If the guys from the picture on the left make you concerned about their rights more than the ones from the right picture, you might need to revise your views onQuote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
hypocrisysuch pictures.
Printable View
If the guys from the picture on the left make you concerned about their rights more than the ones from the right picture, you might need to revise your views onQuote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
hypocrisysuch pictures.
Well, I for one do not support a boycott.
I would like to see gay athletes perform FABULOUSLY in Sochi with their heads held high! I hope they win some gold and break some stereotypes!
Too many people confuse pedophilia with homosexuality and it is patently NOT the same thing.
A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to small children. Pedophiles can be straight or gay. In fact, I had a "discussion" with one pedophile (a Russian heterosexual man) right here at MR who openly (and proudly!) stated that he likes to go to Thailand and pay for sex with girls under the age of 13. He said that he prefers girls before they "ripen" and that a man should try to marry a little girl before she reaches puberty, so that he can "mold her" to himself. And he thinks that is "natural." He even bragged about how many virgins he has "deflowered" - one of them, he said, was just nine years old.
Of course, I was disgusted and horrified at this individual's blatant advocacy of pedophilia and I blocked him. But I know that a lot of people would agree with him and see absolutely nothing wrong with forcing a little girl to have sex - while at the same time denouncing homosexuality as "unnatural" and "evil" and "harmful to children." This reasoning makes no sense to me.
Those of you who claim to be worried about your kids, are going after the wrong group of people.
I could understand laws against pedophilia because pedophiles sexually ABUSE children! But if adults want to have gay sex with other adults, why should anyone care? It's hypocritical to be all up in arms about gays while turning a blind eye to pedophiles. And pedophilia is rampant in the Russian Orthodox Church, just as it is in the Catholic Church, as Alexander Nevzorov recently pointed out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS3LqxQc4AM
The picture are disturbing in DIFFERENT ways. Obviously the malnourished children are more immediately worrying.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBaldhead
But it's a historical fact that civilisations that embrace homosexuality and become obsessed with money start to rot from within.
Ancient Greece, Rome and pre-revolutionary France are well known examples.
And what's happening to "The West" right now? Rotting from within, I'd say...
I think the Russians have the right idea. Definitely not persecute gay people, but not encourage it either.
But I realise the comment really annoys many here who are into polical correctness at all cost. And yeah, the Russian politician who said that Stephen Fry was sick is correct. He's written a book and appeared several times in media to discuss his horrible struggles with bipolar disorders since childhood. He's totally out of it for long stretches of time and he has tried to commit suicide multiple times. He's very talented but he is, in fact, a rather sick man by his own admission. He grew up at an all boys boarding school and having been engaged to a man from that kind of background who was struggling with homosexual temptation, I know a thing or two about how it doesn't in fact only come from within. There are external factors too.
Sorry, but that's a bullsh!t. Who is that Nevzorov guy? That clown who used to broadcast "600 seconds" at Leningrad TV channel back in the end of 1980s - early 1990s? He was typical "The Onion"-tier journalist back then. Never heard about him since. Orthodox priests don't have to keep celibate like Catholic priests, most of them are married and have many children. Only Orthodox monks must keep celibate. I never heard about a single pedophile scandal in Russian Orthodox church. I'm not implying that there weren't any cases but for sure it can not be compared to what has happen at Catholic church. And pedophilia is A CRIME that is punished by Russian law. Anyone who try to claim that it's normal should be jailed immediately. I don't see any problem here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
just what Latvia's long tortured economy needs! It's probably their biggest export product, along with cheap underwear.Quote:
boycotted Russia by pouring out their Stoli, even though exported Stolichnaya Premium Vodka is made in the independent country of Latvia.
very sad!
Vandalised street crossing outside the Russian embassy in Stockholm.
Too bad these brainwashed losers couldn't find their way to the Saudi embassy, where it would make a lot more sense to protest!
http://adland.tv/files/imagecache/st...ungsholmen.jpg
In my childhood they were obsessed about antiimperialst struggles in the 3rd world. Then it was multiculturalism and immigration (SO cool and awesome) and now it's homosexuality.... You cannot open a paper without reading about it, article after article. It's totally insane and has lost all proportions.
The latest insane idea: Not only can people get a free sex change in the state medical care for the last 15 years. But those who got it previously had to get sterilised as the one condition for receiving this super expensive treatment for free.
But now some genius has come up with the idea that this was discriminatory and these sex changed people will get massive compensation payments. All this from the tax payers money, while pensioners have to wait months for hip replacement surgery or weeks for urgently needed heart surgery.
There is no such thing as 'gay gene'. None of it comes from biochemistry. This is a great problem, the attempt to frame various (many other things could be talked about) as being caused by genes or biochemistry or something. Scientific frauds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
And immediately the insults begin. Can you begin any sentence with something other than an insult, when you disagree? And why insult me? Simply because I have an opposing view? I did not see you insulting or attacking the pedophile who was bragging about raping 13 year old girls...Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
This is why I do not care to discuss this subject on this forum. I get that you are angry about some myth about gay people "taking over your country" but I am not going to be fodder for you to attack.
Alexander Nevzorov is a distinguished journalist and war correspondent whom I had the great honor and privilege of working with in Leningrad many years ago. I am very encouraged to see that he is still speaking his mind and has not been shut down by the frothing-at-the-mouth religious right which wants to force everyone to believe exactly as they do. So naturally, you felt compelled to immediately denigrate his character and insult him too.
It's a pity that so many people on TV these days, in Russia and in America, are just loudmouthed shills for populist views. Nevzorov has integrity, and that is exemplified by his ability to stand firmly for the truth even when the majority disagree.
Biochemistry and genes AREN'T the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
It's undoubtedly correct that there is no such thing as "A gay gene," singular, that simply turns "gayness" on or off. (Simple explanation: even if such a gene were to appear by spontaneous mutation, it would be selected against, and within 20 or 30 generations, it would become much too rare for the observed rate of 1-5% for homosexual individuals. Another way to put this is that if there IS such a thing as a gay gene, probably less than 1% of homosexuals actually have this gene, and the other 99% are gay for non-genetic reasons --- in other words, "purely genetic" homosexuality is either non-existent, or else it's the rarest form of homosexuality.
There might be such a thing as a complex of several genes (plural) whose combined effect that increase the odds of someone turning out homosexual -- though, again, it wouldn't be an ON/OFF switch, and some of the people carrying these genes would still turn out heterosexual, but not necessarily because of "external factors" like going to an all-boys school.
It's also possible that homosexuality is totally non-genetic, AND YET MAINLY BIOCHEMICAL. For example, the levels of sex hormones in the uterus can have major effects on the fetal brain -- yet these hormone levels do not necessarily have anything to do with the fetus's own genetics.
Finally, I would certainly agree that a lot of gay activists who know nothing about science have jumped on the "genetics" bandwagon. And I agree that the cause of homosexuality remains poorly understood. Nonetheless, I think it's likely that there is a biochemical cause for homosexuality, not because I wish for this to be true, but because I think it's likely that biochemistry plays a huge role in causing HETEROSEXUALITY.
Let me repeat that another way: I don't believe that most people are born "blank slates" with regard to sexual orientation. I think it's far more likely that some combination of genes and hormones "programs" nearly everyone for heterosexuality, but in less than 5% of children, something goes slightly wrong in this biochemically-controlled process of wiring the brain, and the kid turns out homo. To put it another way, homosexuality is an uncommon (but not rare) side effect of the normal "heterosexualization" process in the fetal brain.
By analogy, we aren't "blank slates" with regard to the number of fingers we have -- five is the norm for our species -- but neither is the development of five fingers guided by God or Angels in the mother's womb. Unconscious genes and hormones usually interact in a flawless and automatic way to give us five fingers on each hand, but occasionally something goes wrong in this process and a kid is born with only three, or six, or more.
I would add that a lot of this remains speculative -- because we still don't understand very well how sex-hormones affect the fetal brain in humans. (We have lots of experimental data for other mammals like rats and sheep -- but, obviously, it's not ethical to remove a baby girl's ovaries and pump her full of testosterone in order to "see what happens.") I would tend to guess, however, that sometime in the next few decades, the claim that humans can be "born gay" will either be confirmed beyond doubt or disproven beyond doubt, as understanding of the brain/hormone connection improves.
This statement is questionable for at least three reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
(1) Has there ever been a civilization that wasn't "obsessed" with money? I would say that caring about money is that's practically a pre-requisite for being civilized.
2) What does it mean to "embrace" homosexuality? I'm not sure exactly which examples you're talking about in France, but certainly in the loooong histories of classical Greece and Rome, homosexuality was tolerated under certain conditions, mocked in other conditions -- and the degrees of tolerance, when such existed, varied from one era to another.
(3) Christianity became the state religion of Imperial Rome in 380 AD; Rome was conquered and looted TWICE within the next century (410 by the Visigoths and 455 by the Vandals). By your logical standards, then, the embrace of Christianity caused the internal rot of this once-mighty pagan empire much more quickly and devastatingly than any "embrace of homosexuality" did.
Hmmm. I would've guessed that sterilization is ALWAYS required -- not to prevent them from having kids, but because the testicles and ovaries are the source of the sex hormones that self-identified transsexuals consider to be THE WRONG KIND! For example, M-to-F transsexuals don't want the testosterone that their testicles are making -- they want estrogen, and in fact it's usual for MTFs to receive estrogen by injections. So I would've guessed that removing the testicles or ovaries would be the very first step! Plus, if you're a man trying to pass as a woman, why would you want to have a pair of яйца dangling unaesthetically between your legs?Quote:
The latest insane idea: Not only can people get a free sex change in the state medical care for the last 15 years. But those who got it previously had to get sterilised as the one condition for receiving this super expensive treatment for free.
But possibly I was wrong -- some Googling gives me the impression that some FTMs don't bother having their ovaries removed; they just receive estrogen-blocking shots. Taking out the ovaries not only adds to the cost, but also, obviously, is totally non-reversible, whereas injections can be discontinued. (And, apparently, some self-identified transsexuals do in fact change their minds partway through the long therapy process.)
By the way, I am rather against the idea of using tax money to pay for transsexual surgery, but ESPECIALLY the idea of paying for procedures like breast implants for "MTFs" -- since fake boobs have no objective health benefits (whereas it MIGHT be justified to pay for their hormone treatment -- hormones have neuro-psychological effects, and therefore giving hormone shots to a clinically depressed transsexual might, in theory, help the depression better than anti-depressant pills alone).
And with that issue aside, I've also heard that some very anti-gay regimes -- including Saudi Arabia and China, I believe -- have offered to pay for the transsexual surgeries of men arrested for homosexuality, even if these men don't ASK for the surgeries, and don't identify as women! In other words, the surgery is basically a condition for NOT being imprisoned, or for having the sentences shortened. Evidently, the regimes find that the easiest way to deal with homosexual men is to turn them surgically into heterosexual "pseudo-women".
P.S. But I don't rule out the possibility that transgender identity is "real", organic, and to some extent neurologically hardwired by fetal hormones. As I wrote above, hormone/brain interactions are VERY complex even in mammals with brains a lot simpler than ours -- and at the present time, science doesn't understand them nearly well enough to exclude the hypothesis that transsexuals are literally "born that way." Or, perhaps, some percentage of them are "born that way," while others psychologically construct/invent a "trans identity" as their way of dealing with various traumas. In other words, there may be more than one "type of transsexual," just as there may be different types of homosexuality -- some forms that are "in the brain" (neurological) and other forms that are "in the mind" (psychological). Anyway, it's surgery as a THERAPY for "Gender Dysphoria" that I'm skeptical about, and not the claim that "Gender Dysphoria" exists. Part of me suspects that doctors fifty years from now will look back on sex-reassignment surgery as a horrifying sort of pseudoscientific quackery, as we now look back on lobotomies.
P.P.S. One other thing that occurs to me -- it's important to understand that homosexuality and transsexualism are different/independent from each other, even if one accepts the hypothesis that both may ultimately have biochemical/hormonal roots. For example, some male-to-female transsexuals are attracted to men ("androphilic") ; they live as gay men "pre-surgery", but hope to live as heterosexual women after the surgery. But other MTFs are attracted to women ("gynephilic") -- and they hope to live as lesbians, not straight women.
Everything that people do depends on biochemistry, but that does not mean that biochemistry is causing everything. Identifiable non-biochemical factors are evident.
Just to be a devil's advocate, I'm prepared to admit that in some ways, Gay Pride Parades -- and gay culture in general -- can be Bad For Kids. But, more specifically, they're potentially bad for HOMOSEXUAL kids, while not necessarily being of danger to HETEROSEXUAL kids.Quote:
Those of you who claim to be worried about your kids, are going after the wrong group of people.
I mean, to the extent that gay culture encourages promiscuous behavior, for instance, it's mostly "LGBT youth" who are likely to hear this siren-song and possibly behave promiscuously; straight youth don't really pay much attention to the messages that come from gay celebrities and gay media and gay parades. (Of course, heterosexual youth are also exposed to "pro-promiscuity" messages, but in general, THEY get such messages from mainstream heterosexual culture, and not from gay parades.)
But even while there are problems within gay culture and reasons for objecting to a lot of the stuff that occurs in Pride Parades, I hope it goes without saying that I do not give the Russian government an atom of credit for acting out of genuine concern for the ~3% of Russian teenagers who are coming to grips with their own homosexuality. Rather, they're fixated on the notion that heterosexual kids will pick up the "habit" of sodomy the way other pick up the habits of vodka and nicotine -- by trying it, because they saw it advertised on TV.
I've got to log off in a few minutes, but I'll say quickly: I agree that non-biochemical factors, including childhood socialization, are at work both in heterosexual and homosexual development. But I suspect that sexual orientation -- and gender behavior, and the subjective awareness of "being male" or "being female" -- all have biochemical roots that begin to take shape even before birth. (We KNOW that this things can be instinctive in animals whose brains are too simple to think about abstractions like "femaleness" or "opposite-sex-ness"; and it seems improbable to me that after millions of years of evolution, such instincts would have simply disappeared in recent human evolution.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
I would also insist on the point that although "What causes heterosexuality??" is a question that most people -- even some scientists -- forget to ask, it's just the other side of the same coin as "What causes homosexuality??" Both questions should be asked at the same time, and understanding the neurological basis of the normal case (heterosexuality) will indirectly shed light on the mystery of homosexuality.
Most gay people I know are fed up with all the over-the-top flamboyancy too. They are just people, and they get tired of being stereotyped as "swishy" or as "drama queens" or whatever else. Those stereotypes do not speak for the vast majority of gays and lesbians, who just aren't all that "fabulous" really. They don't like being singled out. I'm sure my friends would agree that promiscuity is not a good thing to teach children. That said, there are different kinds of gay pride parades. I've taken part in some of them to show solidarity for my friends, and I didn't see any of the over-the-top, in-your-face wackiness that has been part of other parades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Throbert McGee
But that said, I think a lot of people DO confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and have unfounded fears that gay people want to molest their children. That was the main point of my comment, because it seems that pedophilia is accepted and even condoned in some quarters whereas homosexuality is scapegoated and largely misunderstood. The individual who was bragging about all the little baby girls he slept with in Thailand, said that there are many men who are exactly like him, and I don't doubt it. I do not want to downplay the danger of allowing pedophiles to run free under the guise of it being "natural" to have sex with little girls. I found it disturbing that I was the only one on that thread who disagreed with him and told him how disgusting he was. I hear so many people say they are worried about their kids, and yet not a single person other than myself, was upset or concerned about this guy who was openly and proudly a pedophile. But mention gay rights and suddenly all hell breaks loose!
OK, regardless of everyone's views on gay rights - I am trying to get to the bottom of what is going on concerning the rules and their application during the games in Sochi.
There appears to be a major disconnect between what I am seeing in Russian news sources versus what I am seeing in American news media.
Most of the Russian news stories posted this week state that the new laws will not be enforced during the Olympics in Sochi.
But most of the American stories I am reading say that the laws will be enforced.
I'm not sure where the disconnect lies. It appears that different officials in Russia are saying different things. Alexander Zhukov, head of the Russian Olympic Committee, insists that gay rights will not be "interfered with" - if I am translating this correctly - except in the case of foreigners openly "propagandizing" minors.
Жуков пообещал не ущемлять права геев в Сочи -
But according to an English-edition article from RIA Novosti, which all the American news media is sourcing, the interior minister of Russia has stated that the laws will be enforced.
Russia Confirms Anti-Gay Law Will Be Enforced at Olympics | Russia | RIA Novosti
Then there is the BBC, which I am hoping has the real story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23674661
Is it possible to get a clear answer about this? If the laws are going to be strictly enforced, then I would support a boycott because I do not want to see athletes, spectators and journalists arrested for what might be perceived as "spreading gay propaganda."
But if the laws are going to be suspended during the games, then a boycott seems spurious to me.
Does anyone have a straight (pardon the pun) answer to this question...?
I agree that Olympics should be more focused on sports and competition. So appealing to the afore-mentioned law is not quite logical (Cameron also said something like that). But it should be understood that ‘law’ in Russia doesn’t mean that it is introduced to make the life of the people better, and also ‘law’ in Russia is often not executed afterwards. The true meaning of that law to my mind is that powers-that-be are again trying to gain favor with the people (the majority of the people in Russia - due to cultural issues - consider non-straights as very strange and see them as a challenge to traditional relations). Powers-that-be know this and introduce this law to say ‘Hey guys, you see, we feel the same way as you do, we share your values…’ S.Fray is a British national and to him a law means something else compared to what it means to Putin and to many Russians (in Russia it’s often important for powers-that-be to appeal to core traditional values and not to logic, it just happens due to history and culture that these values are not ‘westernized’). So Putin and his clique may in reality have their actual views on homosexuality, it’s just more politically advantageous for them to introduce such a law at this time as way of dialogue with the Russian people (in the same way as him catching a ’21 kg pike’ and stuff like that, implying ‘Hey guys, I am a cool fisherman, that’s how I spend vacation…’).
I am not sure as to how the law can be enforced for non-Russian nationals and athletes. There hasn't even been a case for a Russian citizen afaik yet. As someone said earlier in the thread, the athletes are not here to spread propaganda) they are here to show their best sport results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
I think it's pretty clear that this is just a smear campaign against Russia by media in Western Europe and the USA.
They can't find a lot of ACTUAL problems in Russia that aren't also present in their own countries. This is one of the few examples.
And the "politically correct" cliques are very keen to jump on the boat, this is very much the latest and greatest PC topic of concern.
In reality it's been established very clearly by gay Western people who live in Russia, that there is no actual issue - they are neither persecuted, nor ill-treated unless they make an absolute spectacle of themselves and/or reach out to minors.
I wish you were right Hanna. In reality sadly it's not the case. 36 Photos From Russia That Everyone Needs To SeeQuote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
I don't think there is an actual "smear" campaign, but I do think there is a lot of concern and confusion in the West over whether the "propaganda" laws will be enforced during the Olympics in Sochi. And the confusion arises not just from whether nor not the laws will be enforced, but from the ambiguity of the laws themselves. How do you define "propaganda"? Does it relate only to literature or rainbow flags? From my understanding of the law, it also applies to any pro-gay speech. So what if someone has a few drinks in a pub and says something pro-gay? Is he going to be carted off to jail and fined the $30,000 and expelled from the country? What if a couple of gay American figure skaters are jubilant after winning some gold medals and they KISS in public (heaven forbid!)? Will they be arrested because some Russian child saw them kiss? Where does it end?
These are the kinds if questions I want to know the answers to. Sure, the games are about sports. But the fact of the matter is that America, and many other Western countries, have openly gay athletes, especially in events like figure skating. They are used to being open and honest about who they are and they do not live in shame or hide in a closet. I am not sure they can just "pretend the gay away" while they are in Sochi. I'm not even gay myself, and I worry that if I return to Russia I could accidentally speak my mind and find myself jailed, fined and expelled.
Yes, most Russians are not "raging" homophobes. I would describe the majority of Russians as "mildly" homophobic in that gay people make them uncomfortable and they prefer not to think about it or be confronted with it. But there is an element of rage in Russia, as you can see in the photos Lampada shared, as well as in numerous videos of the gay parades held in St. Petersburg and Moscow. At the 2013 parade in St. Petersburg, there were young dudes wearing black t-shirts that say "by the word of GOD" on them, they were carrying whips and they freely and openly beat the gay protesters with no resistance from police. This isn't a "smear campaign" this was a Russian video which you can see for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzcgy5NkeaE
I commented on that video and was attacked by several angry Russian guys who called me names a Russian would have been ashamed to call a woman 20 years ago. They told me that if I ever return to Russia, they would "beat me until I cry tears of blood." There was no misunderstanding that. Quite frankly, I find it appalling. But as some of my close friends in Russia tell me, normal heterosexual guys do not spend their time chasing gay men to beat them, because they are too busy chasing girls. So I think these angry, abusive, hateful young men are actually gay themselves, but because of all the shame in their culture about being openly gay - and all the things "manly men" do together, like the баня and drinking vodka - they can not admit they are gay, not even to themselves. And when they see someone else who dares to be openly gay it enrages them! They want to quickly shut that person down, even kill that person.
There are also skinheads in Russia who are kidnapping gay teenagers and torturing them on video. The videos are posted on youtube and then the kids are further harassed and beaten when they show up in public.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3658636.html
So, it isn't that the West is engaging in a "smear campaign" - it's that people in the west are seeing shocking brutality in Russia following the advent of these new "propaganda" laws, and it is outraging people. I've tried to calm them down - you all know I love Russia despite this stuff - but people turn their rage on me if I say anything positive about Russia right now.
I think Russian officials are going to need to be much more clear about what rules will be enforced in Sochi, as well as to what degree, because a growing number of people are supporting boycotts. I do not, and the athletes do not. In fact, the athletes - some of whom are gay - have stated they want to come even if it means they will be arrested.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...ssia-so-be-it/
Russia and the IOC agree: Athletes and spectators shouldn’t be openly gay at the Olympics. Comments!!!
Ага, "ж..а есть, а слова нет".:mosking:
Просто нарываются на неприятности. Там же полиции не хватит.
I agree that the pictures are disturbing and I certainly hope that the man who punched a gay person in the face is caught and punished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
But I don't think this looks any worse than the pictures of the anti-banking demonstrations in London, or the violence against British students who wanted to protest against tuition fees at university. People participating in those demonstrations were even worse beaten up, and two people died during that time, as a result of police violence.
Everyone's free to have a choice of their own about anything, but if someone's choice is to make or "adjust" other people's choices as to how they live their lives, their choice MUST be altered; and it's not even close to the gay rights issue being the ONLY example here, the ex-USSR area has tons of others, except for maybe a few countries (the Baltic countries and such); there are some "morality and behavior templates" established by "the society", which many agree to, which is just frightening...
So they should use common sense just like when travelling anywhere a bit different, take the approach of "better safe than sorry".Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
I.e. cover up a bit in moslem countries, rather than running around in a tank top and shorts and complaining about being harassed. Don't "jaywalk" or drink alcohol in the street in the USA, don't bring up politics or religion in Northern Ireland and don't chew gum in Singapore.... Etc!
They should respect the sentiment of the majority in the country they visit, or else don't go. It's not even hard in Russia, since it's quite a diverse country with a near Western culture. All that the gay visitor needs to do is refrain from making a homosexual manifestation or coming on to kids, for two weeks while visiting the Olympic in Russia. How hard is that?
If a clean slate and flawlessness in the present, in terms of politics is required from all countries that host the Olympics is needed, then hardly no country would be worthy! Certainly not the ones that have hosted it recently, like China, the UK, the United States, Australia etc. Judge not, lest ye be judged! I'm sure the rest of the world could have dug up lots of good reasons to boycott each one of the previous and future Olympic hosts.
There is a slight difference between the anti-banking demonstrators/students and gay people: those demonstrators and students can make their own choice who or what to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Quote from posting of excerpt of interview of Jane Goodall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV6NYh83k5g
"Jane Goodall makes some interesting points about homosexuality in nature.
In chimpanzees, her clear forte, homosexuality is NEVER observed unless
extremely artificial circumstances are forced upon the chimps.
She states the same is true for cattle and dogs.
One wonders why this isn't grasped on to by the media...
...well not really. Who'd want to invoke that kind of outrage?
How interesting that in fishing for approbation for homosexuality from the
most iconic figure of the application of science to the animal to the
environmentalist world we find a bluntly honest woman who knows her stuff
laying down the facts."
(another little wrinkle is that not all domesticated groups of those animals she talks about, display non-wild type behaviour.)
And so people can view an expert opinion for themselves, without speculation, rationalization, or anything else.
The evidence doesn't support the reductionist view. It isn't biochemistry.
Scroll down to question 8. full interview.
Jane Goodall: Blessing the Animals - FORA.tv
The difference between chewing gum in Singapore, or talking about politics in Northern Ireland, or not wearing a burkha in a Muslim country versus not "making a homosexual manifestation in Russia" - is that the first three examples are behaviors which one can choose to refrain from. Being gay is not a behavior, it is an identity. Yes, I understand that people on this forum will disagree. But since Throbert has already covered the behavior versus genetic aspects of gay life, I suggest rereading his post again. They can certainly try to live in a closet, but it's almost impossible. Could you pretend to be a man while visiting another country? That would be a more exact comparison than the other ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
Additionally, the comment about "not coming on to children" reveals that you are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. I already covered this point, above. Gay people do not have any interest in "coming on to children."
I have traveled to many countries and I have always respected the laws there. I worked on an archeological dig in Syria, in 48-C heat and covered my neck, wrists and arms so as not to offend the sensibilities of my Muslim co-workers. I was not even allowed to mention Israel while I was there, so we referred to it as "Disneyland" lest we offend the religious sensibilities of Muslim people. But they did not force me to change what I am. That is a big difference.
To be honest, traveling to Russia frightens even me right now, and I love Russia. But even I cannot promise that I might not mention the fact that I have close friends who are gay, or say something equally factual and even though it is not intended as a provocation, it could be taken that way. It isn't only the laws I am worried about, it's the angry skinheads and neonazis like the ones who attacked me after I commented on the video. I did not say anything that deserved the level of hatred and hostility and threats directed at me. I have encountered this same hostility right here at MR, on other threads. It is very sad to me. The Russia I remember was never this brutal and people were not so cruel.
I still do not have a clear answer as to how the rules will be applied in Sochi during the Olympics. I suspect that there is not a clear answer, that Russian officials are saying contradictory things, and that is why media coverage on this is so confusing right now.
As regards homosexual behavior in nature, there is a plethora of examples of it.
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../nyreview.html
Did you listen to what she said?
Did you read the links I posted?
I did. If I understood correctly something changes in species' biology with the loss of natural environment. So it appears that civilization advances also impact humans' biology. And dear Jane is much in favor of slowing population growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
The biology is not changed, the genetics not changed. Behaviour and biology are not the same things. The interviewer actually was mistaken when he mentioned evolution, as that involves genetic change. People are confusing behavioural and biological things. Essentially Jane Goodall is saying something very important about some control groups. People are drawing incorrect conclusions about what are essentially experimental groups, as they are not paying attention, or don't understand what is being said about the control groups.
I'd say it's still even more than that; no one should have any possible right to tell others whether or not to chew gum, or what clothes to wear (or do anything else of that kind, that is trying to affect someone else's way of life); places where the majority doesn't realize this have serious problems, and one of the world community's priority tasks is to do anything possible to reduce the numbers of such places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Is anybody tired of the fact that we don't hear each other? Гласы вопиющих в пустыне...
Не знаю, я не антрополог, но в Гугле есть что-то о биологических изменениях:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraph
How City Living Is Changing Human Biology | IdeaFeed | Big Think
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs...nalCode=anthro
"Culture causes behavior by causing changes in our biology. ... is as much part of human biology as bipedal locomotion, and cultural and genetic influences on ... http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/R...eIsBiology.pdf
Which means what, exactly? (I'm not asking you, Deborski!) The question is, what does "propagandizing homosexuality to minors" mean to the Russians responsible for enforcing the law? And does the burden of proof fall on the government prosecutor, to show that someone's speech or behavior "promotes homosexuality to minors"? Or does the burden fall on the defendant, to show that his/her speech does NOT "promote homosexuality to minors"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborski
Shhhh.... no one tell the Russian government that THIS is pro-homosexual propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy8Mie4XE9M
0:14-0:20 - "You know, people like YOU were the reason I was afraid to go to school as a child..." [*wham* *bam* *whack-kick-smack*]
Apparently the clip is also of interest to heterosexual men who like to see women's feet in slow-motion... sorry I couldn't find a shorter version! But, trust me, the X-Men franchise is nothing but pro-homosexual propaganda from start to finish, even though it doesn't have rainbow flags all over it...
That is exactly my concern. The law is ambiguous at best. Just about anything could be construed as "gay propaganda." For example, I have lots of rainbow colored jewelry - not at all connected to the gay rights movement - but if I wore it in Russia, or if I wore anything multicolored, or if my husband wore his rainbow suspenders, what would happen? If I'm having a few drinks in a pub and I mention that my husband's uncle is gay, is that "propaganda"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Throbert McGee
I have no idea. The law is utterly ambiguous and open to anyone's interpretation, I think.
A more serious thought that occurred to me about the "are people born gay?" question. As Deborski, Lampada, and others living in the States can attest, so-called "ex-gay therapists" who claim that homosexuals can become heterosexual through a combination of prayer, faith, and Freudian psychoanalysis have been controversial for many years. And for the most part, they're controversial because such therapy hardly ever works as promised, and the number of dissatisfied clients goes into the tens of thousands.
For homosexuals who don't want to be homosexual because it conflicts with their religious faith, this ex-gay therapy may indeed help them to avoid homosexual activity, but it doesn't cause them to lose interest in the IDEA of sleeping with persons of the same sex -- nor does it cause them to develop an interest in heterosexual activity. They just become celibate gays, in other words, which is much less than what the ex-gay therapy advertises.
Anyway, I think it's worth noting that the clients of these ex-gay therapists are, in nearly all cases, gay men and women who were raised in extremely conservative religious environments; who spent their childhoods NOT seeing "pro-gay propaganda," and instead listening to preachers talk about how much Jesus hates the wicked sin of sodomy; but for some mysterious reason...
...they turned out totally homosexual anyway, and started to realize when they were 12 or 13 years old or so that falling in love with and kissing and sleeping with someone of the same sex sounded like the greatest possible thing in the entire world. No one put this idea into their head -- in fact, they grew up completely surrounded by the very opposite of this idea -- but they just knew. Or, rather, some unconscious part of their brainstem just knew it was true, automatically, on a level that transcended rational will. (When you're a 13-year-old boy sitting in algebra class, незваная эрекция хуже татарина -- why do so many people have trouble understanding this elementary fact, and what it implies about the alleged "choice" of sexual orientation?)
But anyway, I also wanted to recommend the documentary Trembling Before G-d, about gays and lesbians who came from a family background of so-called Ultra-Orthodox Jews -- also known as the haredim, which more or less means "they who tremble" in Hebrew. Not only are their religious views extremely conservative, but they are also known for their tendency to avoid the "secular" world and its media. In short, they grew up with practically zero exposure to the type of "homosexual propaganda" that the Russian government is trying to shield Russian kids from -- yet, по щучьему велению, they turned out gay.
Anyway, the documentary is made for a "general" audience -- i.e., you don't have to be familiar with gay life or Judaism or Ultra-Orthodoxy -- and it brings up some interesting points about, for example, the difference between "homosexuality" and "gay identity," and also examines the seeming mystery of why some gay people from extremely conservative and vocally homophobic religious cultures attempt to remain inside those cultural structures.