Ashley Wagner making a statement against Russia's law | Page 16 | Golden Skate

Ashley Wagner making a statement against Russia's law

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
They should pass a law banning the Bachelor. This TV show makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.

Ironically, the Bachelor's remarks advocating against a gay/bi version of the Bachelor was because it would set a bad example for children. Because the straight version is a paradigm of how relationships should work, and something that's totally kid-appropriate. :sarcasm:
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Stephanopoulos scores Putin interview

ABC was the only American broadcaster to interview Putin. The other four TV networks were foreign Olympics rights-holders: the BBC, Chinese television and two Russian TV outlets. The AP also spoke to Putin.

Here is the English version of this interview:

Full 'This Week' Interview Transcript: Russian President Vladimir Putin - ABC News

To copy the part in question:

We want the Russian people and other peoples residing in the Russian Federation to develop and to have a future history. Everything that stands in our way in this regard, we must clean up but do so in modern and humane ways, without offending anyone and without turning anyone into second rate humans. It seems to me that the law that we have adopted does not hurt anyone.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
The reference must be to this sentence (from the translation given in post 310 above:

Everything that stands in our way in this regard [i.e., in Russia's effort to reverse population decline] we must clean up, but do so in modern and humane ways and without turning anyone into second-rate humans. It seems to me that the law we adopted does not hurt anyone.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
More in that interview:

Moreover, individuals of non-traditional orientation cannot feel like second-rate humans in this country because they are not discriminated against in any way, either professionally, not passed over for promotion, nor do they lack in recognition from society, by the way, as long as they accomplish outstanding achievements. Such as Elton John, for instance. He is an outstanding individual, an outstanding musician. He is loved by millions here, sincerely so, despite his orientation. His orientation is not a factor in how he is perceived, especially as an outstanding musician. I think that this, quite democratic approach to people of non-traditional orientation, along with measures to protect our children and to protect future demographic development, is optimal.
 

luckyguy

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Comment by an user in the press:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...c-torch-relay-article-1.1584514#ixzz2qysb7abS

"What's the deal with all these gay propaganda articles against Russia's relatively MILD laws when many of our "ALLIES" regularly jail and even execute people just for being gay (Saudi, Pakistan, etc.).

Could it be that there's an AGENDA at work here?"


About the real action of the "gay activist" Pavel Lebedev read the following article. It is in German but you can use the translater.
http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=19979
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Gotta love "relatively mild" fines, jailing and deportation. Gotta love "relatively mild" laws that remove children away from LGBT parents who have been raising them, and that would remove any future children from their parents if those parents happened to be gay. Gotta love "relatively mild" laws that prevent people who live in foreign countries from adopting Russian children, even if those children would greatly benefit from a loving family, simply because those countries have gay rights/marriage. Please... "relatively mild" is complete spin -- as asinine as saying I smoke relatively mild cigarettes, or I shot somebody with a relatively mild handgun. Don't give me that "We persecute people, but hey, we're not as bad as these Islamic countries" re-directing crap.

And this "We love Elton John" is homophobia 101... deny your discrimination by pointing out the fact that you love a certain member of that minority. It's like Eminem spewing homophobic remarks in his lyrics and then doing a stage performance with Elton John as though that absolves him of any hate speech he's said before or after that. It's like people who say something anti-Semitic and then say, "I have a friend who is Jewish, so how can I be discriminatory?" :rolleye:

"Moreover, individuals of non-traditional orientation cannot feel like second-rate humans in this country because they are not discriminated against in any way"

So, not being allowed to raise kids - even ones that are biologically your own - isn't being made to feel like a second-rate citizen? Arresting LGBT people if they say "It's normal to be gay." or kiss their partner isn't second rate treatment when straight people won't get arrested for saying "It's normal to be straight" or kissing their partner? Turning a blind eye towards violence directed towards gays is making LGBT people feel safe and like the law is on their side? Deporting visitors (after the Olympics of course... we wouldn't want a scandal during them! :rolleye:) for holding their partner's hand is equal treatment? "Oh, you can totally be gay in Russia... just don't be gay in any of the places children could potentially go to... like, you know, general public areas."
 

Icey

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
I would like to know the age of consent in the US and in Russia.

The age of consent varies from state to state in the United States. Many erroneously believe it is 18 nationally. The most common age of consent in the us is 16. It is 17 and 18 in other states.

In Russia the age of consent it is 16.

In some countries it is even lower than these ages, as low as 15, France, for example. Until this year it was 13 in Spain, but was change to 16 in September.
 

luckyguy

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
The age of consent varies from state to state in the United States. Many erroneously believe it is 18 nationally. The most common age of consent in the us is 16. It is 17 and 18 in other states.

In Russia the age of consent it is 16.

In some countries it is even lower than these ages, as low as 13.

Thanks. Are there differencies in the age of consent between heterosexual and same-sex sexual activities?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Thanks. Are there differencies in the age of consent between heterosexual and same-sex sexual activities?

The age of consent is between the two people, regardless of their gender, so everyone has to abide by the same age limits. That's in the US and Canada.

As far as I know, any country that enacts ages of consent make no distinction whether the persons are heterosexual or homosexual. And they shouldn't because there's no reason why a straight person should have an earlier/later age of consent than a homosexual person, or vice versa.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
I second that! The few times I've managed to watch five minutes of this show, I couldn't believe that these females were looking meaningfully into the eyes of a total stranger while cameras rolled, talking about a deep spiritual connection. Would you repeat that for the viewing public, Ma'am?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Can you imagine LGBT people in states where yet can't get married and then see the Bachelor or Bachelorette sleep/kiss/date their way through a score of would be suitors to pop the question at the end? And they say gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Meanwhile 47% end in divorce and you get Britney Spears marrying on a whim while LGBT people have to fight for that right.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
quite frankly government should not be involved in marriage at all (straight, gay, or otherwise). let the churches/believers/faiths either say yay or nay we'll perform the ceremony - based on their religious "principle" - and other churches/believers/faiths that have no problem with it be able to perform them. Forget the tax breaks and other "perks" go away.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
quite frankly government should not be involved in marriage at all (straight, gay, or otherwise). let the churches/believers/faiths either say yay or nay we'll perform the ceremony - based on their religious "principle" - and other churches/believers/faiths that have no problem with it be able to perform them. Forget the tax breaks and other "perks" go away.

I agree, however, those who are married also receive several benefits (here's the US for an example): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

In Canada, you're privy to tax credits, abilities to pool RRSPs, some medical deductions, etc.

Also, societally, we are brought up into thinking marriage is a wonderful milestone that every person should have the right to experience.

I agree that every church/religious institution can turn away any couple for any reason -- I personally wouldn't want to get married in a place that isn't accepting of me anyways -- but the legal rights that come with being married should be given to all citizens, and not a select few.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
quite frankly government should not be involved in marriage at all (straight, gay, or otherwise). let the churches/believers/faiths either say yay or nay we'll perform the ceremony - based on their religious "principle" - and other churches/believers/faiths that have no problem with it be able to perform them. Forget the tax breaks and other "perks" go away.

I agree too. I think the government should only have the right to determine the civil union and all the benefits that go with such union. Whether or not such civil union is called marriage should be left for the churches and the people to decide. In this way, there won't be so much resistance and conflicts like we have now. However, the gay organizations and gay activists are not satisfied with such solution.:p
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
I agree too. I think the government should only have the right to determine the civil union and all the benefits that go with such union. Whether or not such civil union is called marriage should be left for the churches and the people to decide. In this way, there won't be so much resistance and conflicts like we have now. However, the gay organizations and gay activists are not satisfied with such notion.:p

There are plenty of churches who will still marry gay couples. It's these marriages being recognized by the government is what gay people are fighting for. Some people don't consider interracial/cross-generational marriages as "legitimate" marriages, but their opinion is negligible and those couples are still given the civil rights of every other couple, and that should be a right for LGBT people too.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
It's these marriages being recognized by the government is what gay people are fighting for.

I don't think so. Many conservatives have wanted it to be called something else other than "marriage". They have suggested the name "civil union" well back in time. I believe in some states, they have already had civil union for gay people many years ago. However, gay people are not satisfied with it. If, like you say, all these struggle is about the financial benefits that come with the marriage, you shall have it. Then case is closed. Is that all what you want? Obviously that is not what has been going on in US.
 

bsfan

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
I don't understand why Wagner would protest the russian law. After all, it's their country, their law. Their people decided. Their law makers made it. Every country has its own culture, own law. We don't have to agree but we need to respect them. There are countries where a man can have multiple wives in one househood... Even in U.S., it wasn't long ago that gay marrige was not legal, right?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Marriage is also an archetype that a lot of people aspire to. I personally don't really care that much what it's called, but a lot of people do want to "be married" one day... not "be civil unionized". It is belittling and treating them as second class citizens.

The struggle isn't just financial benefits. It's being recognized as a married couple and treated as one. For example, gays previously didn't have visitation rights (and I think some places still deny them that) to see their partner/husband/wife because only "family" of patients could see them. They haven't been been privy to have spousal rights when it comes to medical benefits and be covered for mutual insurance benefits, transfer of property, RRSPs, custody, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)

Moreover, it's about treating people as equal people. Frankly that's why it should simply be called "marriage" instead of "gay marriage". I didn't have "gay lunch" today, and didn't go to work in my "gay car". :sarcasm:
 
Top