Russia...Politics...Beliefs.

[elenhil]

You do realize that gay people have families right? Your argument only holds the tiniest amount of water if you think they don't have any kids, but we live in an age where technology or arrangements get made all the time. Hell, in a lesbian relationship, they can have twice as many. 

Sure thing, a lesbian union can, theoretically, have anything like 20 children. Would you care to estimate what a drain it will be for the healthcare system to fund that number of artificial inseminations, or even IVFs?

 

Don't know about US, but in Britain it's supposedly 500 to 1000 pounds a cycle for IUI (with each cycle's maximum chance of success being no more than 15.8% if you're a woman under 35). Rather a slim chance, to my mind. So, after the mandatory 12 failed cycles of IUI your GP will recommend you IVF, which supposedly costs up to 5000 pound a cycle or more, and has only double the success rate of IUI (32.2% if you're a woman under 35).

 

So, a lesbian who is under 40 and has already had her 6 000 to 12 000 taxpayer pounds' worth of IUI treatment may then demand her generously offered 15 000+ taxpayer pounds' worth three-cycle IVF treatment. That makes the state sponsor wannabe lesbians mothers to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds per person. For comparison, a heterosexual UK female can get pregnant for free and give hospital birth for under just 1 700 pounds. Less if it's a home birth (something NICE took to recommending because it costs Her Majesty's Government nearly 50% less). So much of 'balancing everything out'. 

 

All of which partially explains why, according to US Census data, for example, only about 9% of same-sex unions are having children of their own (through either IS, IVF, or whatever)

 

So it's the 91% of freeriders I was talking about.

 

You know why people aren't having as many kids. Because there's to many damn people. 

 

Too many damn people in Russia? You gotta be kidding me. When was the last time you looked at the map? Do you know the size of that thing? Compared to some other Western countries, Russia is very much underpopulated.

 

There are whole ghost towns and towns with no children whatsoever. Not because they're all happily living in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but because the population is rapidly ageing. There are now 40% fewer teenagers in Russia than it was 15 years ago at the height of the xUSSR crisis. Hence the ghost towns. Hence the expected collapse of the welfare system. It's OK for you to sit in the US claiming there are too many Russians in Russia anyway. Had you been living in Russia instead you'd be very much concerned with who's gonna foot your pension bill, because there's not enough damn people to do so. The local equivalent of Mexican immigrants from ex-Soviet republics, who are the temporary solution to a glaring workforce deficit, are not interested in investing in the country, they're sending their wages across the border to their respective states (some of which have more than half of GDP coming that way). So they won't.

 

...Or when one's homosexual lifestyle left them with an STD-affected fertility problem (don't know about your country, but in Russia experts estimate that STDs account for up to 60% of cases of infertility).

 

I'm sorry, but are you trying to say that straight people don't get STDs?

You might as well have asked whether non-smokers get lung cancer. Which they do. About 20 times less often, though.

 

CDC data shows that in 2014, MSM accounted for, for example, 82.9% of all male P&S syphilis cases with known information about sex of sex partners. It's a shame CDC does not collect data for lesbians (which, by the way, does not enable you to claim lesbians don't get infected [more often]).

 

Would you like to know how much an actively homosexual US male is more likely to contract HIV? Or how much this 'lifestyle choice' costs the government? Not if you're a Universal Church of Condom the Almighty believer, I'd wager (wouldn't it be nice if HIV and STDs were entirely preventable through condom use? Alas, no). Still, there are things a condom can never protect from, like mental health issues. Which, even in a beacon of tolerance that is the UK, homosexuals are significantly more likely to suffer from (had the study been conducted in Russia, you would, most probably, have argued that it's the rampant homophobia that's driving them crazy).

Edited December 15, 2015 by elenhil

[z929669]

 

OK, let me get this whole subjectivity thing straight.

 

Morality is subjective.

A Russian judge is subjective.

