Russia...Politics...Beliefs.

[elenhil]

I'd like to point out that one's 'nature' insofar as one's instinctive drives/urges/tendencies can be markedly different from one's 'behavior'. The 'fact' is that all of one's purposeful behavior is ultimately dictated by choice (which also has nature/nurture components); however, how one instinctively 'feels' with respect to basal drives/urges is almost wholly dictated by one's physiology.

 

So a gay person could behave as a heterosexual, but this would amount to enormous internal pressure, since it is acting in contrast to that person's nature.

If so, it must work the other way round, too, but it doesn't. We have societies where at some stage perfectly heterosexual young males are all culturally mandated to act 'homosexually' (performing anal or oral sexual intercourse, for example, often on a regular basis and over a prolonged period of time). It does not seem to cause them enormous internal pressure, and, having passed the stage, they usually enter a regular heterosexual relationship, form a family, etc. So no, the nature vs behaviour distinction is not that clear-cut, either.

 

To illustrate my point: surely you must have heard of studies of fertility of captive primates. The ones where female apes have difficulty with the most basic aspects of caring for their offspring if they, in turn, have had no proper nursing in their infancy. They are, basically, clueless about what to do with an infant ape. They can't nurse, won't hold or show any other 'natural' impulse towards the young. Curiously, some scientists tried rectifying the problem by exposing these females to proper 'role models' (including, amazingly, human ones), which led to subsequent offspring being nursed properly. Pardon the clumsy retelling. So, to my mind, what these primatologists observed was not some fault of behaviour, but a lack of impulse towards mothering behaviour. That was certainly not a question of 'choice' but - by your logic - nature. Turns out, even with apes, and even with such a basic and evolutionary selected 'drive', 'nature' is prone to be affected by 'culture' or 'behaviour'. It is, of course, an interpretation open to criticism from whoever can systematically describe the same set of fact in a different way.

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil

[elwaps]

I am aware of Article 29 (2).

However, when following the UNDHR, respecting the rights and freedoms of people can not include restricting the rights and freedoms of others as described in earlier articles.

 

"So, regardless of individual claims such as 'morality is subjective'"

Claiming morality to be objective presupposes the acceptance of a divine entity, which is okay. But trying to apply this personal perception on every citizen in a state makes this state rather a theocracy than a secular state. We're talking about secular states as in theocracies there's no freedom of religion and therefore the UNDHR we're talking about does not apply. So in a secular state there is no objective morality. Following that, discrimination against a certain group of people cannot be justified by trying to uphold a predefined morality coming from the government.

 

"every human rights instrument there is somehow recognizes the overarching right (indeed, duty) of the state to protect it."

If by "human rights instrument" you mean the UNDHR and other articles you are of course right. Discrimination based upon religion, sex and also sexual preference amongst others, however, goes against many of these articles and therefore isn't valid to protect said rights.

 

"To put is shortly, Russian society is historically conservative enough for the majority of its citizens to hold open display of homosexuality contrary to their morals, be their Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist."

As said above, abusing the human rights to undermine human rights does not work. But I understand your point very well.

Most religions condemn homosexuality based upon the belief that the respective gods created two genders for reproduction only, that's why many hardcore evangelicals (and surely many members of other religions too) also agitate for no sex other than for reproduction and against contraception. From my perspective, in the case of the Bible, in which homosexuality is declared a sin in exactly one verse of Leviticus (part of the Old Testament), this is mostly cherrypicking to cover up for personal homophobia. In the same book cursing your parents aswell as killing someone else's animals is said to be punished with death and none of these people go on the street propagating death penalty for animal crimes. Not to speak of other weird commandments (eating shellfish, wearing two fabric clothes,...) from the OT that commonly get ignored because [insert anything from outdated to wrong interpretation to only applicable to the "chosen people"]. Simply cherrypicking.

 

We're still talking about secular countries so all of the above isn't an argument when it comes to taking away rights from citizens.

