|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted January 03, 2015 08:55 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Is there anything wrong with homosexuality? If not, what's wrong with children being exposed to it in the same way that they're exposed to heterosexuality?
The way I see it is that there is almost everywhere in the west a powerful gay lobby, while there is no straight people lobby, nowhere. Exactly as the jew and the muslim lobby, both very active and extremely well financed in the western world, the gay lobby experiments its range limits by constantly pushing over and trying to grab more and more terrain. At this point, there would be unfair to have the kids exposed to gay propaganda and almost never to straight propaganda, because straight people do not care about their sexuality being advertised, while the gays are over obsessed with it and label as homophobia any counter movement.
I understand that gays want to retrieve a normal place in the society, given that they were the object of endless discriminations, but when you force people to accept you and don't bother to respect the safe timeliness necessary to any progress, you may be surprised by the opposite effects. This is how I see it.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 08:58 AM |
|
|
It's not "gay propaganda", it's just depictions of gay people, no more than depictions of straight people in movies are "straight propaganda". Or, if you prefer, the current state of normalized heterosexuality is deeply a culture of "straight propaganda". It just seems like gay propaganda to you because it's out of the norm, but when the norm is as bad as it currently is, that's a good thing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 09:03 AM |
|
|
Since the topic is Russia today, the subject is the gay propaganda. I am not aware of the technical aspects or what exactly Putin fears, but think one moment about the complexity and the ramifications of the problem when you tell a kid there is no need of mother and father. Are you sure you have the proper answer to every of the questions he will ask further, to understand? Who will supervise what you tell? Gays or straights? Any scientific arguments to back?
So I believe is better to leave kids out of that, and wait them to make their own opinion, from own experience.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 09:07 AM |
|
|
DagothGares said:
I detect a large amount of fear of the gay being accepted or something, irrationally so. I take public transportation every day. I don't see that much television, but every week I watch movies and I am not ignorant of popular culture. I honestly don't see dudes or gals tongue each other ever, not in films, not on the cooking or reality shows (the only kind of television that runs in my country) and I never see any occasions where controversially some dude kissed some other dude on television or whatever.
I have never experienced it "being shoved down my throat." Like, it seems to me you'd only experience it more than once/ year if you're actively searching gay porn. Not to make accusations here, but maybe the experience of the gay being "forced on you" is an irrational reaction?
Honestly, I don't care which genitals you lick. But the sexually suggestive language where people claim it's forced upon them and it's so icky really irks me and makes me question your basic points.
Do you have a point here, except trying to play Captain Liberty to impress hell knows who? You admit that you don't watch TV, stop there. You have not experienced something yourself then it definitely doesn't exist - it doesn't get much more short-sighted than that. Using absurd hyperbole to ridicule one's statement doesn't make yours correct you know.
Here's a rephrase - advertising tolerance is completely OK but aggressively doing so is not, no matter if it happens every day or once every five years. People don't take that well. I'll give you an example which will probably sink in, knowing your cute political affinities. A heavily socialist state becomes the world's dominant power without any real competition on international level and starts to advertise on global scale - via movies, via commercials, via pure propaganda materials and whatnot - its understanding of moral, including: giving up the property which you don't need to shelter yourself and your family for the benefits of the community, work X hours every month without direct payment (only nourishment) to help build whatever for the benefits of the community, condemn all non-labour sort of profit like financial market speculations, condemn all excessive profit not used for the benefits of the community and so on. You live in a typical Western capitalistic state and you're typical laissez-faire supporter but otherwise claim to be open-minded (you won't have to pretend much here). Your position will be... what?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 09:12 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Since the topic is Russia today, the subject is the gay propaganda. I am not aware of the technical aspects or what exactly Putin fears, but think one moment about the complexity and the ramifications of the problem when you tell a kid there is no need of mother and father. Are you sure you have the proper answer to every of the questions he will ask further, to understand? Who will supervise what you tell? Gays or straights? Any scientific arguments to back?
So I believe is better to leave kids out of that, and wait them to make their own opinion, from own experience.
