Putin's anti-gay laws and Sochi Olympics

Mathman said:

Here is where I think this campaign is wrong-headed. The underlying assumption is that straight children can be propagandized into developing a sexual attraction for people of the same sex by presenting homosexuality as OK for people who are homosexual.

Think about that premise. I assume that you are a straight woman. Suppose a woman came up to you waving a rainbow flag and said, "You know, being a lesbian is fun, too. Do you want to try it? All you have to do is stop being attracted to men and start being attracted to women.. OK?"

Click to expand...

It's not that simple, Math, not that simple!

Look at some of the gay people's (not all of them) posts everywhere, you will easily see a pattern. One of their tools is to say, you are a closeted guy. You have to admit it. Come on, we know you are. Come out. It's fine. Look, see the way you hold the fork with your pinky up. You are closeted. Don't deny it. It's no use. We know you are. You'll like it. Try it. Your voice is too soft. You are gay. Say it. Why do you post here? you must be really interested in it. You are in self denial. We know it. Blah, blah, blah,...

I am a straight woman. I am not a teenager or a child. But such push like the above will send an already confused boy to experiment and convince that he must be gay.

Even more absurd is that there started to have another group called "bisexual". It is absolutely a product of moralless society. If such could be accepted as a "human nature", and has a place in "human rights", I don't see why polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and habit of having sex with animals are not human nature for those people.

Mathman said:

Here is where I think this campaign is wrong-headed. The underlying assumption is that straight children can be propagandized into developing a sexual attraction for people of the same sex by presenting homosexuality as OK for people who are homosexual.

Think about that premise. I assume that you are a straight woman. Suppose a woman came up to you waving a rainbow flag and said, "You know, being a lesbian is fun, too. Do you want to try it? All you have to do is stop being attracted to men and start being attracted to women.. OK?"

Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell. Especially in a country where gays are looked down on as being somehow abnormal (or unpatriotic), what "propaganda" could possibly make being gay look tempting or attractive?

If I'm not in favor of that law, it doesn't mean I'm "against the restriction of information that promotes non-traditional sexual relationships among children." Of course I don't want children subjected to anyone talking about adult sexual matters with them. But as I've said before, the premature sexualization of young people here in the U.S. is largely straight, not gay. In terms of "pro-gay propaganda," I don't recall seeing a lot of promotion to children going on here in the U.S. I know that there are openly gay people out in the public, but mostly they're more interested in talking about whatever it is they're famous for. On Project Runway probably most of the male contestants are gay, but their focus seems to be on whether they'll be eliminated from the competition this week. A morning show weather anchor is gay, and he's interested in letting everyone know what the dangerous weather patterns are for the upcoming days. The main thing this guy is interested in "propagandizing" for is an understanding of climate change and how we should be protecting the environment. It seems to me that that's a far more crucial issue worldwide, especially when it comes to protecting children.

I don't pay much attention to pop music, but the most egregiously explicit music seems to be about straight sex, not gay sex. Rap, which I dislike exceedingly, seems to have a lot of unpleasant lyrics dealing with how women (they're called by far less respectful names, of course) should be treated by their men, or perhaps by all men. I've never heard any rap that promotes "non-traditional sexual relationships." In fact, the only time I ever heard a gangsta rapper refer to the Bible was when he pronounced that being gay was "against the Bible." He was fine without the Bible when it came to his own behavior toward money, fighting, and women.

As for classical music and opera, I assume that some of the performers are gay, but as far as I can tell, they're in the business of promoting Verdi and Tchaikovsky, not sex. (Granted, there is often a rapturous element to their music, but I'm assuming it appeals to everyone, not just one small population.)

Any adult who actually tries to seduce or interfere with a person under a certain age would be subject to existing laws about rape, statutory rape, and assault. The only service a specifically anti-gay law does is to say that gays are not under the protection of law enforcement, so anyone who decides to "teach them a thing or two" wouldn't have much opposition from the cops.

Bluebonnet said:

Even more absurd is that there started to have another group called "bisexual".

Click to expand...

