Would you support Rainbow on Hockey Unis for Sochi?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

A patch may not change the minds of Russians or the Russian government, but it would do several other things:
1) Tell the world where Canada stands in terms of LGBT rights. Ending slavery didn't happen in every country at the same time, but one by one, countries took an ethical stand and stopped the disgusting practice. But it took people standing up and letting others know that they thought it was wrong for progress to be made.
2) Tell the LGBT citizens of Canada know that we support them and their rights, both here and abroad. That we respect them. We saw just last year here in Ottawa the son of a city councillor committed suicide because he was being bullied and tormented for being gay. The "It Gets Better" campaign shouldn't need to exist because it shouldn't be bad to start with. We can send a signal to young people that being gay is no different than being of another race or religion and they should feel free to be who they are rather than hiding it.
3) It tells those suffering as LGBT in other countries that Canada is a safe haven for people wanting to escape foolish and cruel persecution in other countries. If Russia has talented engineers or doctors that happen to be gay, Canada would welcome them.

So, you are not really so much about equity, you just support LGBT community. You are willing to fight for LGBT rights, but not willing to do anything about overseas-born USA citizens not being able to become president and I assume you did not support the idea to boycott London Olympics even though English Queen is getting a lot of money simply because she was born Queen. Other British people are not getting anything similar, but you are fine with this inequity based on birth.

And you know what, I really don't have any problem with any of your three goals. I don't mind Canada telling the world where it stands on LGBT issues. I don't mind Canada telling your own canadian LGBTs that you support them here and abroad, although I don't quite understand why do you need to go to Russia to do it. And I actually support your third point, even though calling $150 fine a "cruel persecution" is probably excessive.

And do you know, what is the difference between me and most of my opponents here? If I was them, I would post something like:

"So, the son of Ottawa councillor committed suicide because he was bullied as gay, so you decided to go to Russia and tell Russians that they are backwards and should be ashamed of themselves. Makes sense!"

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Pointman

So, you are not really so much about equity, you just support LGBT community. You are willing to fight for LGBT rights, but not willing to do anything about overseas-born USA citizens not being able to become president and I assume you did not support the idea to boycott London Olympics even though English Queen is getting a lot of money simply because she was born Queen. Other British people are not getting anything similar, but you are fine with this inequity based on birth.

And you know what, I really don't have any problem with any of your three goals. I don't mind Canada telling the world where it stands on LGBT issues. I don't mind Canada telling your own canadian LGBTs that you support them here and abroad, although I don't quite understand why do you need to go to Russia to do it. And I actually support your third point, even though calling $150 fine a "cruel persecution" is probably excessive.

Can you show me statistics on the number of teen suicides caused by feeling ostracized because they cannot run for president of the United States?

Can you show me statistics on the number of teen suicides caused by feeling ostracized because they don't have the money of the monarchy?

I think my battle is a wee bit more important than your red herrings.

Since I'm on a Jon Lajoie kick this week:
I am against gay rights because...... if we gave them complete equality to be who they are, there would feel more accepting of themselves, feel happier about their lives, less likely to commit suicide, adding to the world overpopulation, which in turn creates global warming.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by moon

If you want to be the super champion of equality and morality while fighting bigotry everywhere that you seem to think you are I would probably try to avoid using offensive words like ######ed which have been used by bigots to marginalize people for a long time.

While I'd quarrel with the notion that the word "######ed" is used frequently in a bigoted sense, I will certainly concede the point that it is certainly frequently used in a manner insensitive to the difficulties faced by individuals with developmental disorders and other challenges (and it would be hypocritical to use it and simultaneously be irritated by casual use of "gay" as slang for "bad").

I retract the use of that phrase, though not the sentiment behind it. That analogy remains exceedingly stupid.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Can you show me statistics on the number of teen suicides caused by feeling ostracized because they cannot run for president of the United States?

