Putin's anti-gay laws and Sochi Olympics

dorispulaski said:

Pedophiles are not preferentially gay.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html

Click to expand...

Never meant to imply that pedophiles are gay nor vice versa. I was just responding to the question of why people make a fuss about homosexuality vs pedophilia by citing how some people feel that pedophilia is 'natural' too. I totally do not agree.

gmyers said:

This reminds me of Anne Heche? She was lesbian for a while.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember her case too.

Matilda said:

No I didn't. There is nothing in that sentence that suggests that you can turn a person gay by letting them see positive images of gay people. Besides, you are focusing on one tiny bit--read the whole thing. For example, the paragraph where that is from reads in its entirety:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The highlighted part refers specifically to the idea of choice, which is what we were talking about earlier. But seriously, please read the whole piece, especially considering the impact that homophobia and discrimination has on LGBT youth.

Click to expand...

The first sentence from your highlighted part does not support your and many other's claims on gay and lesbian were born like that either. It says, "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors." Only the last sentence, which says, "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation", partly supported your claim but still it said "most people". So the research didn't claim "all people" or "every single one of them". Much to be left to study on. So one cannot say that Russian's this new law is ignorant, or completely wrong.

Of course you can say it, Russia's new law is ignorant and completely wrong.

That's your choice. You can say anything you want but with no scientific proof.

There is quite a bit of scientific proof, including the fact that numerous animals show gay behavior, and there is no chance they got that way as a "choice". However, it is a fact that research is on-going about what causes gay brains to have significant areas of difference to straight brains, and differing serotonin amounts.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

People like Anne Heche, who seem to be gay at one moment and straight at another, and who may seem to "choose" to be one or the other, are probably bisexual. They can't be cited as typical of all gay people, or of straight people. So to say, "See? She chose to be gay. People choose to be gay" is a false generalization. It does not apply to anyone except other bisexual people.

All of these did not prove that environment and nurture have nothing to do with it. Please do not list how conservative your families are. Each case is different. What I am saying is that this Russian law has its reasons. It is not aiming at discriminating gay people. It is aiming at protecting children, the majority children. That's their values. Unfair to gay people? From gay people point of views, yes. Just like American laws to smokers; US bankrupt law to the individual investors; even many US minority laws to the majority people, such as college acceptance and employment.

Children don't need "protection" against gay people. Child rapist, pedophiles, abusers and murderers, yes, but not gay people. JMO.

Ita

Just thought you guys would be interested in this story that I found on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23603870

The story is about an open letter that English TV presenter Stephen Fry wrote to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. In it, he calls for Russia to be stripped of the Olympics!

Erm, is it not a bit too late to organise a replacement host city? And, wouldn't stripping Russia of the Olympics not make relations between Putin and the West even worse than they already are?!

Near the end of the story, there is a quote from Johnny Weir. It was taken from an interview that he did with BBC Radio 4. Here is a link to the Johnny interview story (hopefully the audio will play internationally!):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23599142

Even Johnny is being sensible about things and isn't supporting a boycott.

Although their intentions are in the right place, the people proposing the boycott are outside of the sports, and do not realise the impact it will have on the athletes.

So, when somebody who would be directly in the firing line of the anti-gay laws isn't supporting a boycott, is it not time the objectors found a different way to make their point?

Good old-fashioned protests outside the venues during the Olympics would be the most effective way of getting the message across, without damaging the athletes' careers.

CaroLiza_fan

I imagine any protestors would be arrested for violating the law they were protesting the moment they showed up: promoting a gay lifestyle, even if they all went in pairs of man +woman and wore very conservative clothes.

Granted, it could be done as a flashmob, but I don't think it would work. There would be a page 4 item with no photos maybe 3 days afterward in the huffington post. Nothing would change except the lives of the protestors for the worse I suspect.

I think a lot of would-be protesters come from countries where they would be treated with a bit more respect, so they won't be prepared for the kind of treatment they are sure to get in Russia. No Miranda rights there, I'm certain. One of the most unsettling aspects of this law is that visitors to the country who violate it will be held for two weeks before being deported. What will happen to them in those two weeks? I think everyone who goes to Sochi should tread very carefully. But I do think the Olympics should go on as scheduled. Maybe the leaders of various participating countries should just decline to show up, so that Putin can't have any photo-ops with any other presidents, prime ministers, or whatnot.

Olympia said:

Maybe the leaders of various participating countries should just decline to show up, so that Putin can't have any photo-ops with any other presidents, prime ministers, or whatnot.

Click to expand...