His judgement is entirely subjective.

His entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is entirely doubly subjective.

A whole panel of subjective Russian high court judges' entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is wholly entirely doubly subjective.

Yes, and they are all contaminated by the same religious/social intolerance that causes their flagrant and unfair subjectivity. They are subjectively discriminitive on one hand and running a supposed 'democracy' on the other. They clearly don't have a clear separation of church and state at this point.

So far, so good.

 

A European Court of Human Rights judge is subjective.

His judgement is entirely subjective.

His entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is entirely doubly subjective.

A whole panel of subjective ECtHR judges' entirely subjective judgement on a subjective question of morals is wholly entirely doubly subjective.

A whole panel of subjective ECtHR judges' wholly entirely doubly subjective judgement that the wholly doubly subjective panel of Russian (Polish, British, whatever) judges “y reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries . . . are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of these requirements [of morality] as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" or "penalty" intended to meet them”' is... how subjective exactly?

Totally allowing of bias and unreasonable subjectivity according to the morals/beliefs of those in power and their supporters in the populace. The statement itself is only reasonable when applied to an objective judicial authority. Majority or no, it is discrimination at the highest levels when employed by a biased judiciary.

 

 

And, more importantly, how subjective is a judgement of what are the requirements of morality if said judgement is, according to nationwide surveys, approved by 86% of citizens?

As I have said previously, 86% is not high enough to impose social restrictions on a minority. The whole point of civil rights is to protect such minorities, who will never compose a % majority. When it comes to morals, the majority cannot dictate without discrimination, which is contrary to the tenets of a democracy. This is why a constitution is so hard to change in a mature democracy and why it is so subjectively biased in an immature democracy like Russia).

 

In a welfare state one's pension is other people's taxes; ideally, these other people are your own children, and the state is underwriting your welfare check now in hope that it will get the money back from your children in the future. If it's not your children, then it's someone else's. Someone who, unlike you (not you personally, I believe), did want/care/manage to procreate. And whose children will now have to sponsor not only their old folks' retirement package but yours and your partner's as well. Not that anyone would hold it against you if you were childless because of some health problems. Which is not the same as when you're childless because two homosexual men can't beget children. Or when one's homosexual lifestyle left them with an STD-affected fertility problem (don't know about your country, but in Russia experts estimate that STDs account for up to 60% of cases of infertility).

This assumes that homosexual couples cannot have and do not want children. A faulty assumption. Homosexual couples can have biological children (from one of the couple), or they can adopt. Like heterosexual couples, homosexual couples want to start families at approximately the same frequency as everyone else (they are people too). If they aren't procreating, then they are performing a healthy public service by adopting kids from the tax-payer pool. your argument here is moot and reflective of the larger conservative viewpoint (give me mine, get your own, damn the health of my future society .... me, me, me, me!)

 

So, one homosexual person's 'lifestyle choises' are, in fact, a tax on future generations. Or, rather, an unsustainable drain on the economy. Enough freeriders are bound to bring the welfare system down.

If nothing is autonomous, then we are all "in this together", and the socialist viewpoint prevails. Take care of each other for the benefits of society and the future health of the state. You make my argument.

 

 

That is OK by me, but this self-ascribed right is, sadly, not protected by either the state or the international human rights instruments. Which makes it even less uncontroversial (and enforceable) than, say, a 'right to euthanasia'.

I totally agree with everything in EssArrBee's last post. Thanks for adding in a bit of objective reality ;)

[elenhil]

We should not be advocating social reforms based on our subjectivity though ... unless it is approaching unanimous support.

 

 unless there is almost unanimous (100%) support

 

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.

86% is not high enough to impose social restrictions on a minority. The whole point of civil rights is to protect such minorities, who will never compose a % majority. When it comes to morals, the majority cannot dictate without discrimination, which is contrary to the tenets of a democracy. This is why a constitution is so hard to change in a mature democracy and why it is so subjectively biased in an immature democracy like Russia).