Can you show me statistics on the number of teen suicides caused by feeling ostracized because they don't have the money of the monarchy?

I think my battle is a wee bit more important than your red herrings.

It is. I have no problem with this as long, as people don't sell rainbow patches as some sort of fight for human rights and against inequity. As long, as you call it what it is — a battle for the good of LGBT — I have no problem with it.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It is. I have no problem with this as long, as people don't sell rainbow patches as some sort of fight for human rights and against inequity. As long, as you call it what it is — a battle for the good of LGBT — I have no problem with it.

Um, it is an issue of human rights and inequity. Quite obviously. It is also an issue of doing good things for the LGBT community. The two are not mutually exclusive. What on Earth are you talking about?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Um, it is an issue of human rights and inequity. Quite obviously. It is also an issue of doing good things for the LGBT community. The two are not mutually exclusive. What on Earth are you talking about?

If you have better reading skills, than what you showed in your previous post, you will probably understand what I am talking about

Originally Posted by Pointman

Imagine it for a minute — this is precisely the same, as Canadian players with rainbow patches in Russia (I'm not saying that the issues are the same, I'm only saying that public reaction will be the same).

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

... Do you really want your big hypothetical argument by analogy to be this window-licking ######ed? One law says "you can't have this job". The other says "who you are is wrong and abnormal, so much so that we're worried about you infecting children".

However, for the sake of summing it up, I will summurize:

This law does interfere with LGBT abilities to promote their views to children. One could argue, that due to gay children not getting enough support via LGBT propaganda, they suffer to the point that some of them commit suicides. This is legit point. I may or may not agree with it, but it is legit point that makes sense.

What I do have problem with is following:

1. Some misinformation about the actual law (like that you can be put in jail).

2. Inclinations that the law violates human rights. It is not your human right to communicate your views — whatever they are — to other children if their parents are against it.

3. Claims that Russia is backwards and scum because of inequity allegedly created by this law. There's no inequity created by this law, as this law punishes basing on certain actions, carried out by choice, not by something people can't change. If you have a strong spirit against inequity, I'd like to see you protesting at USA and English embassies. I would actually agree — which I already did — that protecting gay kids is more important than inequity instituted by USA and England laws. But then just throw "inequity" into the window and say that you are protecting gay children from being bullied into suicide. I have no problem with it.

[19Yzerman19]

Of course there is inequity caused by this law. Gay people cannot publicly state that being gay is a normal, acceptable way to be. They cannot state that gay people can and should be able to lead normal, happy lives. If they do, they are subject to fines. Meanwhile, I can talk all I want in public about how great it is to be Russian. Hell, correct me if I'm wrong but I'd bet it's perfectly legal to publicly proclaim how great it is to be a Nazi. But when it comes to homosexuality, you have to keep that to yourself.

How is it possible that you're missing the inequity here? You cannot simultaneously have the mental capacity to type and still not get this.

Russia is a backwards country, and many Russians are scum, and I infer this from the plurality of them who are professed homophobes - See earlier stats posted in this thread.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Of course there is inequity caused by this law. Gay people cannot publicly state that being gay is a normal, acceptable way to be. They cannot state that gay people can and should be able to lead normal, happy lives.

Not only you CAN say that gay people can and should be able to live normal happy lives, but it is actually written in russian laws (not this one), that gay people have equal rights to other people.

[kehatch]

Can we have an Olympics that isn't monopolized by human rights issues?

It boggles my mind that North American's think we are so perfect that we should be using every platform to tell some other country they are doing it wrong. The commercialization and resource monopolization by the "civilized" world has significantly more impact globally then the Russian stance on homosexual rights.

Let the athletes have their moment. It is frigging pathetic that there is a 26 page post on this and nothing on the various Canadian athletes that will be participating at the Olympic's. Talk about a messed up perspective.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by kehatch

It is frigging pathetic that there is a 26 page post on this and nothing on the various Canadian athletes that will be participating at the Olympic's. Talk about a messed up perspective.

I.. Just... wow.



A competition in sports not being talked about , where as a HUGE discussion on basic rights and equality is raging on and THAT is messed up perspective? Kehatch, I respect you as a poster on 99% of things discussed on this board, but you can't be serious here. This discussion is definitely of greater import than who is playing in net for Canada.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by saXon

Indeed.

North East Goon.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

A competition in sports not being talked about , where as a HUGE discussion on basic rights and equality is raging on and THAT is messed up perspective? Kehatch, I respect you as a poster on 99% of things discussed on this board, but you can't be serious here. This discussion is definitely of greater import than who is playing in net for Canada.

Of course the discussion of human rights is more important then a discussion on sports. And you should definitely have it. Just not on a message board dedicated to the discussion of sports.

A majority of the people here had no idea the inequality existed until the Olympic hype. A majority of the people here won't care about it 2 months after the Olympics are over. A majority of the people here ignore our own contributions to human rights issues globally and really wouldn't want to know because we aren't willing to modify our lifestyle to change it. And yet we are getting all vocal about it in this short window with less then 10% of the actual information, zero education on the matter, no plan on doing anything more then typing a few things on an obscure message board, and a complete ignorance of our negative contribution to basic human rights that should make us embarrassed to stand on the pedestal (but we don't know enough to be embarrassed). How many people would actually bother to get their butts out of the seat to vote on a referendum for gay marriage in Canada? Because the turnout historically has been pretty dreadful.

It is a meaningless and ignorant flavor of the moment plea on a sports message board where most posters couldn't name 5 athletes competing that are not in the NHL. I am all for promoting positive change in human rights. But this isn't it. So we might as well celebrate the athletes that have trained their entire lives for a chance to represent their country at these events. It is really to bad people would rather try and argue international law instead.

[JiriHrdina]

The problem is the Olympics love to trot out phrases like "A celebration of humanity". If they want to live up to that - then these issues must come to the fore.
Otherwise they should start describing themselves for what they are: Sports and nothing more.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

I see it a bit differently, Kehatch. As a person who has fought for the LGBT community, who has marched in Pride parades, raised money for education and change, I love seeing this conversation. Sure a bunch of people had no idea, and now they do. This is never a bad thing as it raises awareness, creates open discussion and promotes a new way of thinking. I don't care where the discussion takes place so long as it does.

And for the record I am a married straight male, who has family and friends who are a part of the LGBT community.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pointman

No. You can not gently touch my nose either. And I don't have to prove that your gentle touches of my nose do me harm to request you stop touching my nose.

Well see we live in this thing called society, and by definition your nose gets touched every day, all day long, just by living in society. If you don't want to participate in society, go be a hermit.

You are being disingenuous here, because you aren't requesting for someone to stop touching your nose, you are implementing a law that restricts the freedoms of everyone else because of an arbitrary idea that you don't like.

Originally Posted by Pointman

I still haven't described it because it is irrelevant. The point is that if parents believe that something is harmful to their children, it is their right to protect their child from it, even if parent's opinion is wrong.

And nothing is stopping parents from doing that, if they want to hide their children from any ideas but their own, they can go live on a commune. But that's not what's happening here, they aren't just protecting their children, they're harming others and society and general by supporting this law.

Originally Posted by Pointman

If you think that russian parents are ignorant, or even if they really are, doesn't mean that they can`t protect their children from something they feel is unappropriate.

And they can do that without the law. That's why it's obvious that the point of the law isn't in fact to protect any children, it's to protect the adults from ideas they don't like.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Yes, all three are violations of your rights.

You aren't thinking things through and either must simply agreeing because to disagree would undermine your point (consciously or not), or you aren't being serious.

By your definition, almost every single interaction in society violates human rights. A commercial that sells Transofrmers instead of Lego would violate your human rights. SCHOOL is nothing but teaching children ideas that not everyone would agree with all day long!! Holy crap schools should be outlawed.

If all of those things violate your human rights, why is there no law preventing propaganda that blacks aren't sub-human? Why is there no law preventing propaganda that promotes traditional sexual relationships, since according to you that would violate human rights?? We all know why, despite the mental gymnastics you are attempting here to justify an unreasonable position.

Originally Posted by Pointman

This is why I, being ateist, will not tell your children that there's no god, even though there's a lot of scientific evidence to it and I consider religious beliefs rural and backwards.

You may be atheist, but the way justify your beliefs is more religious in style than most religious posters I've ever discussed things with here.

BTW children can read this forum, you just told any that do that being a atheist is an acceptable thing, which according to you violates the human rights of all the parents of those children and therefore should be illegal (and might already be, since saying atheism is ok might be considered offensive to religious sensibilities which is illegal in Russia).

Originally Posted by Pointman

I didn't want to go this way, but I had to use this example to show you, that some people may consider YOUR beliefs backwards and may have a lot of scientific and natural evidence to support it. No, I will not go into religious debate here.

I've never said to you what my beliefs are with respect to any gods, but by telling me that some people may consider my beliefs backwards you are violating my human rights because children can read your anti-my-beliefs propaganda.

See how completely ludicrous your position is? It's not well reasoned, I think you just picked it because it supported your desired conclusion.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Correct. IF veggie propaganda will drive whole nation sick to the point that it will support anti-veggy propaganda law so much, there should be a law against it.

No. You yourself said harm doesn't factor into it, so there should this instant be a law against anything that tells children that eating 3 servings of vegetables a day promotes a healthy body. You either have to admit that harm to society should be a factor, or you have to admit that there should be a law that fines people for disseminating propaganda that promotes a "traditional vegetable consuming relationship".

See, you couldn't resist considering harm in your thought process, because you know that otherwise it makes zero sense.

Originally Posted by Pointman

You would argue, that it would then make sense to create a law to protect children from ANY unwanted propaganda. And again you probably would be right.

No that's what you are trying to argue, and no you aren't right, because the the logical conclusion of what you are trying to argue is outlawing of any communication at all, because it is ALL propaganda. Communication is the transmission of ideas which by definition will compete with other ideas in your brain. If you don't want exposure to any ideas, be a hermit (which in itself is an idea, by telling you to be a hermit I'm saying a hermit is a valid life choice and therefore violating the human rights of parents of children who do not support non-traditional living locations).

Originally Posted by Pointman

However, abscense of law that protects children from any unwanted propaganda doesn't make a law, that protects them from some of it any bad.

Sorry, I don't get what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Pointman

It is not equivalent. You couldn't understand why parents don't want someone to talk about being gay when kids are around.

Oh I think I do understand, but please, explain why a parent would not want someone to talk about being gay with kids around.

Not that it matters, because according to you any idea a parent disagrees with violates their human rights if their child is exposed to it and should be outlawed.

Originally Posted by Pointman

So I came up with "wild oral sex" example to show you that in some situations it is natural and common sense for parents to protect their kids from hearing certain things, and it doesn't necesserily mean that parents hate those things (wild oral sex is great, isn't it?)

See, you cannot help yourself to include harm in the equation. You use the word protect, which implies harm. If there was no harm, then there's nothing to protect from, so telling children about these things should be perfectly fine.

But you implicitly, despite all your argument otherwise, admit you see a harm. What harm is there telling a young child about wild oral sex? What harm is there in telling a young child someone is gay?

Originally Posted by Pointman

Here, second paragraph from the bottom. Authorities say, that "non-traditional relationships" are the ones that can not produce children.

http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/621282

So if I create a pamphlet that says "it's ok to marry a man if he's infertile" or "can't have kids, it's ok you don't have to feel bad, come attend our support group on Wednesday nights" then that falls under the definition of propaganda supporting "non-traditional sexual relationships" and is (and according to you should be) illegal.

Pure nonsense. It's well known that sex has value and functions in our society beyond that of simple reproduction. Again this is just cherry picking a position not because it makes sense, but just because it happens to support a desired conclusion.

Originally Posted by Pointman

WHile I admit, that this definition is a bit vague and could be enhanced to be more precise and prevent possible abuse, I still maintain that common sense definition of "gays" is good enough for message-board discussion and that a 150$-fine law is very unlikely to be ever abused to launch a gays hunt.

Enhanced to what, more specifically target gays and make sure and exclude heterosexual couples that can't have children?? Wow.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Gay couple can't BORN children, they can only adopt.

A hetero couple with an infertile woman can only adopt too. They should be considered non-traditional and be subject to this law.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Lesbian couple can born children, but need a man (or his sperm) from outside their couple to do it,

A hetero couple with an infertile man need to do this too. Since they are doing the exact same thing an infertile hetero couple is, they should not be considered under this law.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Then again, I consider arguing over definition pointless, as issue is obvlously much bigger and we can get lost in details. Even if this law had a definition that you would consider perfect, you would still be against it, right?

The whole point of coming up with the definitions is to clarify YOUR position and why YOU think the law is valid and needed. Because if you can't even define the law and describe in detail why you think it is necessary, yet you support it, then it's clear that you support it based on ideology rather than reason. So far you haven't presented anything that is reasonable, and positions based on ideology (or unsubstantiated beliefs), are something you as an atheist should know to guard against (since faith is something that is typically associated with religion).

Originally Posted by Pointman

Everyone is equal under this law. If hetero person will promote homosexuality to minors, he will be fined as well. This law punishes activity, not being or not being gay. For example, hetero male TV host will be punished if he will put a video promoting gay relationships to children.

That's.. unfortunate I guess is the only way to respond.

Part of me wants to hope that you and the lady in the video aren't representative of Russians in general, but everything I read indicates that people in Russia really are getting what they want.

Looks like Russia is going to go a long way backwards before there's any hope of going forward, hopefully the Internet will help educate the younger generation despite the efforts of their elders to shelter them in ignorance and bigotry.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by photon

BTW children can read this forum, you just told any that do that being a atheist is an acceptable thing, which according to you violates the human rights of all the parents of those children and therefore should be illegal (and might already be, since saying atheism is ok might be considered offensive to religious sensibilities which is illegal in Russia).

You seems to be under impression that it is illegal to talk about gays wherever there's a reasonable chance that children will find it. This is not the case. It does not prohibit talking about gays on web forums. Russian gay sites still exists, such as http://www.lgbtnet.ru/ and http://www.gay.ru/. So do gay clubs. They are not banned. It is only illegal if propaganda is intentionally directed at children (posted on some lego forum for example).

By the way, I finally found the actual law text:

http://www.zakonrf.info/koap/6.21/

Originally Posted by photon

If all of those things violate your human rights, why is there no law preventing propaganda that blacks aren't sub-human? Why is there no law preventing propaganda that promotes traditional sexual relationships, since according to you that would violate human rights?? We all know why, despite the mental gymnastics you are attempting here to justify an unreasonable position.

You had already asked why there's a law against gay propaganda and no laws against other sorts of propaganda and I already responded that the reason for that is because russians are particularly sick of gay propaganda.

Originally Posted by photon

So if I create a pamphlet that says "it's ok to marry a man if he's infertile" or "can't have kids, it's ok you don't have to feel bad, come attend our support group on Wednesday nights" then that falls under the definition of propaganda supporting "non-traditional sexual relationships" and is (and according to you should be) illegal.

This is very opposite of what I said. I said that definition is vague and should be made more precise to target gays. Particularly, promoting marrying inferile man should not be illegal. It is not illegal now as well, unless a judge will have some serious brainlock.


I will probably respond to the rest of your post later, however a bulk of it came out because you were overblowing the restrictions of the law.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pointman

You seems to be under impression that it is illegal to talk about gays wherever there's a reasonable chance that children will find it.

You weren't talking about being illegal, you were talking about violating human rights. You said no one can touch your nose, by posting that being an atheist is ok you are violating others' human rights and that it should be illegal, according to the justification you have for this law.

The illegal part about atheism is a different law, it's illegal in Russia to say or post anything that might be "offensive to religious sensibilities".

Originally Posted by Pointman

You had already asked why there's a law against gay propaganda and no laws against other sorts of propaganda and I already responded that the reason for that is because russians are particularly sick of gay propaganda.

That's doesn't answer the question, just because everyone is sick of not being able to have black people be slaves does that mean we should support a law that makes slavery of black people legal?

WHY are they sick of "gay propaganda"? I think it's no more complex than Russians want to shut up people that challenge their bigotry, and I still haven't seen any better reason put forward.

Why is there no law preventing propaganda that promotes traditional sexual relationships?

Originally Posted by Pointman

This is very opposite of what I said.

I was going by the definition at that point.

Originally Posted by Pointman

I said that definition is vague and should be made more precise to target gays.

Which is exactly what I asked. So this still boils down to bigotry, targeted (for no justified reason that has been presented yet) against gay people or anyone that supports equality.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Particularly, promoting marrying inferile man should not be illegal. It is not illegal now as well, unless a judge will have some serious brainlock.

Well that's different than what you said before where promoting anything would violate your human rights.

So what's the difference in your mind? What difference between a gay couple and an infertile couple requires that requires the first to need a law to protect children from being told that it's ok?

All this posting and you still have not come up with a single reason explaining WHY the law is being put in place, the root of it.

Originally Posted by Pointman

I will probably respond to the rest of your post later, however a bulk of it came out because you were overblowing the restrictions of the law.

And that came out of you trying to justify the law by claiming promoting any idea violates human rights. I'm only trying to follow your arguments to their conclusions.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The problem is the Olympics love to trot out phrases like "A celebration of humanity". If they want to live up to that - then these issues must come to the fore.
Otherwise they should start describing themselves for what they are: Sports and nothing more.

A giant sports competition of best vs. best from around the world is a celebration of humanity. It's a celebration of human excellence and drive to improve in the physical sphere. That's worth celebrating, and it reduces economic and political influences on prominence for individuals by instead making it all about physical excellence, which is a very nearly universally understandable and uniting aspect of humanity.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Although there are some disappointing views in this thread, I'm incredibly heartened to read some of the posts that argue for equality than I ever could. For those who are supportive of Putin's law, I ask you to consider two questions:

1. Imagine someone you love (brother/sister, son/daughter, grandson/granddaughter) is struggling with their sexuality, does it bother you that they are probably having nightmares about telling you? How would you feel about them reading your posts here?
2. Are you going to be proud of your posts in 10 years or are you going to regret them?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I still haven't described it because it is irrelevant. The point is that if parents believe that something is harmful to their children, it is their right to protect their child from it, even if parent's opinion is wrong. If you think that russian parents are ignorant, or even if they really are, doesn't mean that they can`t protect their children from something they feel is unappropriate.

So parents have the right to protect their children from harm that may be imaginary by trampling on the rights of LGBT people?

As you said, "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins. [...] This is the very basic of democracy. And this is what this law is all about."

Yet you argue that punching LGBT people in the nose is okay because you're afraid of them. In that case, it is clearly important to determine whether such fear is founded or unfounded.

Some infringing on rights is okay so long as the infringement is to achieve a pressing and substantial objective, and the infringement is minimal, protional, and rationally connected to the objective. This is the Oakes Test. The Russian law fails this test when harm is unproven, because if you can't show that children are harmed then there's no rational connection to the objective of protecting children.