The game of showing up/not showing up, sending an ambassador (shows approval) or ony an envoy (an insult), throwing a state dinner (approval) as opposed to a luncheon (insult) is standard operating procedure in international politics.

At the Peking Olympics President Bush trod a careful line. He attended the opening ceremonies (we owe China trillions of dollars), but not the closing ceremonies (we don't like China's human rights record). Plus, on the way to Peking to praise the Chinese governmenbt, he stopped off in Taiwan to give a blisterig speech about how awful China is. The chief U.S.person at the closing ceremonies was Secretary of State Rice. If they had sent the Vice President, that would have shown too much approval, and if they had sent anyone less that would have been too much of an insult. (In the event, Secretary Rice was called away becauseof Russian military activity in Georgia, leaving Michelle kwan to carry the banner in Peking. )

In 2006 the game went down like this. The Prime Minister of Japan visited Washington. He got a state dinner (with Kristi Yamaguchi in attendance IIRC) and a trip to President Bush's Texas Ranch. The president of China only got a luncheon -- but he got to meet Michelle Kwan, so it wasn;t a total insult after all.

Presidens Obama and Putin can't stand each other. I am sure they will find ways to use the Olympics to exchange carefully crated insults.

Even if there is no such law to prevent protesting on anything during Olympics, will any country, not just Russia, allow it? It seems that righteousness and arrogance are flying high these days.

^ Still...if no one ever protested nothing would ever change.

It will not change unless the Russian people want to change. It seems that the majority of the Russian people support this law.

^ You never know. Previous to 2010 a majority of Americans disapproved of gay marriage. Now a majority approves. Young people in particular say, what's the big deal?

Well thanks a lot Stephen Fry! :sarcasm: Because of your open letter to the Prime Minister, stripping Russia of the Olympics is one of the top stories on Sky News this morning.

http://news.sky.com/story/1126391/gay-rights-calls-for-russia-olympic-boycott

It's nice to see Winter Sports making the news for a change, but not in this way. :disapp:

For those who are not familiar with Stephen Fry, he is a very well known comedian, actor and TV presenter here in the UK.

He does tend to be over-the-top when he is talking about things, but not in the camp way that many gay people are. (Put it like this, I didn't know he was gay until this letter came out!) Rather, he is over-the-top in the way that highly intelligent, private school educated people are (which is ironic, as he didn't have private education. But, he did go to Cambridge University, so that is probably where it came out of!) Put it another way: Stephen Fry has always come across as very pompous. And it is this pompous nature that means that a lot of people can't stand him.

Although his letter is factually correct, I feel that comparing Putin's Russia to Hitler's Germany is going too far. Although there are undoubtedly similarities (which Fry has pointed out), there are also a lot of differences.

For example, one of Hitler's main policies was territorial expansion. It was because of him invading his neighbours that the Second World War started, not because of his domestic policies. Putin doesn't seem to have any territorial ambitions; he just seems to like annoying the West.

Getting back to the specific complaint. Yes there are a lot of homphobic acts occurring in Russia, but the same is happening in much of the world. And, yes, in many instances the police are looking the other way. But police corruption can (and does) happen anywhere and everywhere. And the decision to look the other way is usually down to the individual police officer(s), or the individual police station. As far as I know, it is not a direct policy of the Russian government for police to ignore homophobic acts.

The Russian government’s policy of clamping down on “homosexual propaganda” is undeniably homophobic, and quite rightly should be opposed and condemned. But, it is not exactly in the same ball park as the Nazis, who sent gays to concentration camps and systematically exterminated them.

To me, comparing this clampdown on “homosexual propaganda” to the deaths of the millions of victims of the Nazi regime is trivialising their deaths. And I cannot understand how somebody like Stephen Fry, whose relatives were amongst the victims (and who would undoubtedly have been a victim himself if he had been there) cannot see that this is an insult to them.

I don't want to tread over old ground, but I have already pointed towards the BBC's interview with Johnny Weir. Yes, Johnny admitted he was a Russophile, but we have to bear in mind that his husband is a gay Russian. So, you would expect Johnny and Victor to be at the forefront of these calls. But, the exact opposite is the case, as Johnny realises that sport and politics are separate.

Which is what really annoys me about Fry's letter. He says that “The idea that sport and politics don’t connect is worse than disingenuous, worse than stupid. It is wickedly, wilfully wrong.”

I am from Northern Ireland, and one thing I hate about that is that politics and religion always creeps into every aspect of life here, including sport. Perhaps because of this, I am a great believer that sport and politics are (or, at least should be) 2 separate entities. They should always be kept apart. And it is the failure to do this that so angers me about this whole “should we go to Sochi or not” debate.