I think DG has a fair point on that, it's not like they are putting gay sex on Teletubbies. There are stuff like when in the Madagaskar cartoon, the lion is not a regular lion and he wants to be a "dancer lion" etc but the messege of acceptance is rather subtle on those, not something direct enough to shock children.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 09:29 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
I am not aware of the technical aspects or what exactly Putin fears, but think one moment about the complexity and the ramifications of the problem when you tell a kid there is no need of mother and father. Are you sure you have the proper answer to every of the questions he will ask further, to understand? Who will supervise what you tell? Gays or straights? Any scientific arguments to back?
It's not actually that complex. Some people have a mom and a dad, some have two moms, and some have two dads. There's no need for further questions, and being kids, I wouldn't expect any actual questions to be complex - because homosexuality isn't actually different from heterosexuality in a way that's relevant here. As for scientific arguments, as far as I know, there's no scientific evidence that homosexual parenting is any worse than heterosexual parenting.
Zeno:
Anyone should be free to promote whatever viewpoints they consider to be correct - that's part of free speech. If a foreign state decides to propagandize socialism, it means that people who disagree with them should make a convincing opposing argument.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 09:42 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Since the topic is Russia today, the subject is the gay propaganda. I am not aware of the technical aspects or what exactly Putin fears, but think one moment about the complexity and the ramifications of the problem when you tell a kid there is no need of mother and father. Are you sure you have the proper answer to every of the questions he will ask further, to understand? Who will supervise what you tell? Gays or straights? Any scientific arguments to back?
My nephews and nieces have two moms. They're well-adjusted civilians that haven't killed anyone yet. There is a need of parents. They have two of them. They are better off than any kid that only has one.
Quote:
You live in a typical Western capitalistic state and you're typical laissez-faire supporter but otherwise claim to be open-minded (you won't have to pretend much here). Your position will be... what?
That if you suspect malice from commercial television you are delusional. Commercial television, maybe that doesn't exist in Bulgaria I don't know. If Bulgarian television is about forcing the gay on you in a state-funded way, then I guess that's hilarious. Western television, however, which my country is 100%, is commercial. The people with money at hollywood try to make more money by making things that most people will want to watch. If you think some small-time hollywood executives have a bigger agenda than "make money" and "make a franchise"/ "make more money," then you are simply wrong. Calling Will and Grace gay propaganda is like calling Big Bang Theory nerd propaganda. Like calling national geographic environmentalist propaganda.
I believe there is no need to control people and media. You clearly seem to disagree and feel forced and disgusted that you've seen a dude kiss another dude once five years ago or something. Clearly, to someone who isn't forced to watch Bulgarian pray-you're-gay propaganda every day, a lot of people in this thread seem a little bit hyperbolic and frustrated that they're not being pandered to 100% and will bring up a lot of crazy sounding arguments.
Also, claiming that I will understand your argument by comparing this "gay propaganda" to 1984 is a bit flabbergasting.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:00 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 11:09, 03 Jan 2015.
|
mvassilev said:
Of course there are anthropological and historical explanations of why homosexuality is disliked in Russia, but those are merely explanations, not justifications, and justifications is what I'm asking about.
Explanations can be justifications if those who are in power decide that. Same works for pedophilia, incest and zoophilia. Those all are prejudices which are the questions of morale and nothing else (excluding probably pedophilia in a selection of cases).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:18 AM |
|
|
To make that clear, I'm fully with artu, MW and DG on the issue, and I'm - excuse the pun - banging in only to say that the use of the phrase
gay propaganda
is actually anti-gay propaganda.
I would like a definition for "gay propaganda". What is that supposed to be? What is the supposed aim? I mean, what would be "black propaganda"? "Female/women propaganda"?
That said - what I really don't like is this attitude "that pervert lot should be happy they are not burned at the stake anymore and keep quiet about their abominable bedroom behaviour". That is NOT what LEGAL and EQUAL RIGHTS mean.
If it's legal for a girl and a boy to kiss in the public transportation, then - under equal rights - it's also perfectly legal for two boys or two girls - and, for that matter, for three or more - to kiss, and while you, me, or the next guy/gal may not be too fond of watching that, you, me or the next gay/gal isn't overly fond of watching a lot of things, for example, trousers that hang to the knee pit and look like the wearer just shat themselves and that will give an unobstructed view on the ass crack, when the wearer bends over, faces that are covered with studs and rings at every imaginable part like lips, eyebrows and a hardware store in the ears - often in combination with hair colored in a multitude of shades, tattoos that look like a 5-year-old painted something with a pen, not to mention of HEARING sentences where half the number of words starts with an "f" and come in every grammar form.
