Russia...Politics...Beliefs.

[elenhil]

z929669, I still don't get it why you're talking of unanimous 100% support while nearly every type of policy decision requires a simple majority. Do pro-independence Scots have a better together opinion imposed upon because they happened to lose that referendum? And, more importantly, is that act of imposition unjustified, or even tyrannical? Do Labour voters have their rights violated because they happened to be in a minority compared to a Tory constituency, and thus have little to no say over the type of austerity policies they will continue to face? Can any of them demand that the opposite view should only be forced upon them though the unprecedented 100% majority that, you claim, alone can justify one worldview dominating the other?

Edited December 11, 2015 by elenhil

[Nebulous112]

Well, I don't.

I think it is very important to voice concerns against rasicm, chauvinism, homophobia etc. because those views are harmful for a democratic society if acted upon.

People like Trump are way too loud with their Chewbacca arguments.

 

Rationalism is the way to enlightenment!

 

Spock, by "live and let live" I was referring to your sarcastic appeal for fascism. I am a mid-twenties, heterosexual, Caucasian male living in one of the most conservative parts of Canada. I have worked construction jobs in the past. If one believed stereotypes, I should be the among the first assumed to be racist, chauvinist and / or homophobic.

 

However, I am not any of those things. I have no issues with Canada's large amount of immigration from non-Western countries, as long as they possess a basic understanding of English or French, or are willing to learn (Canada offers taxpayer-funded language training). Many people I know get frustrated or make fun of others who have a heavy accent. This is something I don't understand...I learned as a child never to make fun of someone with an accent, as they undoubtedly know more languages than I do.

 

I have no issues with homosexuality...gay marriage was legalized in Canada years ago. Of those people whose sexual orientation I am aware of, I don't know many that are gay, but I've never even thought of it as an issue. I had a man hit on me once, and I told him that I was flattered, but I swung for the other team (lol). Why do I care who someone sleeps with? Why is it even my business? I just don't understand what the issue is.

 

As far as chauvinism goes...generally, there are many things women do better than men. Generally, there are many things men do better than women. But why generalize? On an individual basis, it is not logical. For one example, any of the women participating in the UFC fighting could easily beat me up, and I am a fairly well-built man. I believe very much that work and school should function as a meritocracy. If someone is better at a certain job than someone else, it should not matter whether they are a woman or a man, old or young, white or black or purple. This seems fairly obvious to me. This also includes my belief that if you are 5'1 and 100-lbs. soaking-wet, and happen to be a woman, I'm not going to hire you as a firefighter or bouncer. The same as I wouldn't hire someone with a heavy accent or stutter as a dispatcher. The same as I wouldn't hire any man for a job looking after the dressing rooms at Victoria's Secret. Again, this seems obvious, but some people take the notion of "equality" too literally. And don't even get me started on the whole notion of seniority vs. merit. If you cannot tell, I am not a typical cheerleader for unions. ;-)

 

I do not care about the influx of different religions into what is a historically Christian-dominated culture, which in more modern times has been fairly secular. Practice whatever religion you want, as long as you do not prescribe violence. I do not even mind people knocking on my door to proselytize, as long as they understand that "no, thank you" does in fact mean "no, thank you". I am agnostic - some others without faith seem to hate religion, and make fun of those who practice it. Again, I do not understand this...if a religion makes someone else happy, who am I to deny them that?

 

I guess what I mean by "live and let live" is that why should I worry about other lifestyles when they do not affect my own, no matter how different? I am not gay, but why should I care if gay people get married? Or if a gay nightclub is being operated in my city? It doesn't affect me. I am not religious, but why should I care if a new mosque or a Morman temple is being built near me? Or if a Jewish private school teaches the Torah alongside the government-prescribed curriculum? It doesn't affect me. I am only fluent in English, but why should I care if people are having a conversation on the subway in a language I don't understand? Again, it doesn't affect me. I'll live my way, and let you live yours. If everyone felt this way, I believe there would be a lot less hatred in the world. I only (consciously) negatively discriminate against others when their lifestyle does start to affect me. Violent religious extremists, and most criminals, for example.

 

I did not mean my "live and let live" comment to be analyzed with respect to the homophobic comments referenced in the OP. I disagree utterly with what was said, as should be obvious from what I've already written in this post. However, I do understand that there are cultural differences between Western nations and Russia which make the comments more understandable than if they had come from a Westerner. I will expand on this below.

 

 

 

It is easy to say live and let others live. It is rather more difficult to act on the maxim in a pro- or contra-something state that sways with whatever the dominant lobby happens to like and want to impose on you through policy.

I think it is naive to believe that we can prescribe morality for the world. I too believe that morality is subjective. However, it is important to make the distinction between individual morality, and state-imposed morality (laws). They do not always match up.

 

I would define an individual's morality simply as his conscience. And a person's morality is flexible. For example, I do not condone stealing. However, if my child was starving, I would have no moral dilemma in stealing a loaf of bread to feed her.