These anti-gay laws are wrong. We should let our distaste of them be known.

Let the politicians make their disapproval known by repeating the diplomatic snubs that happened in Beijing, as Mathman described above.

Let the general public make their disapproval known by protesting outside the venues, like I have suggested above. OK, so protesters may be arrested, but if this does happen, and in the full glare of the world’s media, it could be even more effective in making the Russian government look bad.

But, do not let it get in the way of the sport.

I for one have been looking forward to the Sochi Olympics ever since I found out they were going to be held there. As you have picked up by now, I am a massive fan of the Russian Figure Skating team, and I have been looking forward to seeing them compete at the highest level on home soil. And undoubtedly they have been looking forward to do just that as well!

Please do not deprive the Russian athletes of this opportunity just because their government is making policy decisions that are, frankly, wrong. It is not fair to punish the athletes for something they are not involved with.

Finally, a note to the Moderators. Yesterday’s discussion in the Snowden thread (starting with this post from eyria and ending with this post by dorispulaski) should by rights be in this thread, as Stephen Fry does not touch on Snowden in his letter.

CaroLiza_fan

CaroLiza_fan said:

Getting back to the specific complaint. Yes there are a lot of homphobic acts occurring in Russia, but the same is happening in much of the world. And, yes, in many instances the police are looking the other way. But police corruption can (and does) happen anywhere and everywhere. And the decision to look the other way is usually down to the individual police officer(s), or the individual police station. As far as I know, it is not a direct policy of the Russian government for police to ignore homophobic acts.

The Russian government’s policy of clamping down on “homosexual propaganda” is undeniably homophobic, and quite rightly should be opposed and condemned. But, it is not exactly in the same ball park as the Nazis, who sent gays to concentration camps and systematically exterminated them.

To me, comparing this clampdown on “homosexual propaganda” to the deaths of the millions of victims of the Nazi regime is trivialising their deaths. And I cannot understand how somebody like Stephen Fry, whose relatives were amongst the victims (and who would undoubtedly have been a victim himself if he had been there) cannot see that this is an insult to them.

Click to expand...

I agree that homophobia and racism still exist in all parts of the world - some areas to a greater extend than others, even in democratic countries.

The 'issue' with tolerating intolerance is that it can lead to worse acts.

Olympic Champion Says Boycotts Futile, Sports Key to Progress

Q: As one of the candidates in the upcoming elections of the IOC's President [in September 2013], how would you treat this situation? Would you respond to these calls?

A: Of course, we need to respond. We need to show what boycotts can lead to. If you won't communicate, engage in dialogue and seek consensus, you will never achieve progress. Whenever you have an interesting topic, you will always have people who will try to pursue their own interest and solve their own issues.

Q: But do you think athletes should speak up on international issues?

A: No, the Olympic Charter states clearly that Olympic games are not political.

Q: Even for such high-ranking sports officials as yourself? Do you feel obliged to speak up on the issue of gay rights, for instance?

A: Well, it's not a problem today. People can go around the world and speak up on issues. As for me, I haven't seen any precedents of things happening [with gay people].

Q: Why do you think people in the West and the Western press have a different opinion?

A: It's politics, [different countries have] different interests and the authorities here understand that very well.

Click to expand...

Fry's Russia Winter Olympics switch call rejected by PM

A press release on the website of Russia's UK embassy says "any form of discrimination" is prohibited under the Russian constitution.

It says reports of a "wide-scale violence campaign against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] activists after the adoption of the new law is simply not true".

"Russia will welcome all sportsmen and guests of Sochi Olympics regardless of their sexual orientation," it adds.

"At the same time, we hope that our foreign guests will respect the laws of the host-country according to the basic principle of the Olympic movement (the Russian legislation prohibits only LGBT propaganda among children)."

Former Kremlin adviser Alexander Nekrassov told BBC Breakfast the new law was designed to protect children against all forms of sexualisation.

He said Fry's comparison of Russia with Nazi Germany was "over the top" and "went against" the interests of the gay community.

Click to expand...

Russia's anti-gay laws spark backlash ahead of Olympics

About the only people not protesting are the Russians themselves, and not just because it's illegal. Not a single politician voted against the new anti-gay laws, and a recent poll has shown that the vast majority of Russians support them too.

Click to expand...

Mathman said:

You never know. Previous to 2010 a majority of Americans disapproved of gay marriage. Now a majority approves. Young people in particular say, what's the big deal?

Click to expand...

Sure, a few supreme court judges could override the votes by the California people. The true democracy!