I believe your position is, sadly, a mix of contradictions and unfounded claims.

 

Firstly, it does not take unanimous support to amend a constitution. All it takes is a 'supermajority', the criteria for which vary (3/4, 2/3, etc.) and therefore are entirely arbitrary. Can't for the life of me understand why you keep calling 75% (that's your 3/4) 'unanimity' and 86% a lack of one. Or, for that matter, how you managed to drift from 'approaching unanimity' through 'near unanimity' to, now, unqualified (total) unanimity.

 

Secondly, it does not take a constitutional amendment to impose limitations (of whatever nature) that the law already provides for either directly (through an article of the constitution) or by virtue of the state being party a higher-level international legal instrument (like UDHR, ECHR, ICCPR, etc) providing for it.

 

Now, both the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 55(3)) and the the UDHR (Article 29(2)) (not to mention other legally binding international human rights instruments) expressly provide for limiting all manner of individual rights and freedoms on the now familiar grounds of protection of, among other considerations, public morals. 

 

Ergo, to act on Article 29(2) of UDHR a state does not need either to amend its constitution or to have a unanimous, 3/4 or even 2/3 public support for it. Frankly, it does not even need to call a referendum (that is, to have an actual majority) at all. All of these are the artificial barriers you wished into being.

 

Thirdly, you have no grounds to claim that the legal framework treats the morals justification as in any way different from, for example, requirements of public safety, or public order, and that the requirements of morals, allegedly, cannot ever be enforced ('dictated') without discrimination. That is, no grounds other than your chanting SUBJECTIVE! SUBJECTIVE! You may believe so. You may even think it's objective to believe so (how quaint!). Heck, you may even set that in EdStone^tm. But, however much you 'simply inherently know it' (or even know of a Wikipedia article to that effect), it does not make it a legal fact. Actual international laws treat public morality as just as objective a justification as public security or public safety is.

 

By the way, doesn't your stance of morals mean a 'wholly entirely doubly subjective' ban on FGM is discriminatory of the Asian and African community, or a by definition no less objective ban on sex with a minor discriminatory of the paedophile community, or an completely morally subjective ban on polygamy discriminatory of the Muslim community? 

 

Fourthly, you keep referring to the legislation in question as a 'reform' of sorts. No doubt to try to imply that the state has to jump through extra legal hoops (like amending the constitution) to enact it. The premise, however, is unfounded and wrong. It takes a very curious view of the Russian society to think that to ban homosexual propaganda among minors is a social reform, while to allow it is not (and, therefore, the opposite of reform, that is, the status quo).

 

And, by the way, you simply cannot both claim that social reform requires unanimous public support and, at the same time, argue that the Russian society needs to reform to become more democratic, pluralistic, and inclusive to suit the wishes of one particular minority.

 

Fifthly (is there really such a word?), you seem to mistakenly think that the purpose of civil rights is to unconditionally protect each and every minority interest. That in a truly democratic society every minority (that, by definition, never composes a % majority) will have its way nonetheless. Need I point out the contradiction in this statement?

 

Lastly, to say that a factual statement (what is and what is not contrary to Russian morality) is subjective while at the same time adequately representing the views of 87% of the population is a contradiction plain and simple.

 

P.S.

 

They clearly don't have a clear separation of church and state at this point.

 

So, whenever what a society thinks happens to coincide with an official teaching of a church, it means that the said church is somehow not separated from the state (some here even went as far as claiming it's tantamount to a theocracy)?

 

OK, then. So, the Russian is state is not separated from what, the Russian Orthodox Church? And the... what, Muslim church, too (since they expressly support the ban)? And the... err... Jewish church (ditto). And the, well, Buddhist church (ditto)? And, of course, the Atheist church. Because that's what follows from the Russian Interfaith Council's position and the opinion polls among atheists. 