I think everyone is bisexual to a certain degree. I have been happily married (to a lady) for forty years, but this is a beautiful man.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/por...sp?articleId=19849263&siteId=571&startImage=1

In the spirit of equal opportunity, this is a beautiful woman.

http://www.wellandgoodnyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kristi-Yamaguchi.jpg

Bluebonnet said:

Even more absurd is that there started to have another group called "bisexual". It is absolutely a product of moralless society. If such could be accepted as a "human nature", and has a place in "human rights", I don't see why polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and habit of having sex with animals are not human nature for those people.

Click to expand...

Does that mean you don't see a moral difference between a person having consensual sex with both sexes and a person commiting pedophilia?

Mathman said:

I think everyone is bisexual to a certain degree. I have been happily married (to a lady) for forty years, but this is a beautiful man.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/por...sp?articleId=19849263&siteId=571&startImage=1

In the spirit of equal opportunity, this is a beautiful woman.

http://www.wellandgoodnyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kristi-Yamaguchi.jpg

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the definition of bisexual, Math.

Kunstrijdster said:

Does that mean you don't see a moral difference between a person having consensual sex with both sexes and a person commiting pedophilia?

Click to expand...

Moral?! (sorry I laughed)

...Yes, I've seen the difference. One is with immature child, the other is with adults, man and woman.

So you mean that as long as they are adults and consensual, they should have equal rights called "human rights"? Did I miss something?

Bluebonnet said:

Moral?!

...Yes, I've seen the difference. One is with immature child, the other is with adults, man and woman.

So you mean that as long as they are adults and consensual, they should have equal rights called "human rights"? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Yes, I asked about the moral difference because your reasoning was bisexuality was a product of a moralless society. And you basically insinuated that people having bisexual intercourse are on the same level with actual criminal offenders. Feel free to set the record straight, if I misunderstood you in any way. The real legal implications should be obvious. And I refrain from using a laugh smiley for now.

For what it's worth. I like what you're trying to say, Mathman, but, imho, recognising and acknowleding beauty of both sexes is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to them.

I read somewhere before that everybody is kind of bisexual by birth, based on the portion towards certain group, you have heterosexual and homosexual group (and of course group in between). Personally I do not care if one is heterosexual or homosexual as long as they are committed to the relationship they are in.

In my very naive point of view, the gay propaganda should refer to kind of materials promoting gay relationship as fashionable way of living which might confuse young people. It is a free world especially with the use of internet, people should know now homosexual relationship is one of the human relationships existing in society and nothing wrong with that.

Bluebonnet said:

It's not that simple, Math, not that simple!

Look at some of the gay people's (not all of them) posts everywhere, you will easily see a pattern. One of their tools is to say, you are a closeted guy. You have to admit it. Come on, we know you are. Come out. It's fine. Look, see the way you hold the fork with your pinky up. You are closeted. Don't deny it. It's no use. We know you are. You'll like it. Try it. Your voice is too soft. You are gay. Say it. Why do you post here? you must be really interested in it. You are in self denial. We know it. Blah, blah, blah,...

I am a straight woman. I am not a teenager or a child. But such push like the above will send an already confused boy to experiment and convince that he must be gay.

Even more absurd is that there started to have another group called "bisexual". It is absolutely a product of moralless society. If such could be accepted as a "human nature", and has a place in "human rights", I don't see why polygamy, pedophilia, incest, and habit of having sex with animals are not human nature for those people.

Click to expand...

It's really unfortunate that you actually believe bisexuals "started", and as a result of a moralless society. There are plenty of people in history who have shown attraction to both sexes from Alexander the Great to Da Vinci to Tchaikovsky. Sexuality is a spectrum... not a cut and dry "gay" or "straight". I know plenty of bisexual people, and there's nothing wrong with them. It's as close-minded as saying, "How can you be sexually attracted to both white people and black people? Can't you pick just one?"

Also it's really asinine when people say accepting homosexuality = accepting sex with animals/polygamy/pedophilia, as a point of comparison. This absolute bigotry and ignorance, and is offensive. Not too long ago racists would have said "If we allowed black people and white people to mingle, what next? White adults with black kids? Black adults with multiple white wives? People with animals?" Homophobes use exactly the same rhetoric.