 

As for the rest of simply homophobic people (I bet you'll find way less of these among atheists than among religious folks as the above is probably the most cited justification):
is it desirable to take away human rights from a large group of people to not hurt the feelings of a larger group of people? Especially when in a secular state those feelings mostly emerge from a conserative, religious past? I don't think so.

 

Practically you're probably right for Russia and some other conserative countries. However, this state is anything but living the human rights and the treatment of homosexuals, encouraged by the government, is anything but desirable. We're talking about regarding (and treating) a fair amount of humanity as lesser beings. Guess who did this before.

 

 

Regarding the studies, sorry, my bad, you indeed cited them before. Thanks for the complete sources anyway.

 

As for your first study (Byne):
"The validity of the model [...] rests on the validity of the assumptions that (1) some temperamental traits and personality dimensions influence the manner in which an individual's sexual orientation emerges and (2) at least some of these temperamental and personality factors are developmentally influenced by either hormones or heredity"

The very main points the entire conclusion of the study is based upon are assumptions about causalities that aren't confirmed. Respectively weren't confirmed yet when the study was conducted. I assume that within the last twenty years they either got confirmed, weakened or disproven, reading at least the abstracts of recent studies seems to imply the latter. The next logical step would now be to look for follow up studies examining exactly the above mentioned assumed causalities.

 

The article (not study) from LeVay and Hamer on the other hand seems to make a case for mostly biological reasons for sexual preference (gonna read the entire article later), which is what I proposed based upon my reading of current studies. However, this again is about 20 years old, only citing studies older than 22 years and not an actual study itself so the last sentence of my previous paragraph applies here too.

 

/edit

Quoting myself:
"among religious folks [referring to holy scriptures] is probably the most cited justification"

As for the probably second most cited justification for propagating the discrimination of homosexuality, it being "unnatural", this is also to be sorted into the religious corner. As pointed out before, with humans (aswell as all other species demonstrating homosexuality) being part of nature, "unnatural" behaviour of humans (aswell as other species) is impossible by definition. The "unnatural" "argument" only works out when again applying a strict interpretation of the Bible or similar scriptures as people doing so see humans as special and above (and thereby not belonging to) nature, while "natural" is usually used in the sense of "what [insert god] expects".

 

So, looking at the individual (and thereby excluding justifications for discrimination like upkeeping public order, as the public perception of order is nothing more than the accumulation of individual beliefs), what reasons are there at all to force homosexuals into a secret life and keep back human rights from them besides vague feelings and sexual insecurity?

Edited December 11, 2015 by elwaps

[z929669]

I agree that is is more complex than I make it seem. All I am saying is that our physiology and our behavior is formulated upon a genetic template. This genetic template defines the absolute limitations of our physiology and thus our behavioral capacities.

The 'fact' is that sexuality has a very strong genetic component. This is because, ultimately, genes really do formulate the foundation for all behavior. Our physiology is the biological outcome of that foundation, and our physiology can be environmentally influenced (the extent of which is constrained by the genetic foundation). Even more complicated is our behavior, which ultimately is governed by our physiology and our sociology. Therefore, our behavior has strong genetic and environmental components. Our inherent 'drives' are almost entirely determined by our physiology. If our behaviors don't align with our drives, then the internal conflict must be very difficult, taxing, and possibly overwhelming.

Therefore, it is invalid for anyone to say that sexuality is a person's choice and that said person is actively trying to deviate from (or piss off) the larger group by engaging in "socially unacceptable" behaviors. It is simply not true. Their sexuality has an enormous, genetically-constrained component that cannot be rationally denied.

An article by William Byne (author cited in discrediting my own position - nature drives sexuality) adequately demonstrates the complexity of sexual orientation and its many potential biological and social determinants. My argument is that one's manifest behaviors always have a strong genetically-constrained component and that this component is particularly important with respect to latent sexuality. Manifest sexuality reasonably should be influenced more by environment in comparison; therefore, it is also reasonable to conclude that more homosexuals behave as heterosexuals than the reverse, due to social pressure (environment). So manifest homosexual social behavior is probably just as 'true' as manifest heterosexual behavior (if for no other reason than it is socially controversial) and so is just as natural and should be just as socially acceptable.