 

Man, that Russia is definitely a theocracy!

Edited December 15, 2015 by elenhil

[z929669]

@elenhil

 

I believe that you, sadly, spend much of your time weaving semantics and jumbling statements out of context  ... O_o ... You debate much like the scientific creationists that I have dealt with in the past ... Like them, I believe you understand my points and that you full well know that they are not contradictory when taken into the larger context within which they were originally presented (although I admit to a bit of exaggeration in my "teaching moments"). I don't think your positions are contradictory at all, but I do think they are rhetorically supported by cherry-picked 'facts'.

 

There is clearly nothing more I can teach you, and only if I lacked any sanity would I continue in my attempts at enlightenment of one so fully enlightened as yourself.

 

I leave you the floor to proselytize as you see fit, and I concede to your tenacity ;)

[EssArrBee]

Sure thing, a lesbian union can, theoretically, have anything like 20 children. Would you care to estimate what a drain it will be for the healthcare system to fund that number of artificial inseminations, or even IVFs?

 

Don't know about US, but in Britain it's supposedly 500 to 1000 pounds a cycle for IUI (with each cycle's maximum chance of success being no more than 15.8% if you're a woman under 35). Rather a slim chance, to my mind. So, after the mandatory 12 failed cycles of IUI your GP will recommend you IVF, which supposedly costs up to 5000 pound a cycle or more, and has only double the success rate of IUI (32.2% if you're a woman under 35).

 

So, a lesbian who is under 40 and has already had her 6 000 to 12 000 taxpayer pounds' worth of IUI treatment may then demand her generously offered 15 000+ taxpayer pounds' worth three-cycle IVF treatment. That makes the state sponsor wannabe lesbians mothers to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds per person. For comparison, a heterosexual UK female can get pregnant for free and give hospital birth for under just 1 700 pounds. Less if it's a home birth (something NICE took to recommending because it costs Her Majesty's Government nearly 50% less). So much of 'balancing everything out'.

This is what is known as hypothetical, not theoretical. It's a guess, but without any real world observation. A typical way of making things look really expensive or bad without actually having to observe it's cost in the real world. American conservatives employ this with taxation rates, saying that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Hypothetically. Effective tax rates, or those they actually pay, are much lower, some of the lowest in the world.

 

The facts of NHS and lesbian birthrates are much different in reality. Lesbians under 35 have about a 10% higher success rate of getting pregnant, mostly attributed to heterosexual women seeking fertility treatment doing so for subfertility issues. Not that women who are lesbians don't have subfertility issues, but fertile heterosexuals seek treatment at a much lower rate. Also, the NHS sets guidelines for the maximum amount of care they will pay for, but does not set what care they will actually provide to citizens. The CCGs do that and they get to decide how many cycles to pay for which varies greatly from place to place in Her Majesty's Kingdom. Many, many places in the UK do not give out the maximum amount of care to citizens. Also, when actually looking at how many treatments the NHS pays for vs privately funded treatments we see how hypothetical the burden actually is. The following image shows "The number of NHS funded (dark line) and privately funded (light line) treatment cycles performed each year (2007–2012) in HFEA licensed centres involving female patients registered with female partners. Panel (a) shows IVF/ICSI treatment cycles, and panel (b) shows cycles of DI."

 

 

It's really not even close. The NHS isn't paying for nearly the amount of treatments as one might think if you can get them free, but lesbians are still going to private facilities. Maybe it's because being gay doesn't mean you are a burden on the system and can't get a job and save money and pay taxes. It just means you're gay. I'm sure all those homosexual women funding their own fertility will one day be a huge burden on the system since they wasted their live savings on trying to get pregnant and are unable work due to their crippling depression, obesity, and emphysema. Only, 1 in 50 babies are conceived through IVF/IUI/ICSI and 60% of those are paid for privately. So hypothetically it's has the potential to be a problem, but theoretically it is not.