 

State-imposed morality I would simply define as law. I am uneducated in the field, but it seems to me that laws are simply rules that a society has agreed to live by. In a democratic society, if a majority (or a sizable minority) of people change their individual perspectives on the morality of a certain issue, this usually leads to changes in law. Civil rights legislation, and the legalization of gay marriage are examples in Western countries. Canada has just elected a Prime Minister who campaigned on the legalization of marijuana. Why would the Prime Minister change a law to allow what was in the past considered a harmful drug? Because polls have showed the majority of Canadians want to see marijuana legalized; the majority no longer consider smoking marijuana an immoral act.

 

No matter what the state-imposed morality (or law) says, one can always choose to follow their personal morality if it conflicts. There may be repercussions, but there is always a choice. Even if someone has a gun to your head, you can always choose to take the bullet. Not to say that I would in that circumstance! But the choice is there, if your belief is strong enough. However, like the said gun-to-the-head scenario, it is also obvious that any state-imposed morality has a heavy influence on an individual's own subjective morality. One always needs a baseline reference for any value to have meaning, and the reference for an individual's morality is the culture one is brought up in as a child.

 

If I'm brought up in a racist household in the deep south of America, unless I am exposed to other cultural stimulus I will probably be racist myself. As was mentioned earlier in the excellent conversation of this thread, Russia is a very conservative place. Their laws reflect the values of the majority. While I do not agree with some of those values, I think interfering in a negative way can cause more harm than good, and will lead to push-back against "outsiders". Lead by example, but do not demonize those whose views you find ignorant or simply idiotic. It is useless; you will never change their mind this way, and you will only put their back up against the wall.

 

I feel this is where America has gone wrong with public policy. You can positively influence a culture through exposure. Espouse the benefits of your way of living, and try to have a rational debate as to why your way of living is better. However, you will never change the minds and hearts of people by force; people have to choose to change. You cannot get an alcoholic to stop drinking unless he wants to. Similarly, you cannot force a racist, anti-semitic or homophobic culture to change as an outside agent. Culture is influenced from the outside, but it only truly changes from the inside, and until people within Russia change the mindset of their peers, state-imposed homophobia will remain. Putin's actions against homosexuality may seem wrong to us, but to the Russian people, I am sure they perceive his actions as perfectly moral and justifiable. 

 

I think many people fail to take perspective into account. I firmly believe that most people will act on what they think is right, in the vast majority of cases. I doubt Putin considers himself immoral. I doubt the majority of Russians consider him immortal. Yet most Westerners do. However, cultures evolve, and I am sure in fifty years the mindset of the average Russian toward homosexuals will be different. Thankfully. :-)

 

 

 

Lastly, I just wanted to add a quick blurb on the whole genetic / cultural origin of homosexuality debate:

 

I think everyone can agree that attraction is subconscious. I don't make a conscious choice to find many red-headed females attractive. Or those with certain accents. Etc.

 

Yet I do find these traits attractive. Whether this is genetic, or through cultural influence, I do not know. Attraction for me (as a heterosexual) is a subconscious reaction, therefore I assume it is the same with homosexuals. Cultural or genetic, we do not choose who we love.

 

However, I am fascinated with epigenetics, and I wonder about their role in sexuality, as I wonder more generally about the role of epigenetics in our lives.

 

I am no academic, but I believe more and more that science is finding how we live can affect our biology in ways that standard genetics doesn't account for. For example, the possibility that a period of starvation can affect tolerance to dietary pressures for generations. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150731105240.htm

 

Edit: General editing for clarity, word-choice, punctuation, etc.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Nebulous112

[MonoAccipiter]

 

Nor does it justify threatening, beating up, or, indeed, killing homosexuals.

Are you talking about justification in a) a judicial sense or in b) a moral sense? Cause, if a) that's a red herring (as he clearly was not suggesting it in that sense) and if b) you're simply shifting the burden of proof, and that doesn't really prove anything. The analogy is also false, as the argument for discrimination against smokers can be made on entirely different grounds than the argument for discrimination against homosexuals.

[elenhil]

 

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.

 

Nor does it justify threatening, beating up, or, indeed, killing homosexuals. 

 

 

Are you talking about justification in a) a judicial sense or in b) a moral sense? Cause, if a) that's a red herring (as he clearly was not suggesting it in that sense) 

It is a). The 'right to threaten, beat up and sometimes even kill homosexuals', alleged to have come from the legislation in question, is contrary to the law of the land, so you can't really use that as an argument unless you prove that it was the intention of the legislator for it to be so through either direct encouragement or wilful negligence.