The 'fact' is that those that identify as homosexuals are absolutely NOT making any kind of conscious choice to do so (except in those rare exceptions that are bound to exist). It is harder to be outside of the social norm, so I say that the outspoken religious-elitist social Gestapo ought to stick it where the Sun don't shine.

 

If so, it must work the other way round, too, but it doesn't. We have societies where at some stage perfectly heterosexual young males are all culturally mandated to act 'homosexually' (performing anal or oral sexual intercourse, for example, often on a regular basis and over a prolonged period of time). It does not seem to cause them enormous internal pressure, and, having passed the stage, they usually enter a regular heterosexual relationship, form a family, etc. So no, the nature vs behaviour distinction is not that clear-cut, either.

Exactly: they return to their true nature :)

[elenhil]

I am aware of Article 29 (2).

However, when following the UNDHR, respecting the rights and freedoms of people can not include restricting the rights and freedoms of others as described in earlier articles.

I'm afraid you're simply wrong here. No legal instrument has ever placed individual rights and freedoms as unconditional and subject to no restrictions whatsoever, UNDHR included, otherwise Article 29(2) would be pointless. In fact, the idea that personal liberties have their limits is as old and human rights discourse itself. Your freedoms end where mine begin, etc. 

 

Indeed, every document I cited recognizes that 

 

The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others

 

ICCPR Article 12(3)

 

It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

 

Ibid., Article 19(3)

 

No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

Ibid., Article 21

 

No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.

 

 

And so forth (some documents, just like ICCPR, have these sorts of disclaimers in almost every single article). You simply cannot have a state of unrestricted personal freedoms, and these articles are a testament to that (and to reason, really).

 

So in a secular state there is no objective morality. 

 

That makes any legal reference to public morals absurd, don't you find? And yet, every human rights instrument recognizes the right and duty of a democracy to protect these morals, just like public health and public safety. You might as well argue that health and safety is subjective, and therefore the police have no legal right to restrict the right to association and freedom of movement of criminals.

 

But, returning to the subject of morals, if a state sees that in a society build around a specific set of morals (religious or otherwise, subjective or objective - whatever) is exposed to another, minority set of morals contrary and undermining the former, it has every right to uphold the status quo without it being in any way discriminatory.

 

 

All in all, I'm afraid you're stuck with an ill-informed idea of what 'discrimination' is. The thing is, international law prohibits illegal discrimination, whereas legal discrimination is, well, perfectly legal. For example, criminals are routinely and legally being discriminated against for the purpose of public safety. So are severely mentally ill. As the European Court of Human Rights puts it, а difference in treatment “is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification†(cf. para. 37 of Karner v. Austria, application no. 40016/98, 24 July 2003). 

 

We're still talking about secular countries so all of the above isn't an argument when it comes to taking away rights from citizens.

I believe you're confused here. No-one is taking anyone's rights away. We're talking about justifiably limiting these rights, as per domestic and international laws. You can question the justification, not the morals or the legal right to protect them.

 

And we haven't even begun the explore the issue of public health...

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil

[elenhil]

 

Therefore, it is invalid for anyone to say that sexuality is a person's choice 

Which I did not do. However, culture/environment has a way of influencing human behaviour irrespective of their choice, don't you think? So you can't really claim that a higher percentage of homosexual twins (which lived all their life in a single household), just like a higher percentage of second-generation alcoholics or drug addicts, is entirely biological in nature.

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil

[elwaps]

"Your freedoms end where mine begin"

True. So how exactly are homosexuals interfering with your freedom to get a justification for restricting their freedom out of these articles? By just being present? Do you value your personal freedom to not being annoyed by their presence higher than their personal freedom to love whoever they might love?

 

"That makes any legal reference to public morals absurd, don't you find? And yet, every human rights instrument recognizes the right and duty of a democracy to protect these morals, just like public health and public safety. You might as well argue that health and safety is subjective, and therefore the police have no legal right to restrict the right to association and freedom of movement of criminals."