All of which partially explains why, according to US Census data, for example, only about 9% of same-sex unions are having children of their own (through either IS, IVF, or whatever)

 

So it's the 91% of freeriders I was talking about.

Same sex couples have been discriminated against in the US for a long time. The Supreme Court only made it a nationwide right on June 26 of this year. Having a kid is a pretty big decision nowadays and without some of the benefits heterosexuals had, it's probably easier to avoid it. They now have access to legal marriage and all it's benefits, such as health insurance, tax benefits, death/power of attorney benefits, adoption consideration... there's probably more, but I'm not gay enough to know all of them.  Give it some time so we can form a theory of what really happens when they are free of discrimination. 

Too many damn people in Russia? You gotta be kidding me. When was the last time you looked at the map? Do you know the size of that thing? Compared to some other Western countries, Russia is very much underpopulated.

 

There are whole ghost towns and towns with no children whatsoever. Not because they're all happily living in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but because the population is rapidly ageing. There are now 40% fewer teenagers in Russia than it was 15 years ago at the height of the xUSSR crisis. Hence the ghost towns. Hence the expected collapse of the welfare system. It's OK for you to sit in the US claiming there are too many Russians in Russia anyway. Had you been living in Russia instead you'd be very much concerned with who's gonna foot your pension bill, because there's not enough damn people to do so. The local equivalent of Mexican immigrants from ex-Soviet republics, who are the temporary solution to a glaring workforce deficit, are not interested in investing in the country, they're sending their wages across the border to their respective states (some of which have more than half of GDP coming that way). So they won't.

I wasn't talking just about Russia, but rather the fact they're demographic crisis isn't unique to them. People are tired of people. The rise of Western medicine has solved many of the issues we used to have. Infant mortality rates, plague, 40 year life expectancy, and even cancer to an extent. Russia's individual problem of demographics doesn't sit higher on the totem pole of over population problems facing the world. It is a massive country, but do you really want to live in 90% of that place? Canada is the same, no one wants to live in most the country. Global warming isn't going to make Siberia habitable anytime soon. I've been to St. Petersburg twice to visit Leningrad for lectures, and it was freezing in May. I'll pass on raising a family their. They can keep annexing parts of Ukraine for warmth and more people.

 

Trying to justify limiting rights is nuts when your country faces tons of self inflicted wounds caused by so many other things than homosexual lifestyles. They'd probably find a lot more success looking other places anyways. 

You might as well have asked whether non-smokers get lung cancer. Which they do. About 20 times less often, though.

Well, Russia has one of the highest smoking rates in the world at 40%. Lets see if they try to limit the smokers rights. I mean wouldn't it be in the same vein as the homosexuals' rights? All that welfare money they spend on smoking related diseases. I'm sure 44 million smokers is a much bigger burden on the healthcare system than the homosexual lifestyle. Lowers fertility rates too, doesn't it?

 

CDC data shows that in 2014, MSM accounted for, for example, 82.9% of all male P&S syphilis cases with known information about sex of sex partners. It's a shame CDC does not collect data for lesbians (which, by the way, does not enable you to claim lesbians don't get infected [more often]).

They do collect data on lesbians or rather all new cases of all women. The CDC doesn't break it down by the sexual orientation of the person, they break it down by the cause of contracting the disease. You infer from that what the orientation of the people are from the way they contracted the disease. That is what's important. 84% of women with HIV got it from heterosexual sex the rest from dirty needles. As of 2009 the CDC has not been able to confirm a single case of female to female transmission. You can't pass certain STDs from trying to put the open ends of two buckets together. :hurr:  They can still get certain diseases like Herpes or HPV. Actually, most people on Earth will probably get some form of HPV regardless of getting it from sex or not. It's a bad disease to bring up when talking about STDs rates, better left for cervical cancer discussions.