Your assertions about gay's "tools" to say you're a closeted guy is absolutely unfounded - where is your evidence? Telling a kid they're closeted isn't something used to recruit kids into being gay... if anything, intolerant people try to pressure/convince LGBT folks into becoming straight (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/miche...-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691). If a guy wants to be with a girl, that isn't going to change by somebody "convincing" them they're gay. Just like if a guy wants to be with guys, that isn't going to change by somebody "convincing" them they're straight. Kids aren't as impressionable as you think... plenty of parents want or pressure their kids into heteronormative lives and they end up gay/lesbian/bi/trans. Just like kids of LGBT parents aren't automatically going to turn out gay.

(Also your blatant stereotyping of gays - fork holding, soft voices - is appalling, too, but there's only so many issues with your post that I could cover.)

IOC MEDIA Verified account ‏@iocmedia

Kunstrijdster said:

Yes, I asked about the moral difference because your reasoning was bisexuality was a product of a moralless society. And you basically insinuated that people having bisexual intercourse are on the same level with actual criminal offenders. Feel free to set the record straight, if I misunderstood you in any way. The real legal implications should be obvious. And I refrain from using a laugh smiley for now.

Click to expand...

Please enlighten me. I was asking if polygamy, incest, bestiality (as long as the animal "consent" and of course an adult animal), and pedophilia a "Human nature"?

Has anyone changed their view on this issue based on this discussion? Just wondering?

Bluebonnet said:

Please enlighten me. I was asking if polygamy, incest, bestiality (as long as the animal "consent" and of course an adult animal), and pedophilia a "Human nature"?

Click to expand...

An animal can't consent. Neither can a child. And what do polygamy and incest have to do with homosexuality? Even if there were no homosexuals on Earth, straight people would commit polygamy and incest (and they still do, regardless of whether they're surrounded by LGBT people or not).

You are right, Toni. I will never change my position. To me it's the matter of right or wrong, moral or immoral. I know I will not change any of your minds and I didn't mean to change them. What am I doing here? Maybe just want to give Russia some support in a place where it has been misunderstood, bashed, bullied, and hated. Sorry, go on...

Tonichelle said:

Has anyone changed their view on this issue based on this discussion? Just wondering?

Click to expand...

I think in a discussion like this (and we've had others on similarly heated issues) the benefit is not in making people change their minds in the short term but in allowing people from very different contexts the chance to talk to and hear one another. This is an incredibly diverse bunch--culturally, geographically, politically, linguistically, and in terms of things like age, jobs, and freetime pursuits. Unless someone has lived in a lot of different places or travels a lot, there's very little opportunity to encounter such diversity in face-to-face life. What does "the other side" sound like? What reasons do one's opponents have for developing their beliefs or opinions? Can we figure out how to share the planet? We're not going to get separate ones. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I feel that such encounters will lead to improvement in the long run.

Olympia said:

I think in a discussion like this (and we've had others on similarly heated issues) the benefit is not in making people change their minds in the short term but in allowing people from very different contexts the chance to talk to and hear one another. This is an incredibly diverse bunch--culturally, geographically, politically, linguistically, and in terms of things like age, jobs, and freetime pursuits. Unless someone has lived in a lot of different places or travels a lot, there's very little opportunity to encounter such diversity in face-to-face life. What does "the other side" sound like? What reasons do one's opponents have for developing their beliefs or opinions? Can we figure out how to share the planet? We're not going to get separate ones. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I feel that such encounters will lead to improvement in the long run.

Click to expand...

And I agree... but at what point do people start "hearing the other out" and then just want to be the one with the last word?

I long ago stopped expecting anyone to change their long-standing, strongly-held opinions during an internet discussion. However, I do think even the ones that seem like train wrecks can be worthwhile in a couple ways.

1. Other people reading the discussion, who may be undecided on their position or at least open/curious about hearing new ideas, may come to see things in a different light. This can be easier to do as a reader than as a participant, because your ego isn't on the line.

2. Just because someone's mind isn't changed now doesn't mean it never will be. I've read things online or in books, dismissed them with annoyance, and years later, with the influence of a number of other factors, I became more open to thinking about them and wrestling with them and eventually came to see them as correct. Beliefs do change (occasionally and with difficulty).

That said, I rarely participate in these kind of discussions, because I often find them aggravating/depressing. But if other people want to, then right on.

