Modern Day Communism Boils Away Oppression

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you start handing out 'benefits of the gay lifestyle' pamphlets on a school campus in the US your life will be in your hands...today. That law doesn't put them ten years behind the times. It doesn't put them ten minutes behind the times.
Sure that is just homophobia in itself. But what Russia did was to effectively ban pro LGBT-demonstrations. Do you see the US government doing such a thing? Or a state government?
This is IMO a clear sign by the government saying "yep - homosexuality is kind of a disease people"
 
It is ahead of the USA, I think so yes. And so are other European nations.
For reference, the current major of our capital is gay, the previous second head of government and leader of a coalition party was gay.

We've had some openly gay people fairly high in government (democrats) and some others get unwillfully outed (republicans). I would certainly not argue that the USA is far from the cutting edge though
 
You'll need to remind us of the Russian government's amazing track record with LGBT equality and friendliness.
The only thing I need to remind, is that possible government policy is not restricted by the two possibilities - "amazing track record with LGBT" and "outright encouraging of homophobia". I didn't think such trivial things would need separate explanation, but it seems one-dimensional thinking is demonstrated way too often here.
 
To justify a ban on homosexual marriage you have to come up with a reason why they shouldn't marry each other. You're not really addressing that at all.
For one, it's internal politics. Russia has a record of having a "strive after the bright future" master narrative for over 70 years. With the fall of the USSR that narrative fell with it, and there was no master narrative at all but the wild money hunt for a decade. Then many people got tired of that, and started searching for some supreme idea. Because most people are not creative enough to invent something brand new, they searched in the past, ransacking dusty old ideas, and eventually dug out traditionalism and religion to cling to. Neither gets well along with homosexuality, but both are currently on the rise. So it's a popular decision, that's all.

For two, there is no particular reason why homosexual marriages must be supported as they are not demographically productive. And demographical production is a problem, because there was a gap in birthrate in the 1990s due to considerable drop in the quality of life multiplied with total economic insecurity. Now that starts to echo in lack in young adults of reproductive potential as kids of the 1990s come of age, which can result in another gap in the birthrate.

It is known that "true" gays are gays and there's nothing on Earth that can make them straight. But efforts are made to reduce potential number of youth to try homosexuality out of curiosity and then to make a habit of it although they are able to conduct heterosexual lifestyle.

The combination of the two result in the... well, I wouldn't call it a ban, because to ban something you must have it for a while first - like public smoking, which was first allowed and then banned (or may be I just don't understand the word "ban" right).

Homosexual marriage was never allowed in Russia, and there seems to be no reason to change that now.

So First) a prohibition based on children and what age is appropriate to give consent, I can roll with you here. 16 might be a little young, but it's not obviously terrible. So that's ok.
Praise the lord! At least something :)

Second) a wrongness

Third) a wrongness

Fourth) a wrongness

Second and Third - brings up social tensions (as monogamy fits the traditional and religious paradigms mentioned above) and increases risk of social vulnerability in case something happens with the harem lord (or mistress).

Fourth - involves unacceptable risk of genetic abnormalities in the offspring.
 
Sure that is just homophobia in itself. But what Russia did was to effectively ban pro LGBT-demonstrations. Do you see the US government doing such a thing? Or a state government?
This is IMO a clear sign by the government saying "yep - homosexuality is kind of a disease people"

The USA has a much different standard in regards to banning demonstrations, so there isn't really a parallel. At a guess well over half of the demonstrations for this or that that are allowed in the USA wouldn't likely be allowed in Russia.

That isn't a great thing to say for Russia, but again begs the question why are we so focused on this item? Unless of course you want to consider that the freedom to protest in general might be a bit on the fast and loose side in the USA. I'm not the guy for that, because I'm now on record as being in favor of not only protests but violent protests.

It may be a clear sign in your opinion, but it looks to me like just another example of knee jerk law making stupidity on the part of a government...and I know Russia has no corner on that market.
 
But what Russia did was to effectively ban pro LGBT-demonstrations.
Not sure whether it's effectively banned or not, but if you ask me, I think any demonstration related to sexuality, whatever it is, should not be allowed in public places.
 
This is IMO a clear sign by the government saying "yep - homosexuality is kind of a disease people"

But is it not? It's known to be associated with certain specifics in individual's physiology, and it renders the individual unable to reproduce unless they're coupled against their will at gunpoint, which can't be clinically normal, can it?

