Isinbayeva - homophobic?

It is a bit amusing, watching the Jamaicans winning the sprint events in Moscow, to point out that in actual fact, Jamaica have far more draconian anti-gay laws than the Russians do.

They still have the old Victorian Law, imported from the UK back then and still on their law-books today - known as the ‘buggery law’ which criminalises homosexual conduct with a sentence of up to 10 years hard labour.

From what I can see, the new Russian law bans propagating the homosexual lifestyle to their children and effectively outlaws gay-pride marches, speeches and the like.

Queers can still get up to whatever it is they do in private.

Seems pretty reasonable to me - wonder what the result would be if they allowed a referendum on the subject in the USA?

The homosexual acts are detrimental to society is what was said. It wasn't said that they didn't contribute in ways that had nothing to do with homosexuality.

It is a sin and degrades those who practice it. Just because a heterosexual like members of the opposite sex, that doesn't make it right to be promiscuous either. Control is needed in both cases! Does that make me a heterophobic and a homophobic?

Nattering Nabob wrote:

[quote]osm wrote:

She implied that gays aren't "normal, standard people." She supports a law that essentially criminalizes free speech, and de facto legalizes gay-bashing mobs. This is pretty much the definition of hateful and bigoted.

Pinning the term "bigot" on someone is just name-calling. It contributes nothing to the discussion.

If you don't like Russian law, don't go to Russia, just as you shouldn't visit China if you don't like their restrictions on speech or use a U.S. Internet service if you don't like being spied on by the government.

What aspect of the Russian law "legalizes gay-bashing mobs?"[/quote

I have no interest in visiting Russia. However, I do have an interest in opposing the persecution of a vulnerable minority anywhere in the world. And while nothing in the law says it is legal to beat gays, the climate of homophobia that the law created has led to police idly standing by while gay people are assaulted. I believe that this happened at the recent gay pride parade in St. Petersburg, along with other examples.

blamb61 wrote:

The homosexual acts are detrimental to society is what was said. It wasn't said that they didn't contribute in ways that had nothing to do with homosexuality.

It is a sin and degrades those who practice it. Just because a heterosexual like members of the opposite sex, that doesn't make it right to be promiscuous either. Control is needed in both cases! Does that make me a heterophobic and a homophobic?

In what way does it degrade those who practice it? I don't think any of my gay friends feel their sex lives degrade them.

As for being sinful.. that is an opinion based on your personal beliefs. Isn't everyone a sinner?

under siege wrote:

seriously i challenge any of you to go to Craigslist, go to your hometown. look up personals, casual encounters, man for man. prepare to be shocked. the most disgusting sick wierdos you've ever seen.

Now hit the back button and go to casual encounters, man for woman and tell me about what you find there.

Sick, disgusting weirdos come from all sexual orientations.

This is why there's a backlash against queers. You people think you're some sort of 'vulnerable minority' that's being persecuted. You actually believe perverted sickos who choose to engage in gross sexual acts & tell everyone about it are some sort of martyrs or brave heroes.

People are tired of the sick f'n joke that is the homo agenda. Tired of you freaks demanding to be treated with kid gloves and given special exemptions to marry & adopt kids. We don't care what you do in your bedroom, but STFU already about your fake 'persecution'

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

This is why there's a backlash against queers. You people think you're some sort of 'vulnerable minority' that's being persecuted. You actually believe perverted sickos who choose to engage in gross sexual acts & tell everyone about it are some sort of martyrs or brave heroes.

People are tired of the sick f'n joke that is the homo agenda. Tired of you freaks demanding to be treated with kid gloves and given special exemptions to marry & adopt kids. We don't care what you do in your bedroom, but STFU already about your fake 'persecution'

Where have you been hanging out to hear gay people tell you all about the gross sexual acts they do?

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

This is why there's a backlash against queers. You people think you're some sort of 'vulnerable minority' that's being persecuted. You actually believe perverted sickos who choose to engage in gross sexual acts & tell everyone about it are some sort of martyrs or brave heroes.

People are tired of the sick f'n joke that is the homo agenda. Tired of you freaks demanding to be treated with kid gloves and given special exemptions to marry & adopt kids. We don't care what you do in your bedroom, but STFU already about your fake 'persecution'

Dude, you'll be much happier when you come out of the closet.

Seems like too many people are confusing "opinion" with "oppression". Threatening to imprison people for supporting gay rights is totalitarian, pure and simple.

And can any of you homophobes explain why someone else's sexual preference affects you? Other than making you jealous, right Boomhauer!

bobby5 wrote:

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

This is why there's a backlash against queers. You people think you're some sort of 'vulnerable minority' that's being persecuted. You actually believe perverted sickos who choose to engage in gross sexual acts & tell everyone about it are some sort of martyrs or brave heroes.

People are tired of the sick f'n joke that is the homo agenda. Tired of you freaks demanding to be treated with kid gloves and given special exemptions to marry & adopt kids. We don't care what you do in your bedroom, but STFU already about your fake 'persecution'

Where have you been hanging out to hear gay people tell you all about the gross sexual acts they do?

are you serious? Homos love to advertise their raunchiness. You can go stand on a street corner for 5 minutes & hear about it. Where do you live - Mars?

Wow. What a thread. It is absolutely frightening how many people have formed their opinions based on what they've learned from (or been brainwashed by) organized religion.

Seriously, if it weren't for religion would anyone really care about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality? Stop building your lives on a foundation of man's teachings and start thinking for yourselves, people.

Religion truly is at the root of all the world's problems.

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

bobby5 wrote:

Where have you been hanging out to hear gay people tell you all about the gross sexual acts they do?

are you serious? Homos love to advertise their raunchiness. You can go stand on a street corner for 5 minutes & hear about it. Where do you live - Mars?

You hang out on street corners where people advertise gay sex?

osm wrote:

I have no interest in visiting Russia. However, I do have an interest in opposing the persecution of a vulnerable minority anywhere in the world.

Fine. You've voiced your opposition, just as Isinbayeva voiced her support for the law. I haven't read any reports of her calling people bigots for vehemently expressing views different from hers, though.

And while nothing in the law says it is legal to beat gays, the climate of homophobia that the law created has led to police idly standing by while gay people are assaulted. I believe that this happened at the recent gay pride parade in St. Petersburg, along with other examples.

The report I read said the law specifically allows gatherings like gay parades, so if the cops stood by while participants were attacked, the cops broke the law. Cops tolerating attacks on minorities certainly isn't unique to Russia, though. The U.S. has a long and sordid history of it.

Americans can't expect the rest of the world to suddenly jump on the gay bandwagon as soon as the U.S. sees the light. That's little more than the self-righteousness of the newly enlightened. Until very recently, even Obama's views on gay marriage were still "evolving."

When Isinbayeva said something along the lines of 'in Russia we have more normal culture'. She is correct that heterosexuality is normal, as it results in procreation and is the most common sexuality. I have nothing against homosexuals, but it is definitely not normal.

Thank you for clarifying your position. You are taking a social constuctionist viewpoint. Generally, when people speak of "human rights" or "basic rights" an INNATE quality is implied. I.e. When someone says "the right to life is a human right" it is implied we are discussing an innate right (i.e. a "god-given right" or a right essential to being human). You appear to be rejecting the existence of innate human rights and are arguing that human rights are a social constructions. That is indeed a viewpoint you have and many people disagree with you. For example, I believe a right to life is innate because it is essential to being human. When that right is violated, the person ceases to be human (because they are dead). My view is that the right to life is INNATE - you are born with it. That right can be forfeited by the individual (e.g. if they attempt to murder someone else) or it can be violated (e.g. someone else murders them). It is irrelevant whether a country decides certain people have no right to life - because they are not free to decide - it is an innate right, yet that country can decide to VIOLATE that innate right. In contrast, your viewpoint would be that there is no INNATE right to life and cultures are free to decide if they want to construct that right. Do you see how there are two different viewpoints?Let's consider your framework of social constructionism. Let us assume that there are no innate human rights and rights are socially constructed. If so, then your statement that countries are free to decide human rights is correct, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. Internationally, groups have worked across cultures to form Internatinal Human Treaties, an Internation Bill of Human Rights - including regional institutions involved in monitoring, implementation and enforcement. Furthermore there are global institutions, such as the U.N. involved. There are rights that countries around the globe have agreed are basic human rights. One may criticize how effective they are, yet there are internationally-agreed-upon universal human rights. Of course, it is difficult to get different cultures to agree, so these are the most basic of human rights, such as the right to be protected form genocide. A country, of course, can VIOLATE that universal right, yet they will face consequences for doing so. Do you really think a country is free to decide if genocide is a right or not? If Germany decided Jews do not have a right to life and committed genocide against Jews, what do you think the global reaction would be to this egregious violation of the international, universal right? Another, international universal right protects humans from slavery. I understand that some countries try to employ slave-like conditions under the radar. Yet, I country is not free to announce they support slavery and will overtly engage in slavery. That would be an overt violation of human rights and international groups like the U.N. would step in.Another pertinent example involves African cultures that kill and imprison women for being "witches". Internationally, groups have agreed that this is a violation of basic human rights. International groups have entered those cultures and worked with the locals. In some countries, the laws have been overturned. This is an example illustrating that determining human rights is not just "nilly-willy" and countries are not free to do whatever they want.

Logical Man wrote:

When Isinbayeva said something along the lines of 'in Russia we have more normal culture'. She is correct that heterosexuality is normal, as it results in procreation and is the most common sexuality. I have nothing against homosexuals, but it is definitely not normal.

And furry animal costumes are normally used to dress up and entertain children, but Jeffery & I like to dress up like furries and bugger each other. Maybe that doesn't fit your dogmatic definition of "normal", but so what?!

I guess everyone here can agree to disagree. We should all study every possible viewpoint and look at this from every viewpoint so that we can all form a complete and comprehensive picture of this issue. If this issue was simple, then there wouldn't be 130+ people arguing about it on this post.

I do NOT have a viewpoint. Stop forcing your philosophical analysis on me and my statements. I am completely neutral. I am not arguing anything. I amnot rejecting anything.

All I'm saying is that everyone has a different opinion of what basic human rights are. That is not a viewpoint. That is a fact.

And countries are free to create whatever laws they want. Being a part of the UN is not mandatory.

Fallwellist wrote:

Wow. What a thread. It is absolutely frightening how many people have formed their opinions based on what they've learned from (or been brainwashed by) organized religion.

Seriously, if it weren't for religion would anyone really care about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality? Stop building your lives on a foundation of man's teachings and start thinking for yourselves, people.

Religion truly is at the root of all the world's problems.

It is absolutely frightening how many people have formed their opinions based on what they've learned from (or been brainwashed by) authoritarian central government.

Seriously, if it weren't for the government enforced PC religion of secular humanism, would anyone really care about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality? Stop building your lives on a foundation of man's teachings and start thinking for yourselves, people.

Government truly is at the root of all the world's problems

Fine. You point is that human rights are socially constructed. To a certain extent, I agree with you.

Again, using the framework that human rights are socially constructed, I disagree with you that countries are completely free to decide human rights. To a certain extent, it is true. Yet, I have given several examples of internationally-agreed- upon human rights. Of course everyone is not going to agree. To say there are no universal rights because everyone does not agree is like saying there are no laws because everyone does not agree. Many countries spanning nearly every culture of the world have worked extensively together to establish basic human rights. The vast majority of the world including both East and West have cooperated and agreed upon a basic set of human rights. To say that these universal basic rights are invalidated because someone disagrees with it is absolutely absurd.

If a village in Uganda decides that genocide is OK, that does not invalidate international human rights and laws that protect people within that Ugandan village from enduring genocide. International law trumps local law.

For the most part, your statements were correct that country's have autonomy to establish their own laws regarding human rights. For example, in some cultures husbands are selected for girls when they are 6 years old and the girls are sequestered at home until they are wed. Most countries disagree with this law, however, in this case a country's autonomy trumps the girls autonomy since it is not a violation of interantaional human rights. However, there are some cases, such as genocide, where international rights trump a country's autonomy.

[/quote]

I do NOT have a viewpoint. Stop forcing your philosophical analysis on me and my statements. I am completely neutral. I am not arguing anything. I amnot rejecting anything.

All I'm saying is that everyone has a different opinion of what basic human rights are. That is not a viewpoint. That is a fact.

And countries are free to create whatever laws they want. Being a part of the UN is not mandatory.[/quote]