You're (intentionally) mixing up laws with morality.

Also, while murderers, thieves and such not only interfer with human rights (right for property, right to be unharmed etc) but also harm public safety and health and therefore are restricted by laws, how exactly do homosexuals interfer with human rights, public safety or health? Your comparison is absurd.

 

"if a state sees that in a society build around a specific set of morals [...] is exposed to another, minority set of morals contrary"

Show me how homosexuality interfers with the foundation of a democratic secular state. Also, who is to determine which moral is minor? This is why I've pointed out that morals cannot be objective. This is also why assisted suicide, abortion and such are controverse topics rather than no brainers with a predefined absolute position.

 

"All in all, I'm afraid you're stuck with an ill-informed idea of what 'discrimination' is. The thing is, international law prohibits illegal discrimination, whereas legal discrimination is, well, perfectly legal. For example, criminals [...]"

Criminals again. To me, discrimination is disadvantaging someone based upon his appearance, sex, religion, sexual preference, skin color etc and not based upon his actions. And I don't think my definition is too far from what is generally considered discrimination. By that, "legal discrimination" only exists in states not ensuring human rights.

 

"I believe you're confused here. No-one is taking anyone's rights away. We're talking about justifiably limiting these rights, as per domestic and international laws."

To help me with my confusion you could clearly state what your idea of the legal status of homosexual persons would be. You could also point out of what advantage limiting the rights of a group of persons chosen by their sexual preference (this is what I call discrimination) would have.

[elenhil]

As for your first study (Byne)

Consider this (same author) instead: 

 

Bailey and Pillard found that the incidence of homosexuality in the adopted brothers of homosexuals (11%) was much higher than recent estimates for the rate of homosexuality in the population (1 to 5%). In fact, it was equal to the rate for non-twin biological brothers. This study clearly challenges a simple genetic hypothesis and strongly suggests that environment contributes significantly to sexual orientation... 

 

Indeed, perhaps the major finding of these heritability studies is that despite having all of their genes in common and having prenatal and postnatal environments as close to identical as possible, approximately half of the identical twins were nonetheless discordant for orientation. This finding underscores just how little is known about the origins of sexual orientation.

That was what I was talking about. The specific facts or the date of their documentation is of little interest to me. What I'm seeing is that facts, whatever their date, are open to different interpretations, so one cannot really claim to represent a consensus.

[elwaps]

In contrary to you, the source would be of interest for me so please provide it.

 

/edit

By the way, if you don't suggest interfering with child nurture as a "solution" to "cure" homosexuality at a young age or are religiously motivated in regards of homosexuality being a sin, for this debate it doesn't really matter if sexual preference is mainly influenced by factors before or after birth. So in that case we could save several hours each of reading studies and instead debate the core of the topic.

Edited December 11, 2015 by elwaps

[elenhil]

"Your freedoms end where mine begin"

True. So how exactly are homosexuals interfering with your freedom to get a justification for restricting their freedom out of these articles? By just being present?

a) I never said that.

b) I'm personally not in a position to restrict anyone's freedom (apart from citizen arrest, which I don't think I will ever have to carry out)

 

Also, while murderers, thieves and such not only interfer with human rights (right for property, right to be unharmed etc) but also harm public safety and health and therefore are restricted by laws, how exactly do homosexuals interfer with human rights, public safety or health? Your comparison is absurd.

 

The comparison is imaginary. I merely gave you an example where human rights are clearly subject to lawful restrictions (which I thought you denied, as in 'respecting the rights and freedoms of people can not include restricting the rights and freedoms of others' - so, did you?)

 

To me, discrimination is disadvantaging someone based upon his appearance, sex, religion, sexual preference, skin color etc and not based upon his actions. And I don't think my definition is too far from what is generally considered discrimination. By that, "legal discrimination" only exists in states not ensuring human rights.