Because someones sexuality is a personal private thing. Showing it around is exhibitionism a.k.a. flashing, and people get displeased with it.
 
Why not?
There are so so many people out there who tried and tried to be "normal" but in the end only found happy lives when living their homosexuality. They aren't crazy in any other way I know of. They are not prone to murder or steal or be unproductive or randomly scream at people or whatever. They appear quit normal in any way except their sexuality. And in that department observation suggests that they simply have their own normality.

Moreover - this sharp divide between hereto and homo seems entirely artificial to begin with. It is theorized that their is rather a continuum between those two extremes. With most people not sitting at the extreme ends. I think that is a better reflection of normal human sexuality than an IMO unnatural binary system.
 
In a lot of countries, people not reproducing is not an issue. In the US, there's always immigration, and besides, it's fine if they choose not to contribute to the population problem. Russia, on the other hand, is running a little short in people, since so many of them decide to leave. Dismembering a neighboring state briefly boosted the population, but in the long run, Russia has a demographic problem.
 
From what I see, such demonstration occasionally turn into something obscene and vulgar, which I would consider as not suitable for public places and kids eyes...
Spoiler :





Don't know how people in similar outfits would be treated in USA or EU (in usual circumstances, not during a demonstration), but in Moscow he or she would get detained by police.
 
Moreover - this sharp divide between hereto and homo seems entirely artificial to begin with. It is theorized that their is rather a continuum between those two extremes. With most people not sitting at the extreme ends. I think that is a better reflection of normal human sexuality than an IMO unnatural binary system.

There is no 'normal'.

That said, your argument that people who are in misery over the self conceptualization that they aren't 'normal' should have free access to the affirmation that they are not alone seems valid enough...but does that really come from 'gay rights demonstrations' which are far more about politics than about self awareness? Unless I am missing something.

I would be generally in favor of anything that promoted a wide spread sense of 'normalcy' rather than maintaining the current 'sexuality of any form is an off limits subject'...I'm just not really sure that's the real objective.
 
Because someones sexuality is a personal private thing. Showing it around is exhibitionism a.k.a. flashing, and people get displeased with it.
Well I find that quit prudish - are you offended when you see a guy and a girl kissing? I can see that being a bit uncomfortable. But is it actually an issue? Not for me. I don't see why it should be one for anybody.
But even if so - don't you think it becomes a matter of public interest when people are discriminated for their sexual orientation? Even if they don't make an effort to display it? Are homosexuals just supposed to take it? Is your capability for empathy somehow on holiday as soon as homosexuals are concerned? I don't get it.
 
In a lot of countries, people not reproducing is not an issue. In the US, there's always immigration, and besides, it's fine if they choose not to contribute to the population problem. Russia, on the other hand, is running a little short in people, since so many of them decide to leave. Dismembering a neighboring state briefly boosted the population, but in the long run, Russia has a demographic problem.
Exactly.

Why not?
There are so so many people out there who tried and tried to be "normal" but in the end only found happy lives when living their homosexuality.
That's exactly why not: they can't be "normal" no matter how they try, so they are not.

They aren't crazy in any other way I know of. They are not prone to murder or steal or be unproductive or randomly scream at people or whatever. They appear quit normal in any way except their sexuality.
Good. So this is why they are not actually hunted after.

And in that department observation suggests that they simply have their own normality.
Yes, and they are free to have it in their private lives.

The only thing they are strongly recommended against is converting and recruiting among minors. As soon as the person is 18+, do whatever you like. Including free choice of staying in Russia but unmarried or emigrating somewhere to get married there.

Moreover - this sharp divide between hereto and homo seems entirely artificial to begin with. It is theorized that their is rather a continuum between those two extremes. With most people not sitting at the extreme ends. I think that is a better reflection of normal human sexuality than an IMO unnatural binary system.
Right. And this, combined with the demographical problem outlined above, presents one hell of a reason for prohibition of homosexuality propaganda among minors. The more people of the "undecided" pool will try heterosexual approach the better are the chances they will remain there.
 
There is no 'normal'.
Well I think I agree with you. But one can work with the term if one must.
That said, your argument that people who are in misery over the self conceptualization that they aren't 'normal' should have free access to the affirmation that they are not alone seems valid enough...but does that really come from 'gay rights demonstrations' which are far more about politics than about self awareness? Unless I am missing something.
I don't think pro-LGBT-demonstrations are just about rights, if that is what you mean by political. Rather, I think they at least often if not always are also a statement that they exist, that they matter, they they have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of. By being their out in the open and within the public eye. And by that it also is a general statement against discrimination of any kind. Be it by the state or some random dude. It is a demonstration of and an effort to establish social power.