 

Would you like to know how much an actively homosexual US male is more likely to contract HIV? Or how much this 'lifestyle choice' costs the government? Not if you're a Universal Church of Condom the Almighty believer, I'd wager (wouldn't it be nice if HIV and STDs were entirely preventable through condom use? Alas, no). Still, there are things a condom can never protect from, like mental health issues. Which, even in a beacon of tolerance that is the UK, homosexuals are significantly more likely to suffer from (had the study been conducted in Russia, you would, most probably, have argued that it's the rampant homophobia that's driving them crazy).

I know all about the heightened risks of homosexual males getting HIV. I've had to deal with it in my own family. It's just that talking about it as a problem of gay lifestyle rather than a problem of the American gov'ts policy toward homosexuals when the HIV/AIDS outbreak started is disingenuous at best and offensive at worst. The President of the US wouldn't even say HIV or AIDS in public out loud. He didn't even acknowledge it was a problem. Instead the religious leaders and the morality police just took over the discussion and blamed the lifestyle of homosexuals for the disease. They even called it GIDS (Gay Immune Deficiency Syndrome) instead of AIDS. This was seen as propaganda by many gay men and led to the spread of the disease throughout the homosexual male community. That burden on our society is directly connected to the suppression of rights of a group of people that is still being felt today. It's still perpetuated by religious leaders and disinformation campaigns and still leads to people getting sick. One of my students came to me with questions about STDs a while back and I was floored with her ignorance. Also, because I teach math. She asked me if you could get STDs from anal sex because that was what she heard from a friend. :O_o: Regressive policies lead to that type of ignorance which leads to more people suffering which leads to a bigger burden on society.

 

Our problem isn't from the gay lifestyle it's from the discriminatory policies that prevented a proper response and the lack information available to young people. Look no further that the epidemic of AIDS/HIV contraction in African nations for the effect gov't policies can do to heterosexual people. That's why regardless of the incorrect attitude the west has toward gay men and AIDS, women make up half the HIV/AIDS infected people of the world. Russia is in danger of doing the same thing. It's just as dumb as turning drug addicts into criminals instead of dealing with it like a medical problem. Criminalizing people costs so much more in the long run. It also destroys lives and families even though those laws are passes under the guise to protect families. 

 

The UK isn't the land of tolerance as you may want to believe. The Equality Act of 2010 was only passed a few years ago, and they only had decent protection under the law since ~2000. Well after the AIDS epidemic hit US/Europe. Not really easy to find many countries that had a good response to AIDS crisis in the 80s, even if they all now let gays get married.

[Nebulous112]

If Apartheid was illegal by virtue of being against "natural law" (whatever that is, see the section in my earlier post regarding morality and law), then how is Russia's state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals not? By virtue of the degree of discrimination?

 

By not being discriminatory, that's how. You can't claim discrimination unless you prove the difference in treatment has no objective and reasonable justification (that is, by proving that the justification given by the courts is neither objective nor reasonable instead, which I believe would require some intense legal discernment on your part).

Of course Russia's laws regarding homosexuality negatively discriminate against homosexuals! Just because this is law in Russia does not magically make it any less discriminatory. I'm really not sure where you are getting your definition of discrimination from.

 

From the dictionary.com definition of discrimination, also cited as the first reference in the Wikipedia page for discrimination (Wikipedia uses the second definition):

 

 

discrimination

[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuh n]

 

noun

 

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

 

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on 

individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

 

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

 

4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

 

 

Whether (negative) discrimination is reasonable and justified or not, it does not change the fact that it is (negative) discrimination.

 

In Apartheid, the negative discrimination was against blacks. In the Russian laws in question, the negative discrimination is against homosexuals. Apartheid was without doubt more severe, that is not at issue. Where we differ here is that you argue that Russia's negative discrimination against homosexuals is both reasonable and justified, whereas I take the opposite position.

 

I believe you are arguing that homosexuality is immoral, and therefore Putin's laws regarding homosexuality have a basis under the morality clauses in international law. I find nothing immoral about homosexuality, so I disagree. This is the problem with morality being subjective.