 

Did I or did I not quote you from the European Court of Human Rights? I rather thought I did. A difference in treatment (discrimination to you and me) is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification. Otherwise it is what I called (so that you might distinguish between the two) 'legal discrimination'. That is the law of a large portion of the democratic world, so no amount of dismissing it as 'only exist[ing] in states not ensuring human rights' will help your case.

 

Don't take it personally, but I don't believe your personal definition of discrimination has any relevance for this problem whatsoever. Not as long as we're talking human rights law, not your personal ideas of the treatment of homosexuals.

 

 

So, coming to the question of how exactly the Russian state justifies its laws against propaganda of homosexuality to minors on grounds of its protecting morals:

 

It follows from the very title of the Ryazan regional law (“On the protection of morals of the children in the Ryazan regionâ€). Superior courts of the Russian Federation have likewise found the laws in question to pursue the selfsame aim. The Constitutional Court, for example, in Article 3 of its judgment on the Ryazan regional law indicated that the prohibition of propaganda is aimed against “dissemination of information that can harm . . . the moral development†of children. Similarly, the Supreme Court also indicated that the laws in question are aimed at protecting the morals. Namely, the Court’s judgment of 7 November 2012 concerning the similar law of Kostroma oblast indicates that the norm had been adopted “[to] protect the rights of children and to protect them from harm to their moral developmentâ€. Supreme Court’s judgment of 3 October 2012 on the similar St. Petersburg regional law found the same. 

 

UNHRC’s General Comment No. 22: “[T]he concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations . . . for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single traditionâ€.

 

Prohibition of propaganda of homosexuality to minors fully satisfies this criterion due to the fact that in Russia, without any prejudice of the homosexuals as persons, homosexual lifestyle and behaviour are regarded immoral by all major religious traditions as well as by the majority of unbelievers.

 

That is why I believe, given the obvious social conservatism of the Russian society, it is perfectly legitimate for (indeed, required of) the state to limit, for example, the right to freedom of expression insofar as it is used to affect the morals of the young and the society in general.

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil

[elenhil]

In contrary to you, the source would be of interest for me so please provide it.

Byne "The Biological Evidence Challenged", Scientific American, May 1994.

 

I am, indeed, of the religious conviction that views homosexual acts (not homosexuality itself) as morally wrong, which does not prohibit me from having an opinion as to whether the inclination itself is genetic or cultural (no, I'm not one of those who think 'Tis the work of the DEVIL!' can settle a rational debate). Frankly, in the history of science as a whole, having a moral/religious views have never been a obstacle.

[z929669]

Which I did not do. However, culture/environment has a way of influencing human behaviour irrespective of their choice choice, don't you think? So you can't really claim that a higher percentage of homosexual twins (which lived all their life in a single household), just like a higher percentage of second-generation alcoholics or drug addicts, is entirely biological in nature.

Agreed

I don't think the phraseology is what you intended, so you might want to add the operative component here ... because I can rightly claim that a higher % is biologic in nature ;)

 

Regarding Russian (and any) law on "homosexual propaganda" ... If Russian homosexuals were advertising and/or advocating the "benefits of homosexuality" to the general community or otherwise generating actual 'propaganda', then their laws are applicable to "protect the moral development of children" ... however, like many theologically-influenced laws or social positions, they are often misapplied or applied in bias by individuals/groups who's intention is not to 'protect' others in their society, but rather to 'protect' their own perceived threatened moral code out of irrational fear that they justify under the guise of their own subjective religion that they would impose on us all by law if they could.

 

Imposing social conservatives = people that want to live in a culturally (ethnically?) homogeneous 'state' out of fear of 'other' and try their best to make that happen; intolerant hypocrites and bigots with a plethora of their own imperfections that they don't dare admit to themselves much less to others :)

 

... we all have bias and subjective opinions. That's fine. We should not be advocating social reforms based on our subjectivity though ... unless it is approaching unanimous support.

[elwaps]

"a) I never said that."

But you meant it? If not I don't get your position in this debate then.