 

you're simply shifting the burden of proof, and that doesn't really prove anything

 

Would you, for example, argue that a ban on polygamy is not only unjustly discriminatory for the Muslim 'minority' in Russia, but is also making a large part of the minority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up, and sometimes even kill Muslims? Would you argue that a ban on FGM is not only unjustly discriminatory for the African/East Asian minority in Great Britain, but also making a large part of the minority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up, and sometimes even kill immigrants? And, for that matter, would you argue that any anti-immigrant law advocated by David Cameron is, in fact, encouraging violence against immigrants - and at the same time accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when asking you to prove that the alleged violence is, indeed, caused by the law in question?

 

You realise that there are lots of of practices favoured by some minority communities, yet outlawed by the state on the ground of morals? Would you attempt to tie each to an alleged surge of violence against that particular community?

 

 

 

The analogy is also false, as the argument for discrimination against smokers can be made on entirely different grounds than the argument for discrimination against homosexuals.

 

 

 

That does not make an analogy strictly false - as long as it was aimed at highlighting the fact that the ban on homosexual propaganda among minors is but one of the set of laws designed to protect children from information harmful to their development (physical, moral, etc.). So, there are laws protecting children from exposure to violent scenes, too. Ditto for smoking, alcohol consumption, developmentally inappropriate sex scenes, and so forth. All of which share a common logic (endorsed by UNCRC, no less) that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" (not the same rationale in terms of the exact nature of harm presented). Keep in mind that this logic is consistently applied to both physical well-being and morals, however subjective you personally might hold them. Applied not exclusively by Russia, but by other signatories to ECHR, for example. It's just that Russia uses its 'margin of appreciation' to apply this principle in its own way, according to its particular culture. Some other country's public morals might be perfectly compatible with whatever is the talk of the day. That does not mean others have no right and duty to oppose it.

 

As for 'entirely different grounds', the difference is, in effect, bridged by the same rights of the child legislation which bundles protection of morals and protection of health into one question. Not to mention that the state does have a healthcare rationale in its opposition to homosexual propaganda.

Edited December 12, 2015 by elenhil

[elwaps]

„Contrary to your impression, I do not believe that homosexuals are interfering with my freedoms by just being present.“

Still you think it is acceptable or even desirable to ban them from public.

 

„I am, however, rather uneasy seeing myself becoming the subject of this discussion, mind you.“

Its not us becoming the subjects of this discussion but our views and opinions. That’s why I’m asking for yours. If I wanted to converse with an opposite that has no opinion I could instead talk to Wikipedia.

 

„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.“

This is a flat non argument. Tolerance towards homosexuals does not mean telling your children that it doesn’t matter who their parents are, this is just dumb. Its just about accepting same sex couples like you accept different sex couples instead of discriminating them and seeing them as inferior humans. All of this aims at allowing those couples to live normal lives just like yours. You’re not met with hostility when seen with a woman in public. Same sex couples often are, especially in countries with laws like the Russian ones. I imagine it must be one of the worst feelings you can have when everyone automatically hates you for being seen with your loved one.

To more precisely answer to your statement, it is just about people (including children) knowing that love isn’t restricted to a specific combination of genders. Which it obviously isn’t. Its basically the same like with black/white couples in the US a few decades ago. You can either prevent your children from ever seeing such couples, try to ban such couples from the public and create laws illegalizing them, just like it happened there, so that when your children once encounter them they either react like when seeing a three headed goat or, depending on what they were taught by their parents, with rejection or hate. Or you can tell your children that most guys love girls but there’s also some people who are different. Nothing more is required to allow millions of people living normal, happy lives.

 

„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“

Although you’re constantly ignoring my question, this is the very point. Of course governments often need to find a compromise between two positions. Basically, if there wasn’t two or more opinions on any topic but just one, there would hardly be the need for a state.

However, I’m asking again. Is it worth destroying the life of millions just so that you don’t have to explain to your children that there’s more than boy loves girl? I don’t think so. And I fail to understand how anyone would be that egoistic and unemphatic.

 

„Not long ago you seemed to have to trouble understanding why, for example, religious morals are largely incompatible with open homosexuality.“

This is wrong. Instead I even gave a detailed explanation on why religion is mostly incompatible with homosexuality. I also remarked that, looking at the holy scriptures, that view objectively isn’t justified, just scroll up. Also, from that point of view, the incompatibility shouldn't be restricted to open homosexuality but to homosexuality in general. 

 

„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.“

As you see, I do. Which takes us back to my question from a few lines above, that was entirely ignored so far.

 

„It prohibits deliberate propaganda of homosexuality to minors“

…but leaves open to interpretation what exactly is regarded as propaganda. With smoking and such like that’s easy. Smoke and your propagating smoking. With homosexuality, what exactly is forbidden? If you cloth yourself more feminine than expected from heterosexuals, is this already illegal and you need to cover up? Holding hands with a same sex person? Protesting against arrestments of homosexuals? Demonstrating? All of this leads frequently to persons being beaten up and the police more likely arresting those persons instead of the attackers.

Basically this law attacks all of it, depending on who interprets it. Amongst others, you are robbed of your right to demonstrate (just look online for random demonstrations for gay rights and how they usually end) and thereby by your freedom of speech.

For a little impression of one of the more harmless things I’m talking about, have a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzccu5tn7A

and scroll, for example, to 2 minutes if you’re lazy.

 

„you seem to be overdramatizing the impact“

I’m not. Of course you can only look at the law itself and close your eyes for everything else. But then you’re underestimating the effects. I can give you dozens of examples like the above and worse.

[MonoAccipiter]

 

 

It is a). The 'right to threaten, beat up and sometimes even kill homosexuals', alleged to have come from the legislation in question, is contrary to the law of the land, so you can't really use that as an argument unless you prove that it was the intention of the legislator for it to be so through either direct encouragement or wilful negligence.

In this case I believe differentiating between what the law says (de jure) and how it is enforced (de facto). History teaches us that what a state should impose on their citizens according to written law isn't necessarily consistent with the common interpretation and/or the intention of the legislator. For example, in my country the passing of a law is per the constitution done by the monarch, yet since 1884 this role has been filled by a democratically elected government. Inferring is from ought would be fallacious in nature, and as elwaps have demonstrated several times, how this law ought to effect homosexuals isn't at all similar to the reality of its impact.

 

 

Would you, for example, argue that a ban on polygamy is not only unjustly discriminatory for the Muslim 'minority' in Russia, but is also making a large part of the minority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up, and sometimes even kill Muslims? Would you argue that a ban on FGM is not only unjustly discriminatory for the African/East Asian minority in Great Britain, but also making a large part of the minority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up, and sometimes even kill immigrants? And, for that matter, would you argue that any anti-immigrant law advocated by David Cameron is, in fact, encouraging violence against immigrants - and at the same time accuse me of shifting the burden of proof when asking you to prove that the alleged violence is, indeed, caused by the law in question?

 

You realise that there are lots of of practices favoured by some minority communities, yet outlawed by the state on the ground of morals? Would you attempt to tie each to an alleged surge of violence against that particular community?

I wasn't arguing the the attempt to shift the burden of proof rendered your conclusion false, I was simply pointing out that if you were discussing it on a moral basis (which you were not, so this answer doesn't really bear that much relevance) you were simply reiterating the same claims you had made before, and not refuting anything elwaps had said. For my stance on your conclusion see what I wrote above, and what elwaps wrote earlier. 

 

 

That does not make an analogy strictly false - as long as it was aimed at highlighting the fact that the ban on homosexual propaganda among minors is but one of the set of laws designed to protect children from information harmful to their development (physical, moral, etc.). So, there are laws protecting children from exposure to violent scenes, too. Ditto for smoking, alcohol consumption, developmentally inappropriate sex scenes, and so forth. All of which share a common logic (endorsed by UNCRC, no less) that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" (not the same rationale in terms of the exact nature of harm presented). Keep in mind that this logic is consistently applied to both physical well-being and morals, however subjective you personally might hold them. Applied not exclusively by Russia, but by other signatories to ECHR, for example. It's just that Russia uses its 'margin of appreciation' to apply this principle in its own way, according to its particular culture. Some other country's public morals might be perfectly compatible with whatever is the talk of the day. That does not mean others have no right and duty to oppose it.

 

As for 'entirely different grounds', the difference is, in effect, bridged by the same rights of the child legislation which bundles protection of morals and protection of health into one question. Not to mention that the state does have a healthcare rationale in its opposition to homosexual propaganda.

 

This entire analogy is based on the assumption that the damage caused by open displays of homosexuality is as objective as the damage caused by smoking related illness, which is entirely false. The fact that the child legislation bundles the protection of morals and the protection of health into the same question is completely and utterly irrelevant unless that assumption holds true. I stand by my point.

[elenhil]

Contrary to your impression, I do not believe that homosexuals are interfering with my freedoms by just being present.

 

Still you think it is acceptable or even desirable to ban them from public.

No I do not. By the way, there is a world of difference between a ban on a certain behaviour (propaganda of something) and a ban on appearing in public (house arrest?).

 

An analogy (and, please, keep your head cool and don't rush in confusing similarity of whatever nature with equation): theoretically, Stormont, or even Whitehall can ban parades by one section of the Northern Ireland society. That does not mean the relevant community is banned from public, does it?

 

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.

This is a flat non argument. Tolerance towards homosexuals does not mean telling your children that it doesn’t matter who their parents are, this is just dumb.

Why, thank you indeed for such a generous assessment of my intellectual faculties! If it really were my faculties you had in mind, and not an interpretation of my argument that you constructed in your head (which seems more like the case). You see, I wasn't speaking about denying my parenthood at all, I was speaking about denying my fatherhood. The importance - or even irreplaceability - of which I am acutely aware of, given that my son is precisely in that age when he begins to really appreciate his father's role.

