UK Mission is intelligent enough to know that flying a flag up a pole is not likely to actually cause the political leadership to do a sudden 180.

Actually, capturing huge portions of the the rest of the diplomatic world through the news and attention generated is probably a better cause and reason. Or, you know, just letting LGBT people there know that the rest of the world had noticed and has not forgotten them would also be kinda nice. Might foment things, too. And the list of dictators that have fallen to the people is, historically, plenty long.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Basically, the idea is that homosexuality and homoeroticism open the way for hyper-masculinization being emphasized in society, which will result in men organizing themselves in fraternal orders that have sexual relations all day.

This was official ideology in the USSR.

I guess I can kinda understand
It still makes no sense but I can objectively see the logic
Why not allow female homosexuality then?

Not sure.

For those interested, this is a good application of the USSR's logic on homosexuality: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-h ... 36697.html

Rohm’s blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute... He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA.” They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes”, in reference to feminine gay men.

This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country’s first gay magazine. You could call it ‘Queer as Volk’: they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.

Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers - who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm’s underground army - was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, “I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933... I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay.”

So it’s fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people - so often victims of oppression and hate - become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? Is it just an extreme form of self-harm, the political equivalent to the gay kids who slash their own arms to ribbons out of self-hate?

Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that “all gay porn today is implictly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it’s all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures.” He has tried to explore the relationship between homosexuality and fascism in his movies, beginning with ‘No Skin Off My Ass’ in 1991. In his disturbing 1999 film “Skin Flick’, a bourgeois gay couple - one black, one white - are sexually terrorised by a gang of gay skinheads who beat off to ‘Mein Kampf’ and beat up ‘femmes’. He implies that bourgeois gay norms quickly break down to reveal a fascist lurking underneath; the movie ends with the black character being raped in front of his half-aroused white lover, as the racist gang chant, “Fuck the monkey.”

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has a sensitive and intriguing explanation. “There are many reasons for this kind of thing,” he says. “Some of them are in denial. They are going for hyper-masculinity, the most extreme possible way of being a man. It’s a way of ostentatiously rejecting the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual ‘Other’. These troubled men have a simple belief in their minds: ‘Straight men are tough. Queers are weak. Therefore if I’m tough I can’t be queer.’ It’s a desperate way of proving their manhood.”

[The Galactic Triumvirate]

I applaud the Foreign Office for flying LGBT flag from it's embassy. A critical component of British diplomacy is the promotion of British values abroad and this shows solidarity with the LGBT community of Belarus, so it's wrong to say that Diplomats should be more 'respectful' in this instance. Also i'm pretty sure they flew the Pride flag from most Embassy's on IDAHOBIT including countries with anti LGBT laws.
There is a twitter moment where it shows quite a lot of them: https://twitter.com/i/moments/997147187 ... lang=en-gb

[Internationalist Bastard]

Flying the flag publicly is an affront to Belarus.

I would imagine that was the idea, yes.

If the dictator backs down after a public stunt like that, they look weak. When a dictator looks weak, things go downhill for them. Flying the flag toughens their stance in this way, along with reactance. "Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion." That's what reverse psychology is based on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)

This theory assumes, of course, that the flying of the rainbow flag was target at the political leadership to begin with. I suspect that the UK Mission is intelligent enough to know that flying a flag up a pole is not likely to actually cause the political leadership to do a sudden 180.

Actually, capturing huge portions of the the rest of the diplomatic world through the news and attention generated is probably a better cause and reason. Or, you know, just letting LGBT people there know that the rest of the world had noticed and has not forgotten them would also be kinda nice. Might foment things, too. And the list of dictators that have fallen to the people is, historically, plenty long.

I agree
Telling the oppressed that there are people who care goes a long way

[The Galactic Triumvirate]

I guess I can kinda understand
It still makes no sense but I can objectively see the logic
Why not allow female homosexuality then?

Not sure.

For those interested, this is a good application of the USSR's logic on homosexuality: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-h ... 36697.html

Rohm’s blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute... He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA.” They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes”, in reference to feminine gay men.

This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country’s first gay magazine. You could call it ‘Queer as Volk’: they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.

Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers - who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm’s underground army - was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, “I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933... I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay.”

So it’s fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people - so often victims of oppression and hate - become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? Is it just an extreme form of self-harm, the political equivalent to the gay kids who slash their own arms to ribbons out of self-hate?

Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that “all gay porn today is implictly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it’s all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures.” He has tried to explore the relationship between homosexuality and fascism in his movies, beginning with ‘No Skin Off My Ass’ in 1991. In his disturbing 1999 film “Skin Flick’, a bourgeois gay couple - one black, one white - are sexually terrorised by a gang of gay skinheads who beat off to ‘Mein Kampf’ and beat up ‘femmes’. He implies that bourgeois gay norms quickly break down to reveal a fascist lurking underneath; the movie ends with the black character being raped in front of his half-aroused white lover, as the racist gang chant, “Fuck the monkey.”

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has a sensitive and intriguing explanation. “There are many reasons for this kind of thing,” he says. “Some of them are in denial. They are going for hyper-masculinity, the most extreme possible way of being a man. It’s a way of ostentatiously rejecting the perceived effeminacy of the homosexual ‘Other’. These troubled men have a simple belief in their minds: ‘Straight men are tough. Queers are weak. Therefore if I’m tough I can’t be queer.’ It’s a desperate way of proving their manhood.”

This article on LGBT rights in the early USSR is an interesting piece.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/le ... 4d0c17140e

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not sure.

For those interested, this is a good application of the USSR's logic on homosexuality: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-h ... 36697.html

This article on LGBT rights in the early USSR is also quite a good read.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/le ... 4d0c17140e

Eh, it's pretty revisionist. The idea that the Bolshevik Revolution promoted liberty is pretty erroneous, and whitewashes all the horrible things it did.

[Chile-Paraguay]

I must be honest in these kind of situations, I am mildly homophobe, as I encourage Heterosexuality and do not allow Marriage for gays. However, they're humans too, so I'd let them be gays but with no Marriage, only Civil Unions.

In this case, Belarus, LGBT Relationships are not Fake, but, instead, in my personal opinion, LGBT Relationships aren't normal at all and therefore it is better to say "LGBT Relationships are uncommon" or something like that.

And also, if you think my point if "Fascist" or "Nazi" (despite the fact im a jew), The culture of Belarus is still after years different to the culture in the UK, since the UK is way more tolerant (and unfortunately liberal) meanwhile Belarus is still way more morally conservative, meaning that these cultures are NOT good together.

Thanks for listening, goodbye.

[San Lumen]

I must be honest in these kind of situations, I am mildly homophobe, as I encourage Heterosexuality and do not allow Marriage for gays. However, they're humans too, so I'd let them be gays but with no Marriage, only Civil Unions.

In this case, Belarus, LGBT Relationships are not Fake, but, instead, in my personal opinion, LGBT Relationships aren't normal at all and therefore it is better to say "LGBT Relationships are uncommon" or something like that.

Thanks for listening, goodbye.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

[The Galactic Triumvirate]

This article on LGBT rights in the early USSR is also quite a good read.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/le ... 4d0c17140e

Eh, it's pretty revisionist. The idea that the Bolshevik Revolution promoted liberty is pretty erroneous, and whitewashes all the horrible things it did.

Quite true, It's just a quite interesting article that's all.

[Gospel Power]

Wow people don't getting tired from this

[New Emeline]

Wow people don't getting tired from that

Get tired from what?

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

I would imagine that was the idea, yes.



This theory assumes, of course, that the flying of the rainbow flag was target at the political leadership to begin with. I suspect that the UK Mission is intelligent enough to know that flying a flag up a pole is not likely to actually cause the political leadership to do a sudden 180.

Actually, capturing huge portions of the the rest of the diplomatic world through the news and attention generated is probably a better cause and reason. Or, you know, just letting LGBT people there know that the rest of the world had noticed and has not forgotten them would also be kinda nice. Might foment things, too. And the list of dictators that have fallen to the people is, historically, plenty long.

I agree
Telling the oppressed that there are people who care goes a long way

At the very least, it's simple advertising for a potential place of refuge. Although I have no idea how easy/difficult it might be for someone to leave "Belarus."

[Benuty]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44209251

Belarus has slammed the UK embassy in Minsk for flying a rainbow flag on the International Day Against Homophobia, calling LGBT relationships "fake".

In a lengthy statement, the Interior Ministry said the UK was challenging the country's "traditional values".

"The LGBT community, and all this fight for 'their rights', and the very day of the community are just a fake!"

Relationships between men and women were the "only way of reproduction", it added. "No matter which way you look at it but a same-sex relationship is a fake. And the essence of the fake is always the same - the erosion of the truth."

Oh dear Belarus, lashing out at the LGBT community by demeaning their relationships as "fake". If reproduction is the category for judging what is a relationship and what is not, then someone better tell all those opposite sex couples who are infertile that their relationship is also "fake", as well as post-menopausal women who are in a relationship with a man. It is also entirely possible for trans couples to have children, so is their relationship "fake"?

Are LGBT relationships "fake"? What has prompted Belarus to say something about the issue now, considering the British Embassy in Belarus has flown the rainbow flag in previous years? Is hanging certain flags from an Embassy a form of interference in the affairs of the host country?

I don't see the big deal, it is little Russia from the prairie we are talking about here not some relevant country like...the actual Russia.

[Nova-Columbia]

Not sure.

For those interested, this is a good application of the USSR's logic on homosexuality: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-h ... 36697.html

This article on LGBT rights in the early USSR is also quite a good read.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/le ... 4d0c17140e

Did you... Did you really just post a Huffington Post article... :/

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

In this case, Belarus, LGBT Relationships are not Fake, but, instead, in my personal opinion, LGBT Relationships aren't normal at all and therefore it is better to say "LGBT Relationships are uncommon" or something like that.

"Normal" is definitely fake.