 

 

"which I thought you denied, as in 'respecting the rights and freedoms of people can not include restricting the rights and freedoms of others' - so, did you?"

In that quote I was referring to you interpreting the UNDHR. Quite an unclear statement of mine tho. I was trying to say what I've said with a later statement:

"abusing the human rights to undermine human rights does not work."

in a sense that allows homophobics to abuse their right on freedom to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

 

 

"I don't believe your personal definition of discrimination has any relevance for this problem whatsoever"

So that's where some of the misunderstandings from above derived from. Perhaps that was just me, however, in my language "discrimination" is almost solely used in the way I've described it. Now that you know, you'll probably understand why I've interpreted some of your statements about discrimination as either nitpicking or nonsense.

 

 

I haven't asked for it but its interesting to see where the current situation in Russia derived from. However, referring to "harming the moral development" is using empty words to impose the moral positions of the government (or perhaps even the majority of society) on a minority. The law just predefines a desired moral development, predefines an absolute moral and doesn't even give reasons what exactly would harm children when seeing homosexuals. Just as I assumed, you would find a rhetoric justification for this, even, and this is plain ironic, in a human rights paper. Still, following the moral positions of a majority (were there polls or something before passing the law to determine those positions or was it just the legislative assuming what would be the moral positions of the majority?) could be of help when weighting two equally problematic positions against each other.

 

In the case of homosexuality however, the impact on the minority is way bigger than the impact on the majority. Not allowing homosexuality is literally destroying the life of a seven or eight digit number of citizens. Which, looking at the alternative, is not covered by human rights. The positions and statements of the government on the topic made it even worse, so that part of the majority now feels to have the right to threaten, beat up and sometimes even kill homosexuals. I doubt many of these crimes are reported as the victims would have to out themselves as homosexual before officials then. If, on the other hand, homosexuality was allowed, that seven or eight digit number of people would be able to live normal lives without the constant danger of being outed and punished while the majority would have to explain their children what homosexuality is.

 

So, again, is it worth to force millions of people into a secret life with the constant threat of prosecution and physical harm leading to a high suicide rate to avoid explaining to your children that there's more than boys loving girls?

 

 

"I am, indeed, of the religious conviction that views homosexual acts (not homosexuality itself) as morally wrong"

Why that distinction? I don't get that "I got no problems with you being homosexual but if I ever see you in public I will make you go to jail" position. I'm not gay myself but I'd rather watch a young gay couple kissing in public than two 300 lbs beauties or an 70 years old man with his 20 years old girlfriend. Yet I would never even think of trying to prohibit any of it. Must be due to "because religion!" I guess...

 

 

"I'm not one of those who think 'Tis the work of the DEVIL!'"

Don't worry, we wouldn't have this debate if you were.

 

 

"in the history of science as a whole, having a moral/religious views have never been a obstacle"
I don't see how this is connected to our debate but you're right. As long as you're working scientifically, you can believe in whatever you want. In a reasonable way. What happens when you get too fanatic can be seen throughout history, young earth creationism respectively intelligent design are just the youngest examples. And, unfortunately, not having religious views or not sharing the exact official positions has been an obstacle way too often.

[elenhil]

 

... we all have bias and subjective opinions. That's fine. We should not be advocating social reforms based on our subjectivity though ... unless it is approaching unanimous support.

 

I see a small problem with that logic. Just how much is unanimity? And does this logic really apply to regular democratic process? After all, doesn't a liberal administration with a, say, 51% majority mandate impose its subjective opinions and policies upon the conservative 49%? And that is if the representation is proportional. With first past the post elections the numbers can be even crazier.

If you don't see that as something inherently undemocratic, then you shouldn't really object to a state upholding the moral views of some 86% of the population (which, to my knowledge, is the extent to which the laws under question are enjoying public support in Russia).

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil

[z929669]

 

 

 

I see a small problem with that logic. Just how much is unanimity? And does this logic really apply to regular democratic process? After all, doesn't a liberal administration with a, say, 51% majority mandate impose its subjective opinions and policies upon the conservative 49%? And that is if the representation is proportional. With first past the post elections the numbers can be even crazier.