 

Anyway, I am, sufficiently aware of the logical and, more importantly, practical reality that you cannot have 'tolerance' towards a 'worldview' (though I'd rather call it an ideology accompanying the sexual persuasion) incompatible with the family in its traditional sense without actually undermining the latter. And that was the point of my example, however imperfect it might have been (I may have skipped a few logical steps, which made it rather difficult to follow; it's just that these steps were already well documented in Nordic countries, where you can, for example, have your children taken into foster care because of "Christian indoctrination", only to be later transferred into a homosexual foster 'family' - all thanks to 'tolerance' of homosexuality).

 

Another example: if you have a 'worldview' incompatible with your legal system (say, an interpretation of Islam rejecting Western law and dedicated to replacing it with Sharia law), you can't really have 'tolerance' towards it without undermining your legal system.

 

As I have said, pluralism, tolerance and 'live and let live' can only go so far. There are lots of ideas and persuasions tolerance doesn't apply to. It's just they are not nearly as vocal in painting the horrific suffering of their particular 'millions of victims of intolerance'.

 

Some did, though, try to be vocal (even if without the 'millions' part). Spare a thought for the pro-paedophile groups. One (one of them) might say they only tried to promote tolerance towards their particular sexual persuasion. What an intolerant thing to do was to ban them! And in the name of the protection of morals. How could the state ruin the lives of millions of paedophiles! The nerve! The subjectivity! The shame! 

 

Is it worth destroying the life of millions just so that you don’t have to explain to your children that there’s more than boy loves girl?

The answer to the loaded question is, obviously, no. Does the alleged opinion behind the question bear any relation to mine? Likewise, no. Does the dramatic hyperbola have any reality behind it? Ditto. Why don't you first prove that a law on homosexual propaganda is destroying the life of millions, and then go on questioning others whether it is worth it. Posting links to Youtube videos is hardly a proof of anything. I can probably post you a video showing that Cameron's anti-EU or anti-benefit for immigrants stance is destroying the life of millions of Syrians or whatever. Which makes it neither the truth nor a proof.

 

It prohibits deliberate propaganda of homosexuality to minors

 

…but leaves open to interpretation what exactly is regarded as propaganda. 

 

No, it does not. Pardon me for pointing it out, but neither your ignorance in the matter nor your allegations, fears or interpretations have any relevance to the scope and nature of the legislation under discussion. What does is the interpretation by the relevant legal authorities. Given that the laws in question are, technically, regional legislation, that authority would be, say, the Constitutional or the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

 

Would you care to listen to the way it interpreted, defined, and limited the term 'homosexual propaganda' (thereby establishing the actual law of the land, not the idea you have in your head)? Or would you rather prefer to stick to your imagination in which this (and, I presume, any) law is, doubtless, intentionally left open to as wide interpretation as possible so that it could inspire people to threaten and kill homosexuals? I don't believe I really know the answer unless you say so definitely.

Edited December 13, 2015 by elenhil

[elenhil]

I wasn't arguing the the attempt to shift the burden of proof rendered your conclusion false, I was simply pointing out that if you were discussing it on a moral basis (which you were not, 

Wasn't I? I was under the impression that I did. Let's go through it once more (quoting from memory, so sorry if I misattribute something): Russia bans homosexual propaganda on the grounds of, among other things, the protection of public morals (and those of the young in particular). Elwaps claims I have to prove that it is contrary to public morals. I say to 'prove' it one doesn't need a logical construction, only a public survey (which does show extensive public support for the measure and a general view of the subject in question being contrary to interviewees' morals). I also note that in passing a judgement on whether something is against public morals, the state, in the language of the ECHR, is simply doing what it is best placed to do (better than an outside judge, and way better than an outside layman which elwaps is).

 

So, what was it you were trying to say, again?

 

This entire analogy is based on the assumption that the damage caused by open displays of homosexuality is as objective as the damage caused by smoking related illness, which is entirely false. 

 

Firstly, the analogy was based on similarity of intent (protection of children), not similarity of the nature of threat (moral well-being is obviously not the same as physical well-being, through successive legislators seem to think they are equally important and even somewhat interconnected).

 

Secondly, the analogy referred to a wide range of measures aimed at protecting children. Since elwaps claimed that one of these measures 'made the majority feel it has the right to threaten, beat up and sometimes even kill homosexuals', the point of the analogy was to show that, by the same token, he should claim that similar laws make people think they can threaten, beat up and even kill smokers, drinkers, bad-mouthed people, etc., too.

 

Lastly, I believe the assumption you are inferring is, in fact, more true than you think. I don't know about your particular country, but in Russia what is termed MSM (men who have sex with men) are more than 20 times more likely to contract HIV than an average heterosexual male. That alone, I think, would have been enough to make the state regard active homosexuality as an 'occupation' dangerous enough to restrict minors from engaging in.

Edited December 13, 2015 by elenhil

[elwaps]

You've missed to react to my comparison to the treatment of black people in the US a few decades ago.

You've also again missed to give a reason why the heavy restriction of the lives of millions of people is necessary in your eyes.