Bluebonnet said:

One is fighting for equal rights in healthcare, education, employment, etc. Those are the issue of human rights. The other is fighting for the recognition for their messy lifestyle and moral-less animal feelings. It is the continuation of sexual revolution.

Click to expand...

Actually, LGBT people are fighting for human rights -- to be respected as normal people, and not have bigots refer to their lifestyle as "messy" and their feelings as immoral and animalistic. Similar to coloured people, LGBT people also don't get equal rights in healthcare or employment. It's discrimination of a minority, plain and simple.

You say Russia has been "misunderstood" and use unbelievably ironic words like "bashed" and "bullied" -- and what exactly do you call people who beat up or bully LGBT people for being gay, or say ignorant, hateful things about their "lifestyle"?

Poor Russia - having people call them out on their blatant discrimination. My heart bleeds for them. :sarcasm:

I work with a lot of gay and lesbian people. They don't spend their time talking about sex. They don't form attractions at the office. They wear the same amount of clothing as everyone else. (Well, not as much as I wear. I'm always cold in air conditioning. I keep leg warmers and a blanket at my desk.) They don't have a rainbow flag on their computers. They don't give preferential treatment to gay or lesbian co-workers. Some of them go to church or their synagogue. They just do their jobs (splendidly, like just about everyone else here) and want to live in safety and dignity. They go home and do whatever it is they do--watch TV, garden, go to concerts. Some of them attend their church or synagogue. If needed, they look after their elderly parents. They are in short contributing members of society, and they deserve the same respect we all deserve. I don't see the issue.

I look at it this way. If, God forbid, I ever need to be rescued by a firefighter, police officer, or medical worker, would I ask, "Are you straight or gay?" Certainly not. I'd want him or her to get me out of danger. If soldiers are willing to risk their lives to protect me, would I ask, "Wait--are you straight or gay?" No, I'd thank them and say a prayer for their safety. If I get on an airplane, the first question I think of to ask about the pilot is not "Is he/she straight or gay?" Of course not. It's "Can this person fly the plane safely?" If I don't care about this aspect of their lives at times of my need, why should I make it an issue when they need something from me--their right to live safely and with equal access to employment and housing?

As for Russia being bashed, well, I'm an American. People all around the world bash us for every reason possible. We're too liberal. (This from places like Russia and the Middle East.) We're too conservative. (This from Venezuela and Europe.) We're too bossy. We're too active. We're not active enough. So I haven't particularly noticed any tragic implications about people yelling at Russia.

And bullied? Russia is still the world's largest country geographically and one of the largest in terms of population, isn't that right? Neither Napoleon nor Hitler could bring it to its knees. I don't think a few actors and skating fans criticizing Russia will leave a bruise. I've heard many countries say that other people shouldn't interfere with the internal matters of their government and people. But no one is interfering. We're standing very far away and making verbal comments. Putin can't even hear us from here. What's the problem?

I look at it this way. If, God forbid, I ever need to be rescued by a firefighter, police officer, or medical worker, would I ask, "Are you straight or gay?" Certainly not. I'd want him or her to get me out of danger. If soldiers are willing to risk their lives to protect me, would I ask, "Wait--are you straight or gay?" No, I'd thank them and say a prayer for their safety. If I get on an airplane, the first question I think of to ask about the pilot is not "Is he/she straight or gay?" Of course not. It's "Can this person fly the plane safely?" If I don't care about this aspect of their lives at times of my need, why should I make it an issue when they need something from me--their right to live safely and with equal access to employment and housing?

Click to expand...

I feel the same way.

Olympia said:

I think in a discussion like this (and we've had others on similarly heated issues) the benefit is not in making people change their minds in the short term but in allowing people from very different contexts the chance to talk to and hear one another. This is an incredibly diverse bunch--culturally, geographically, politically, linguistically, and in terms of things like age, jobs, and freetime pursuits. Unless someone has lived in a lot of different places or travels a lot, there's very little opportunity to encounter such diversity in face-to-face life. What does "the other side" sound like? What reasons do one's opponents have for developing their beliefs or opinions? Can we figure out how to share the planet? We're not going to get separate ones. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I feel that such encounters will lead to improvement in the long run.

Click to expand...

:thumbsup: