News   May 13, 2024
 552     0 
News   May 13, 2024
 918     0 
News   May 13, 2024
 712     0 

Moscow bans gay rights parade on Eurovision day

I think all marriage should be banned. Divorce lawyers would be out of work....:D


Then the divorce lawyers would cite discrimination against them ...
at least they can keep the other lawyers well paid fighting for their 'cause' ...:D
 
Being against Gay marriage is not even close to being homophobic

I concur.


Of course it is. You are arguing that a group should be treated different and unequal to other Canadians and not have the same rights and responsibilities because of their sexuality.

What's wrong with a union that gives them the same tax benefits of marriage?





Back to the topic...

Why is Moscow still so anti-gay after all these years? That's the question I'd ask someone who is an expert on Moscow gay history.

Because they are orthodox christian. Something unusual there? Homosexuality is prohibited by the culture. And that is not unlike other cultures- like judaism and islam.
Even in other orthodox christian countries we see the same. In serbia the gays don't dare parade - they did once and soccer fans mauled them. It's something that simply does not have support in these cultures which are fundamentally against this behavior.
I feel that gay parades should not take place. One should not be celebrating the ability to not have a kid. By religion, having offspring is required. In fact it is necessary if we are to remain on this planet. Homosexuality undermines this, as two gay couples can not have kids. With this in mind I do not see how I can support the glorification of them. Now look, I do not support repressing them, and I feel that they should not be discriminated against, but one has to draw a line on both white pride, gay pride, and such things that are controversial. The gays have been mistreated for quite some time in the world, and perhaps still are today. However, that is no reason for them or any group to have these public pride things - let them do it in private, not in public.
 
I don't understand this whole "kid" argument. I guess single people or straight couples who choose not to have kids are totally useless in society, by that logic. :confused:

One's sole purpose in life isn't to have a child who's sole purpose in life is to do the same thing. There's more to it. There's love.
 
Back to the topic...



Because they are orthodox christian. Something unusual there? Homosexuality is prohibited by the culture. And that is not unlike other cultures- like judaism and islam.
Even in other orthodox christian countries we see the same. In serbia the gays don't dare parade - they did once and soccer fans mauled them. It's something that simply does not have support in these cultures which are fundamentally against this behavior.
I feel that gay parades should not take place. One should not be celebrating the ability to not have a kid. By religion, having offspring is required. In fact it is necessary if we are to remain on this planet. Homosexuality undermines this, as two gay couples can not have kids. With this in mind I do not see how I can support the glorification of them. Now look, I do not support repressing them, and I feel that they should not be discriminated against, but one has to draw a line on both white pride, gay pride, and such things that are controversial. The gays have been mistreated for quite some time in the world, and perhaps still are today. However, that is no reason for them or any group to have these public pride things - let them do it in private, not in public.


there is quite a difference between white pride and gay pride. one is associated with superiority, intolerance & racism while the other is associated with tolerance, equality & erasing a fabricated shame.


By religion, having offspring is required. In fact it is necessary if we are to remain on this planet.

yes, because the planet is so dangerously underpopulated.


marriage has absolutely nothing to do with procreation. also, i find it so ironic that the groups most vocal in seeking to defend "traditional marriage" are the same groups that have the highest divorce rates.
 
To put this into context I'll try and remember as much as I can about Queer history in Russia. If I remember correctly, I don't think sodomy was banned until rather late in the game - maybe the 19th Century? - and even then it was tolerated to a degree. Basically, everyone would know if a nobleman was a "confirmed bachelor," people wouldn't talk about it, but they wouldn't lock him up or kill him or anything (what happened to the lower classes is a different story though).

After the Communist revolution and inkeeping with other Socialist/Communist parties at the time (most notably in pre-Hitler Germany), the Soviet Union decriminalized homosexuality as part of their very progressive social reforms which included legalization of abortion, greater women's rights, etc. Then Stalin came in and all of that progressive legislation was tossed out the window. While a generation earlier Communists across Europe were welcoming the end of the family as an end of a capitalist institution, under Stalin there was a reimagining of a Soviet family with all of the same homophobic, misogynist bull they had previously done away with.

So, for a time, both the East and the West toed a similar line regarding "traditional family values," which were all really imagined. With the birth of the New Left in the West in the 1960s and the formation of the gay rights movement in North America, the Soviet government and other communist governments (like Cuba) attacked homosexuality as an excess of capitalism. Since then, I think, homosexuality in the former Soviet Union has been seen as an alien, corrupting, Western force. There was one notable exception to this though - East Germany legalized homosexuality long before West Germany (who continued to imprison gay victims of the Holocaust after the war, by the way). Like in many other places (Nigeria, Jamaica, Poland, Iran, etc), the backlash against gay rights activists and Queer people in general has more to do with the origins of the gay rights movement instead of actual historical or religious fact.
 
If I'm following what you're saying correctly, homophobia stems from a backlash against social values and rhetoric of eurocentric cultural imperialism/colonialism moreso than from an actual hatred for persons of the same-sex cohabitating. I'm more inclined to believe this from the perspective of developing nations harboring anti-West sentiments and objection to all associated cultural norms. The Kinseyian notions of gender identity we acknowledge here, may not translate as readily into other cultures as well.

However, even within our own society while most people are indifferent towards gay sexuality ("live and let live" mentality), it tends to raise a lot of ethical questions whenever it's brought towards the frontburner of an issue for debate (whether definition of marriage, child adoption, blood donation, etc.). If homosexuality in general wasn't made out to be such a hot-button issue, so politicized all the time, I feel very few would make the psychological leap from apathy to annoyance to anger or resentment. Our narcissistic society simply values our own personal freedoms way too much to even concern ourselves with denying that priviledge to others, despite what some extremists may vocalize.
 
If I'm following what you're saying correctly, homophobia stems from a backlash against social values and rhetoric of eurocentric cultural imperialism/colonialism moreso than from an actual hatred for persons of the same-sex cohabitating. I'm more inclined to believe this from the perspective of developing nations harboring anti-West sentiments and objection to all associated cultural normsQUOTE]

One has to remember that homosexuality, at its core, was a very recent and very Western phenomenon to begin with. Before European sexologists coined the term in the 19th Century, there was no such thing as homosexuality as we understand it today. Behaviour (sodomy) that had historically been looked down upon by the Judeo-Christian European powers-that-be was merged with identity in a new way. Empires past those new identities down to the colonies to the point where local histories where (what we would now call) homosexual acts and relationships were wiped clean and demonized. Decolonialization is possibly the most important thing to have happened to humanity in the past century and is an extremely complicated thing with far reaching affects. We can see a rejection of homosexuality in many parts of the world as part of the same thought process that inspired Gandhi's campaign for homespun clothing - a rejection of the ways of the oppressor. At the same time, decolonization manifested/manifests itself quite often in the idea of the strong heterosexual male (or, in post-colonial terms the "global male"). Mugabe, Bob Marley, Okonkwo (the protagonist from Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart) are all manifestations of this ideal amongst many others.

A pattern was established where returning to the native instead of the imperial centre for cultural norms, etc. was laid down. So, when the gay rights movement began in the West, it was seen as Western and rejected as Western. Homophobia, which by nature could only have spread to the world from the centre in Europe, was and is seen as a natural and indigenous cultural response to the gay rights movement.

If we take this further, the idea of homosexuality and it's negative connotations was also enforced from the centres of power down on to the lower classes in Europe itself where there is again a documented history of same-sex sexual and romantic activity for centuries. Once again, when the gay rights movement became associated with middle class values and capitalist countries, there is a reaction from certain segments of our own and other societies with high class-consciousness (i.e. some communist movements/nations) which informs Russian history moreso than the colony narrative. For an example of the class baggage associated with homosexuality (especially it's shift from working class to middle class), look at how gay men are so often tied to gentrification, etc. Things like Richard Florida's "gay index" don't help.

I must make clear though that while this may explain why homophobia runs rampant in many parts of the world, it by no means excuses it. The vast majority of the world now understands same-sex relations as homosexuality and through the lens of homosexuality. We're all working with the same definitions now, as we've seen in the way gay rights movements have sprouted up in similar ways to the ones in the West all over the world.

I'm sorry if my thoughts sound a little jumbled or confused, but this is such a wide-ranging issue touching on so many strains of theory that it's difficult to stay on track. The relationship between Queer theory and Postcolonial theory, for example, is itself complicated (and again, through its academic nature, tied to a certain class and cultural space).

Just as an interesting point to pass on, I attended a lecture by a theorist who discusses at length the relationship between the gay rights movement (especially the movement for gay marriage) and the post-9/11 backlash of Islamophobia in the West. I'm embarassed to say I can't remember her name as her work was extremely interesting, but the main argument she made through her lecture was that gay marriage only became politically possible in North America (especially the US) due to a "faggotization" of the Muslim male (for example, during the Abu Ghraib scandal). Just goes to show how ridiculously complex this whole issue is.
 
I imagine it'll take time to trickle down to the average citizen but score one for sensible thinking in a region where this kind of change doesn't happen easily. Of course the more conservative religious elements are up in arms. I also wonder what the BJP and other conservative political parties will make of it:

______________________________________________________
Gay sex decriminalised in India

A court in the Indian capital, Delhi, has ruled that homosexual intercourse between consenting adults is not a criminal act. The ruling overturns a 148-year-old colonial law which describes a same-sex relationship as an "unnatural offence".

Homosexual acts were punishable by a 10-year prison sentence. Many people in India regard same-sex relationships as illegitimate. Rights groups have long argued that the law contravened human rights.

Delhi's High Court ruled that the law outlawing homosexual acts was discriminatory and a "violation of fundamental rights". The court said that a statute in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines homosexual acts as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and made them illegal, was an "antithesis of the right to equality".

'India's Stonewall'

The ruling is historic in a country where homosexuals face discrimination and persecution on a daily basis but it is likely to be challenged, says the BBC's Soutik Biswas in Delhi. It also promises to change the discourse on sexuality in a largely conservative country, where even talking about sex is largely taboo, our correspondent says.

Gay rights activists all over the country welcomed the ruling and said it was "India's Stonewall". New York's Stonewall riot in 1969 is credited with launching the gay rights movement.

"It [the ruling] is India's Stonewall. We are elated. I think what now happens is that a lot of our fundamental rights and civic rights which were denied to us can now be reclaimed by us," activist and lawyer Aditya Bandopadhyay told the BBC.

"It is a fabulously written judgement, and it restores our faith in the judiciary," he said.

Leading gay rights activist and the editor of India's first gay magazine Ashok Row Kavi welcomed the judgement but said the stigma against homosexuals will persist. "The social stigma will remain. It is [still] a long struggle. But the ruling will help in HIV prevention. Gay men can now visit doctors and talk about their problems. It will help in preventing harassment at police stations," Mr Kavi told the BBC.

But the decision was greeted with unease by other groups.

Father Dominic Emanuel of India's Catholic Bishop Council said the church did not "approve" of homosexual behaviour. "Our stand has always been very clear. The church has no serious objection to decriminalising homosexuality between consenting adults, the church has never considered homosexuals as criminals," said Father Emanuel.

"But the church does not approve of this behaviour. It doesn't consider it natural, ethical, or moral," he said.

The head cleric of Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque, criticised the ruling.
"This is absolutely wrong. We will not accept any such law," Ahmed Bukhari told the AFP news agency.

In 2004, the Indian government opposed a legal petition that sought to legalise homosexuality - a petition the high court in Delhi dismissed. But rights groups and the Indian government's HIV/Aids control body have demanded that homosexuality be legalised.

The National Aids Control Organisation (Naco) has said that infected people were being driven underground and efforts to curb the virus were being hampered. According to one estimate, more than 8% of homosexual men in India were infected with HIV, compared to fewer than 1% in the general population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8129836.stm
 
very surprising but I visited India in 1999,2002 and recently and things have changed drastically there each time.

The way the girls dress and act, the stuff on TV, the stuff people listen to and such.


This was going to happen but mind you India is still a conservative nation when it comes to social issues. It will be hard to change as well because well India is an ancient place. Things have been the same in many parts for a long time.
 
Because they are orthodox christian. Something unusual there? Homosexuality is prohibited by the culture. And that is not unlike other cultures- like judaism and islam.
Even in other orthodox christian countries we see the same. In serbia the gays don't dare parade - they did once and soccer fans mauled them. It's something that simply does not have support in these cultures which are fundamentally against this behavior.
I feel that gay parades should not take place. One should not be celebrating the ability to not have a kid. By religion, having offspring is required. In fact it is necessary if we are to remain on this planet. Homosexuality undermines this, as two gay couples can not have kids. With this in mind I do not see how I can support the glorification of them. Now look, I do not support repressing them, and I feel that they should not be discriminated against, but one has to draw a line on both white pride, gay pride, and such things that are controversial. The gays have been mistreated for quite some time in the world, and perhaps still are today. However, that is no reason for them or any group to have these public pride things - let them do it in private, not in public.

Whether something like 5-10% of the population has kids or not won't make much difference. Besides, many gay couple adopt children in Canada, same as straight couples. So in essence, they help raise society's detritus. They help women avoid more abortions. Wouldn't that be more important to a Christian?

Also, it is true the Old Testament rejects homosexuality, especially in Leviticus. The following are also in Leviticus:

"The swine ... is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch." 11:7-8 Jesi ikad jeo svinjsko meso?


"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with a mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." 19:19

Ever wore garments made of more than one material?


"No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God."
21:21 The rest of chapter 21 makes it clear that God has a major hate on those who have disabilities.

I could go on. You can't pick and choose and say that gay marriage is wrong because the Bible condemns it and then ignore everything else. We should be moving away from using religion as a moral compass, not towards it.
 
"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with a mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." 19:19

Ever wore garments made of more than one material?

you stole that from jon stewart and jon stewart stole that from me! :p



if god didn't want people to have gay sex, he would have made penises in the shape of rectangles so that they wouldn't fit in round anuses. that's my cockmaker analogy.


and how do we know that god doesn't want us to be gay? what if all that homophobic stuff in the bible was just added afterwords by evil men? what if the only way to get into heaven is to engage in homosexual activity? having to engage in homosexual activity in order to have eternal life is just as plausible as god being disappointed in someone for being gay.

the bible does say that there is a special place in heaven reserved for those who have not been defiled by women. i think it's those penis shaped clouds you sometimes see in the sky.
 

Back
Top