 

Also, hiding behind legal theory doesn't change the reality that homosexuals are forced to live with a secret that, when uncovered, leads to prison and/or physical harm while causing psychological damage as long as it isn't uncovered. Do you think such a life is fun?

 

Also, do you think comparing the impact of "worldviews" (remember, we're not talking about a worldview but about a sexual preference) like Sharia on society to the impact of homosexuality on society is a valid comparison? Or perhaps more like a strawman that makes arguing against it easier?

 

Final question: by putting Christian indoctrination into quotation marks, do you want to express that it doesn't exist?

[elenhil]

You've missed to react to my comparison to the treatment of black people in the US a few decades ago.

Sorry, I really did not see it. Can't find it, would you repeat, please?

 

You've also again missed to give a reason why the heavy restriction of the lives of millions of people is necessary in your eyes.

 

Not unless I missed you proving that a ban on propaganda of homosexuality among minors truly is 'a heavy restriction of the lives of millions of people' first (kind of prerequisite to any subsequent discussion; can't expect people applying reason to figments of someone's imagination).

 

Also, hiding behind legal theory doesn't change the reality that homosexuals are forced to live with a secret that, when uncovered, leads to prison and/or physical harm while causing psychological damage as long as it isn't uncovered. Do you think such a life is fun?

 

Man, I wish I could insert Sherlock's exasperated "Do your research!" moji from Skype here!

 

Are you talking about modern day Russia or are you talking about some imaginary Fascist country with million of closet homosexuals facing imminent incarceration? Because I, for the life of me, can see no overlap between the two.

 

Leads to prison if uncovered, you say? The law in question makes homosexual propaganda among minors a civil offence punishable by a fine of... oh my God! a whole 5000 roubles (try repeating that with an Austin Powers accent)! That's $70 for the civilized West and the price of a two-way train ticket from Moscow to St.Petersburg for the 'Neanderthals and animals' themselves. Wait, no prison term? And no sodomy offence since Soviet times? Even a wee administrative one? Yeah, you're right, that's no fun at all :(

 

Forced to live in secret, you say? Next time you're in Moscow, Google a gay bar if you fancy it. Is 11 enough for a discriminating patron? (That, by the way, was "eleven" with a Scottish accent. Tell me if I failed.)

 

Leads to physical harm, you say? That is, indeed, unfortunate. And unlawful. And is actually a criminal offence. And will get whoever attacked you a fine 10 times the sum you'd get for trying to convince schoolboys to try an alternative sex life in the first place. And a mandatory 2 year sentence if also classified as a hate crime (and/or involved weapons of any kind).

 

So, I think that's enough overblown victimhood rhetoric for one subject, OK?

 

Also, do you think comparing the impact of "worldviews" (remember, we're not talking about a worldview but about a sexual preference) like Sharia on society to the impact of homosexuality on society is a valid comparison? 

I was responding to an implicit thesis that tolerance is the answer to any difference of opinions/tastes/worldviews/whatever. 'Not if they are inherently incompatible' was my objection. Of which Sharia law vs generalised Western law being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of a state, female genital mutilation vs Western ideas of female dignity being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of proper female sexuality and cultural role, polygamy vs monogamy being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of matrimony, paedophilia vs restriction of all forms of underage sex being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of sexual morals, and so on. Instead of single-mindedly shouting Freedom! tolerance, do try and understand why you can't always have it in equal measures. Some things are by their very nature not meant to be tolerated, they are meant to undermine the status quo. Which does, of course, tell you something about the status quo in the first place. For example, that it is exclusive (hence the incompatibility with anything else). Still, I would argue that some concepts are exclusive by nature. Monogamy was one of the examples. Exclusivity doesn't mean being wrong or 'should be replaced with an inclusive alternative'.

 

So - yes, that is as valid a comparison as any ('shall I compare thee to a summer's day', anyone?).

 

And, by the way, rarely can homosexuality be simply a sexual preference. Fancying prostitutes might. Perhaps. Lobbying for prostitution to be decriminalised is, obviously, much more than that. Fancying boys might. Perhaps (if it's merely fancying). Lobbying for paedophilia to be recognised as a new norm is, obviously, much more than that. You see? The moment you take your sexual preferences outside your bedroom and into the sphere of policy, it stops being a mere preference. And there is even scope enough for it to become an ideology, which some activists clearly do embrace.

 

Do try and realise that whatever example I choose, the nature of the discussion (why a state decides to ban something) dictates that it can only be something considered illegal. You really can't argue the case for banning/unbanning by comparing things with flowers and bees. So please don't act as if I'm purposefully trying to portrait homosexuals as criminals/terrorists/whatever. That is really rather cheap.

 

by putting Christian indoctrination into quotation marks, do you want to express that it doesn't exist?

 

Nope. That was simply a quotation proper.

Edited December 13, 2015 by elenhil

[MonoAccipiter]

I believe we misunderstood eachother. I asked whether you were doing a) or b) and you said a), therefore I went ahead and said you were not b). Hope that clears up the misunderstanding. 