 

 

Unless I misread, I believe your statement regarding apartheid and natural law is a logical fallacy, and contradictory to your previous arguments regarding morality and law.

 

Do kindly try to point it out specifically.

 

By the way, why do you think Apartheid was illegal? 

The logical fallacy is so:

 

You stated that Apartheid was illegal by virtue of its laws being contrary to natural law, or "God's law". What I got from your reply was that your definition of being against "natural law" includes unjust and / or unreasonable negative discrimination. What is unreasonable? What is unjust? It changes with the times, and the culture. If these are subjective measures, then how can this be a universal, natural law? A natural law in the sciences indicates a fundamental principle. It is unchanging. It is not subjective, based on the judgement of others. There is no static definition of natural law; it is not written down somewhere for us to analyze.

 

Therefore I would argue that there is no such thing as "natural law". If there is no such thing as natural law, the whole statement is false.

 

I will say it again, morality is subjective. My morals include not discriminating negatively against homosexuals. Others, including some in Russia, have a different set of morals, which conflict with my own. Which conforms to "natural law", I ask you? The answer is neither.

 

 

 

To answer your question regarding why I think Apartheid was illegal:

 

I do not think it was illegal. That is, until the new government came into power and made it illegal. Legality does not make something moral or immoral.

 

 

 

I agree that Russia has the right to decide what is "moral" in their own country. I agree that parents have a right to decide what is "moral" to teach their child. I just take issue with morality somehow being classified as objective "natural law", and with homosexuality listed on the immoral side of this supposed "law", no less.

 

I think the crux of the issue is the fact that my morality != your morality. I disagree with Russia's laws regarding homosexuality; I find Russia's homophobic laws immoral. However, Russia obviously has a different stance.

 

For what it's worth, I would also agree that Russia's law is "legal". Any nation can pull out of a treaty at any time. For that matter, any nation can change the law to suit their circumstance. It has been done many times in the past, and it is still being done.

 

Let's see what Russia just did today: Putin signs law allowing Russia to overturn rulings of international rights courts.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nebulous112

[Guest]

*Enters thread, sees graphs and dictionary definitions*

 

I hope Tech is proud of himself making my comment a topic for debate! As you lot have said before, you certainly do like a good chat. In that case you can award me the "Firestarter" award for excellence in the field of starting such heated debates.

 

As you are! I find it weird though that the people posting here are basically defending people like Tech, but Tech is the one that doesn't seem to be interested and actually defends such lude behaviour. I hope that comment doesn't sound like I'm near having a stroke again, but I think you should be the one not finding such behaviour acceptable Tech. You only get pushed around if you accept such views from people. 

[TechAngel85]

I don't agree with some of the views here and some of the things are totally wrong and unacceptable to me. But with that said, you can't really change some people's way of thinking. I learned that a long time ago. Some people simply have to figure out the truth themselves before their way of thinking will change.

 

This is why I remain mostly a silent listener on this thread.

[Guest]

Fair play buddy! I think that is still true with racism, even if some government says everyone now has equality. I just think people have to keep fighting and not slip up or take a break on such matters. I hope I was not out of order saying that. I just want what is best for you.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Guest

[Nebulous112]

In that case you can award me the "Firestarter" award for excellence in the field of starting such heated debates.

*Prodigy starts playing loudly in the background*

 

"I'm the trouble starter, punking instigator

I'm the fear addicted, danger illustrated.

I'm a fire starter, twisted fire starter..."

[TechAngel85]

Fair play buddy! I think that is still true with racism, even if some government says everyone now has equality. I just think people have to keep fighting and not slip up or take a break on such matters. I hope I was not out of order saying that. I just want what is best for you.

You're welcome "Firestarter". Check your name.

[Guest]

Lol I knew that would happen! Well it made me chuckle! 