@Daw
I never heard of gays who are "recruiting" minors. If anything, they want minors to know that there is a choice and that every choice is okay.
I think I lack the patience to further discuss with you, at least right now, because I find your views rather offensive and it costs me some effort to still be productive and civil.

But it is news to me that homosexuals are the cause of any demographic issue. Rather than say all those heteros who won't have children or just one.
Sweden is one of the most homosexual-friendly nations I believe and they solved their demographic issues nevertheless. They also don't have an "epidemic" of homosexuality or some I must say rather bizarre fantasy like that.
 
Well I find that quit prudish - are you offended when you see a guy and a girl kissing? I can see that being a bit uncomfortable. But is it actually an issue? Not for me. I don't see why it should be one for anybody.
It's because you're an egoist unable to come into somebody else's world. A common ground for gravest misunderstandings.

Like I said, a lot of people here are religious traditionalists, and it is a great problem for that.

You can look at it this way: these people can keep their sexuality to themselves and they don't see why anybody souldn't.

Note: Personally, I have nothing against LGBT community and any of its members in particular. But I can understand why some people do.
But even if so - don't you think it becomes a matter of public interest when people are discriminated for their sexual orientation? [...] Are homosexuals just supposed to take it?
Like I said, I don't see discrimination there. If someone sees, they are free to pack and leave the country. There is no Iron Curtain any more, and they are not sentenced to suffer here.
Even if they don't make an effort to display it?
If they don't make an effort to display it, there is no way anyone would guess about it to start discriminating them.
Is your capability for empathy somehow on holiday as soon as homosexuals are concerned? I don't get it.
That's complicated. Empathy capability suggests I can share someone's emotion, which I can't in this case being straight. But I was brokenhearted several times in my life and survived. I also had to change a job because of being in conflict with my management a few times, and also survived. I also once fell in a socially unacceptable affair with my female boss who was twice as old as myself and besides married. It was too hard so I quited that one.

So I think I can pick it up piece by piece... and still don't see anything unsurvivable. "You can't always get what you want"(c), that's it.

Erm.. Russia is second in the world by annual inflow of immigrants.

Yep, and it's still short of people with its population nearly as big as Japanese but even habitable territory (tundra or taiga shall remain worlds largest natural parks) incomparable.
 
For one, it's internal politics. Russia has a record of having a "strive after the bright future" master narrative for over 70 years. With the fall of the USSR that narrative fell with it, and there was no master narrative at all but the wild money hunt for a decade. Then many people got tired of that, and started searching for some supreme idea. Because most people are not creative enough to invent something brand new, they searched in the past, ransacking dusty old ideas, and eventually dug out traditionalism and religion to cling to. Neither gets well along with homosexuality, but both are currently on the rise. So it's a popular decision, that's all.

For two, there is no particular reason why homosexual marriages must be supported as they are not demographically productive. And demographical production is a problem, because there was a gap in birthrate in the 1990s due to considerable drop in the quality of life multiplied with total economic insecurity. Now that starts to echo in lack in young adults of reproductive potential as kids of the 1990s come of age, which can result in another gap in the birthrate.

It is known that "true" gays are gays and there's nothing on Earth that can make them straight. But efforts are made to reduce potential number of youth to try homosexuality out of curiosity and then to make a habit of it although they are able to conduct heterosexual lifestyle.

OK. That's interesting. I've never heard of anyone trying out homosexuality out of curiosity. I suppose it's possible. And of those who might try it, how many would remain so having decided it really wasn't for them?

I suspect "banning" (I don't think this is what Russia has done, btw, but it's a convenient shorthand) homosexuality isn't going to work. I especially don't think it's a good way of encouraging people to have more children. They'd likely do that provided they (the people who are naturally heterosexual) thought their prospects were sufficiently optimistic that they could successfully raise them and maintain a decent standard of living.

Even so, iirc, Oscar Wilde had two children. Look how he ended!

I really don't know what I'm talking about. I've only ever met a handful of gay people, and certainly never interrogated them about these sorts of things.

And, moreover, I expect people do things differently in Russia. On account of the cold winters, or something.
 
Top Bottom