 

As for your citations on the law in question. If they're correct, I'll concede that you have a point and that the extent of its harm is overblown. I still feel you make a lot of inconsequential analogies, but I have no problems with admitting to having been in the wrong.

 

I couldn't disagree more with the necessity of such a legislation however, and philosophically I won't pretend to be agreeing to either your interpretation of the importance of morals, or what morals are befitting of an ideal condition of existence (i.e. ideologically).

[elenhil]

As for your citations on the law in question. If they're correct, I'll concede that you have a point and that the extent of its harm is overblown. 

I would have offered you to (as the phase goes) 'judge for yourself', but given that I made quite an effort to dissuade elwaps from playing 'judge' (and a higher court judge at that, second-guessing and interpreting the laws in question), that would really seem out of place :-) So, give it a thoughtful read instead:

 

Propaganda means activities by private persons and/or corporate bodies to disseminate information aiming either to form attitudes and/or behavioural stereotypes in the mind of the addressees or to induce or actually inducing them to perform or abstain from certain actions.

^{Supreme Court of the Russian Federation judgement 1-APG12-11, August 15, 2012.}

 

That hardly sounds like a novelty, especially given the fact that the same term 'propaganda' is routinely used in international legal documents (e.g. in Art. 20 of ICCPR, Art. 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Art. 6(3) of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, Art. 19(1) of the European Social Charter (revised) and Art. 19(2)(d) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, etc.).

 

It follows reason that 'propaganda of homosexuality', being a specific case of the former, cannot have a definition wider than the general term itself. Indeed:

 

It follows from the concept of propaganda expounded above that, since not any public action can be regarded as such [propaganda], prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality does not mean preventing the citizens from disseminating information on the subject of homosexuality of general or neutral character or holding duly authorised public events, including open public debates about sexual minorities' social status, without imposing the homosexual lifestyle on minors who, due to their age, are not fit to critically evaluate such information.

 

^Ibid.

Moreover,

 

[T]he disputed norms do not restrict the right of the child himself to receive information, including about homosexuality, when called for by the needs of the child, according to his age

 

^Ibid.

Given that, I daresay it would take a certain degree of wilful blindness (or a very specific agenda) to continue to claim that this law 'forces homosexuals to live with a secret that, when uncovered, leads to prison and/or physical harm' and 'is destroying the life of millions of people'. That, being my personal opinion, you are more than welcome to judge :)

 

 

I couldn't disagree more with the necessity of such a legislation however, and philosophically I won't pretend to be agreeing to either your interpretation of the importance of morals, or what morals are befitting of an ideal condition of existence (i.e. ideologically).

I readily concede that people can hold morals in varying degrees of regard (to put it charitably).

 

Which returns us to the question of simple majority vs unanimity (a subject no-one here, sadly, cared to pick up), because, realistically, there is little space for 'moral pluralism' in any given society. A society simply cannot exist without a single overarching moral framework to which every citizen has to subscribe (even if begrudgingly). To enforce which, even by limiting other people's freedoms, is, to quote ECHR, 'necessary <...> in a democratic society', and not at all a sign of a theocracy (whatever the naive views expressed elsewhere in this thread).

 

Which, incidentally, returns us to yet another question: the limits of pluralism and tolerance (a subject several people attempted to pick up, but, sadly, only to mistakenly pick apart my analogies, instead of addressing the question itself). Can incompatible individual morals really be 'tolerated' in a 'pluralistic' way?

 

Anyway. Even if you are personally uncomfortable with the whole morality justification, there is still a whole subject of protection of public health (and that of the young in particular) to be addressed in almost entirely moral-free fashion.

Edited December 14, 2015 by elenhil

[Spock]

I was responding to an implicit thesis that tolerance is the answer to any difference of opinions/tastes/worldviews/whatever. 'Not if they are inherently incompatible' was my objection. Of which Sharia law vs generalised Western law being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of a state, female genital mutilation vs Western ideas of female dignity being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of proper female sexuality and cultural role, polygamy vs monogamy being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of matrimony, paedophilia vs restriction of all forms of underage sex being an example of how you can't reconcile certain ideas of sexual morals, and so on. Instead of single-mindedly shouting Freedom! tolerance, do try and understand why you can't always have it in equal measures. Some things are by their very nature not meant to be tolerated, they are meant to undermine the status quo. Which does, of course, tell you something about the status quo in the first place. For example, that it is exclusive (hence the incompatibility with anything else). Still, I would argue that some concepts are exclusive by nature. Monogamy was one of the examples. Exclusivity doesn't mean being wrong or 'should be replaced with an inclusive alternative'.

 

So - yes, that is as valid a comparison as any ('shall I compare thee to a summer's day', anyone?).

 

And, by the way, rarely can homosexuality be simply a sexual preference. Fancying prostitutes might. Perhaps. Lobbying for prostitution to be decriminalised is, obviously, much more than that. Fancying boys might. Perhaps (if it's merely fancying). Lobbying for paedophilia to be recognised as a new norm is, obviously, much more than that. You see? The moment you take your sexual preferences outside your bedroom and into the sphere of policy, it stops being a mere preference. And there is even scope enough for it to become an ideology, which some activists clearly do embrace.

 

Do try and realise that whatever example I choose, the nature of the discussion (why a state decides to ban something) dictates that it can only be something considered illegal. You really can't argue the case for banning/unbanning by comparing things with flowers and bees. So please don't act as if I'm purposefully trying to portrait homosexuals as criminals/terrorists/whatever. That is really rather cheap.

 

Nope. That was simply a quotation proper.

Your argument is, that tolerance can only go so far because there are things inherintly incompatible, like female genital mutilation and using that argument to say that homosexual 'propaganda' is incompatible too. Then you say you are not trying to purposefully portrait homosexuals as criminals.

The main difference between your examples and homosexiality is, that in your examples there is either someone coming to grave physical harm, there is a justice system that is considered unjust for very rational reasons, or an obivious uncalled for gender specific power shift.

I don't want to go into more detail for the rational reasons to ban the things you mentioned.

Engaging in a homosexual relation on the other hand is a mutual agreement between adult people where noone comes to harm. Quite the contrary, those people are happier if allowed to fulfill their emotional and sexual desires, it happenes between willing adults. There is no measurable harm to anyone, the only thing harmed here is your subjective ideal of a family.

Smoking is also a completely different case because it causes measurable health problems, and quite severe ones.

With the same line of thinking, you could cut argue for apartheit, construct some moral tradition to defend (e.g. the sons of Ham should serve, skin colors shouldn't mix), and then say we should ban 'propaganda' (like there is no harm if people of different skin colors mix) for equal rights because it threatenes those values. This is called discrimination and luckily the politically centric people try to fight it.

 

@Nebulous:

What I was trying to say is, that there is a need to argue against elenhils way of thinking because it is important that others do not fall for his fellacies. The reason is the protection of the pluralistic society.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Spock

[z929669]

z929669, I still don't get it why you're talking of unanimous 100% support while nearly every type of policy decision requires a simple majority. Do pro-independence Scots have a better together opinion imposed upon because they happened to lose that referendum? And, more importantly, is that act of imposition unjustified, or even tyrannical? Do Labour voters have their rights violated because they happened to be in a minority compared to a Tory constituency, and thus have little to no say over the type of austerity policies they will continue to face? Can any of them demand that the opposite view should only be forced upon them though the unprecedented 100% majority that, you claim, alone can justify one worldview dominating the other?

Policy dictating changes to rights/ethics that are covered within a constitution would require amendment of that constitution, which requires near unanimous public and political support (for good reason). What we do or do not legally tolerate in terms of "free speech" is a moot point. You can say and think whatever you want ... you just cannot DO whatever you want.

 

Russia (and all civilized secular nations) must have some constitution addressing free speech concepts. So lawfully imposing a subjective moral position of any individual/group on all other individuals/groups should be unconstitutional without unanimous support by amending the constitution itself.

 

Sexuality is a moral/ethical right, and I would guess that it is unconstitutional to prevent a certain group from thinking and saying (and in many cases, doing) what they want/believe ... even in Russia. What we see in the documentary linked previously is illegal action of religious zealots against those they morally disagree with, and the government looks the other way when they should be admonishing those that are "misbehaving" out of a moral superiority that happens to be more common within the populace.

[TechAngel85]

Being a 30 year old, homosexual man myself...I find this discussion rather amusing and sometimes intriguing to read.

 

I will put these few things out there:

• I knew that I was gay since puberty and before I even knew what "gay" was. I honestly didn't know what it meant to be gay when I started finding out I was gay. When my friends were getting into the girls, I found myself looking more at my friends than the girls. I wasn't abused as a child. I had stable mother and father figures in my life. There's some info for you 'nurture vs nature' debatist.
• I've tried both sides of the fence and, though I can tell you whether a female is beautiful to me or not, she never sparks my interests in any way dealing with attraction. There's the information for you 'have you tried being with women' arguers. (I might go straight for Emma Watson...but I would be a terrible man for her )
• Being attracted to the same gender for me is no different than it is for any of you being attracted to the opposite gender. I didn't choose to be gay just like none of you chose to be straight. What is natural for heterosexuals to be attracted to the opposite sex and doing so without any conscience thought, is the same for homosexuals. I put no more conscience thought into who grabs my eye more than any of you guys put into that lovely lady in a sexy dress which catches your eye as she passes. It's 100%, completely natural whether you're gay or straight.
• Love is love unless it's demented and un-consented.

I find most of the conservative agreements just plain ridiculous and most of them aren't able to which view points and see things from other points of view.

 

I'll end with this:

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.