 

Nebulous my mother actually went to see them a few weeks ago. She certainly was probably one of the older ones there, but her current partner paid for them to go as a surprise. I'm certain it was more his suprise though as I am sure she doesn't  like such music. She said she enjoyed it though so I am confused now...  :O_o:

[EssArrBee]

Prodigy is touring?  Totally thought they were done. Guess they keep getting back together for the third time now. Hope they make it across the pond. When I was 16 and away at school, I snuck out of the dorm with my buddies to go see them. Awesome show, also the first time I ever rolled.

[Nebulous112]

Nice! I didn't realize they were still touring, either. I never got a chance to see The Prodigy. If they tour Canada, I hope I catch them.

 

I've been on the road quite a bit recently, so I haven't been looking at concert listings at all. I really have to change that...seeing live shows used to be one of my favourite ways to spend an evening.

 

Lol, that is great that your mother enjoyed the show. I can appreciate an eclectic taste in music...I usually prefer listening to classical or jazz. But I do listen to and enjoy most types of music, from classic rock, to blues, to EDM, etc. Just not a huge country, R&B or hip-hop fan. Of course, there are always exceptions. ;-)

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nebulous112

[elenhil]

The facts of NHS and lesbian birthrates are much different in reality.

The fact that you're describing the postcode lottery in the UK, which the government claims it's committed to abolishing (so, theoretically, every UK lesbian will eventually be eligible for the full 12+3 cycles) does not in any way mean that the drain is non-existent.

 

That would be like me arguing that since, in reality, the homosexual propaganda legislation is not being enforced all that well (with some judges, like some CCGs, applying the full extent of the law and others doing nothing at all), the laws in question are only a hypothetical limitation of freedom of speech. Or like pro-European politicians in the UK arguing that, despite the express aim of an ever-closer union, the UK shouldn't object to the federalisation of Europe because the federalisation is hypothetical.

 

A matter of policy cannot be hypothetical.

 

So, given that the Department of Health says 'all CCGs, in the long term, should provide the full three cycles of IVF as set out in the NICE guidelines', it is just a matter of time (which is OK by me since I was discussing long-term budgetary effects). Who would then choose to pay tens of thousands of pound for something you can get free (at the point of use)?

 

All of which, by the way, does nothing to disprove that, however they are paying for it, homosexuals are, to put it bluntly, not nearly as good at procreation as heterosexuals, which was my point initially.

 

You might as well have asked whether non-smokers get lung cancer. Which they do. About 20 times less often, though.

 

 Well, Russia has one of the highest smoking rates in the world at 40%. Lets see if they try to limit the smokers rights.

 

They did. Just like in the UK and the rest of Western Europe. A bit of a shame the smokers don't have nearly as much PR clout to shout discrimination.

 

By the way, (since we were just talking about 'millions' of suffering homosexuals, too), would you care to compare the cost of treating lung cancer with the cost of treating HIV and the STDs accompanying this 'sexual preference'? Most of which, by the way, is money going abroad to the pharmaceuticals out there (so, a net loss for the economy).

 

You infer from that what the orientation of the people are from the way they contracted the disease.

 

No I do not. I take it from the way these people identified themselves. '[E]ither reported having one or more male sex partners or who self-reported as gay/homosexual or bisexual'. Or, in case of HIV, from CDC surveillance data registering 'the behavior that transmits HIV infection'.

 

 

 

talking about it as a problem of gay lifestyle rather than a problem of the American gov'ts policy toward homosexuals when the HIV/AIDS outbreak started is disingenuous at best and offensive at worst.

 

 

So, a homosexual getting HIV and STDs is the government's (and not even the present one's) fault. Is a smoker getting lung cancer, or a heavy drinker getting cirrhosis, or a 'legal highs' user getting, well, dead, too? I find it rather convenient that you can shift the blame for your actions (and your ignorance) on to the Big Daddy. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by elenhil