 

If you don't see that as something inherently undemocratic, then you shouldn't really object to a state upholding the moral views of some 86% of the population (which, to my knowledge, is the extent to which the laws under question are enjoying public support in Russia).

 

With regard to social policy (social behaviors, not laws), even a small minority has rights that can be discriminated against (under the 1st amendment I think if not more of the US constitution ... my guess is that other Western cultures have similar constitutions). Freedom of religion and sexuality are good examples. Not a lot of satanic congregations out there, and there are relatively few transgender people; however, these groups are protected by law in most civilized countries, and unless there is almost unanimous (100%) support to restrict their non-violent/non-discriminating/non-abusive activities, then nobody should be legally advocating subjective propaganda and social reforms against these groups.

 

Those social conservatives (e.g., Family Research Council and their ilk [including known sex offenders and apparently shamed homosexuals ... Josh Duggar, George Alan Rekers, etc. ]) that do insist upon doing so have some issues of their own to deal with before taking on those they perceive in others.

 

I think you get my gist, so no hair-splitting please ;)

[elenhil]

 

 

So how exactly are homosexuals interfering with your freedom to get a justification for restricting their freedom out of these articles? By just being present?

 

a) I never said that."

ut you meant it? If not I don't get your position in this debate then.

Contrary to your impression, I do not believe that homosexuals are interfering with my freedoms by just being present. I am, however, rather uneasy seeing myself becoming the subject of this discussion, mind you. But - more to the point - I am extremely uneasy at the though of my children being inducted into liberal PC early childhood education programs teaching them that it doesn't really mean much that they have a father and a mother, replacing me with a second, lesbian, mother would be juuust fine. Merely an example off the top of my sleepy head, mind you. I can think of better ones.

However, referring to "harming the moral development" is using empty words to impose the moral positions of the government (or perhaps even the majority of society) on a minority.

 

But isn't it the job of every type of government (be it socially conservative or liberal)? Pluralism can only go so far. Where the values in question are inherently incompatible, you have no choice but to uphold one over the other, and do so either arbitrarily or trying to preserve what you believe to be a historical and vital part of the nation's culture.

The law just predefines a desired moral development, predefines an absolute moral and doesn't even give reasons what exactly would harm children when seeing homosexuals.

 

Not long ago you seemed to have to trouble understanding why, for example, religious morals are largely incompatible with open homosexuality. Do you really believe one has to give reasons to why that is the fact (which is observable though simple public surveying, not someone's attempting to infer what could be the reason for this)? By law (European human rights legal framework, for that matter) a state is uniquely positioned to make judgement as to what constitutes its country's morals and what does not. In case or Russia, the state merely utilized that position. You might not like that judgement, you might find that your particular country's public morals necessitate a different one, but you can't really argue with it.

it is not possible to find in the domestic law of the various Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals. The view taken by their respective laws of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in our era which is characterised by a rapid and far-reaching evolution of opinions on the subject. By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them.

 

ECHR ruling in Handyside v. UK, application no. 5493/72, 07 December 1976, para. 48

Not allowing homosexuality is literally destroying the life of a seven or eight digit number of citizens.

 

I don't get that "I got no problems with you being homosexual but if I ever see you in public I will make you go to jail" position

 

 

All in all, you seem to be overdramatizing the impact and scope of this legislation. It does not outlaw homosexuality. Not does it make for a homosexual to appear in public tantamount to a breach of the law. Nor does it justify threatening, beating up, or, indeed, killing homosexuals. It prohibits deliberate propaganda of homosexuality to minors, not unlike other laws prohibiting propaganda of, say, smoking or drinking to underage persons. You could, of course, claim that any such law can be distorted to, say, unlawfully discriminate against smokers, but the onus of proving that a) it is the case, and b) that it is not only not contrary to the legislator's intent but directly stemming from it is on you.

 

Having seen the Imitation Game, though, I think people can't be held responsible for holding such overdramatized views :)

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil