Thread: Sochi Olympics and the Law against Gays in Russia +

Originally Posted by Lampada

В самом деле? Так же или сильнее, чем дети на этой фотке?

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 on hypocrisy such 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.

Originally Posted by DrBaldhead

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 on hypocrisy such pictures.

The picture are disturbing in DIFFERENT ways. Obviously the malnourished children are more immediately worrying.
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.

Originally Posted by Deborski

And pedophilia is rampant in the Russian Orthodox Church, just as it is in the Catholic Church, as Alexander Nevzorov recently pointed out.

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.

boycotted Russia by pouring out their Stoli, even though exported Stolichnaya Premium Vodka is made in the independent country of Latvia.

just what Latvia's long tortured economy needs! It's probably their biggest export product, along with cheap underwear.
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!

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.

Originally Posted by Hanna

... it doesn't in fact only come from within. There are external factors too.

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.

Originally Posted by Basil77

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.

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Seraph

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.

Biochemistry and genes AREN'T the same thing.

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.

Originally Posted by Hanna

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.

This statement is questionable for at least three reasons:

(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.

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.

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?

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.

Those of you who claim to be worried about your kids, are going after the wrong group of people.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Everything that people do depends on biochemistry, but that does not mean that biochemistry is causing everything. Identifiable non-biochemical factors are evident.

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

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.

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.

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.

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…’).

Originally Posted by Deborski

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."

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hanna

...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 See