I'm also not too fond of 90% of the TV program and the messages they tout. Or, actually, our capitalist consumer society and ideology.
But you know what? I don't HAVE to watch or listen. I can turn the telly off, and in public transportation I can avert my eyes - or stare at the gorgeous brunette vis-a-vis. And if there's a gay parade - who cares? Is it that different from carnival, Mardi Gras or Halloween?
Everything amounts to the following (and instead of "gay" you can use "mixed race marriage/relationship"):
If nothing is wrong with being gay, then there is no but. If there are buts, you will have to tell people what's wrong with it, instead of tap-dancing around the issue.
The position, "from a civilian pov mixed race relations are completely ok, but should I see my daughter ever with a black guy I'll kill her" is NOT ok, you know. It's the mother of hypocrisy.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:24 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 11:26, 03 Jan 2015.
|
Quote:
If nothing is wrong with being gay, then there is no but.
Wrong. I don't enjoy depictions of gay love at all (at least that works with the depictions of men). If there is a problem, I am ready for a compromise where there is no depictions of love at all, or 50/50 for each case.
If you consider this statement a somewhat limitation of gay rights, it's not me who is biased.
Quote:
but should I see my daughter ever with a black guy I'll kill her
The trouble is that the reverse cases are much more rare which is at least annoying.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:29 AM |
|
|
Orzie said:
Explanations can be justifications if those who are in power decide that. Same works for pedophilia, incest and zoophilia. Those all are prejudices which are the questions of morale and nothing else (excluding probably pedophilia in a selection of cases).
So, whoever is in power is right? Automatic deference to political authority? What makes them right, aside from "might makes right"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:30 AM |
|
|
You've answered to yourself.
What makes right the opposite side?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:33 AM |
|
|
Orzie said:
What makes right the opposite side?
Modern law based on rights of the individual, if you are not in favor of throwing that out the window as a package, just so that you don't witness gays kissing on the bus every once in a while.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:36 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 11:37, 03 Jan 2015.
|
Quote:
Modern law based on rights of the individual
And bingo. It's the law again.
I don't love anyone kissing publicly, if that's the case.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:44 AM |
|
|
|
You not liking it is not a basis of justification to ban it, I cant say something like, I dislike meat eaters, I agree not to eat vegan sandwiches publicly if the authorities decide to outlaw eating ham sandwiches publicly. Can someone say to you Rock music is degenerating Russian culture, if you ban people like Orzie from listening to it, I agree not to listen to Tango anymore, it's fine by me. Does that make sense to you?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 11:54 AM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 11:58, 03 Jan 2015.
|
I'm pretty much with JJ. If you don't like homoeroticism, even in its simplest form (ie: two people of the same gender kissing one another), then just look away?
I don't understand what's even so offensive about it. It's not like they're having sex in public or are actively trying to seduce you.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:01 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 12:09, 03 Jan 2015.
|
It's impolite to people who are embarassed to see such kind of things in public. It's like men who walk with a naked torso on the street.
Quote:
Can someone say to you Rock music is degenerating Russian culture, if you ban people like Orzie from listening to it, I agree not to listen to Tango anymore, it's fine by me. Does that make sense to you?
Wrong example. It's like when people ban loud rock music from the streets along with offensive lyric rap music from the streets either.
And rock music is already banned from the streets.
Listening is not propaganda. Listening is experiencing. I never said anyone is restricted to experience non-traditional sexual contacts.
Quote:
or are actively trying to seduce you.
Hah, there was a funny case with my uncle when he tried to rent a room in London. We in Russia usually tend to rent rooms with people of the same sex to prevent sexual contacts and related things, but... when they closed the door, the guy started making a pass at my uncle and was really surprised after being rejected.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:07 PM |
|
|
It's not impolite, per say. You *perceive* it as impolite. Just like how I perceive it as not.
If a straight couple kissed in the street would you consider that impolite as well?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:08 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
It's the mother of hypocrisy
no, JJ. What will be hypocrite is to have same chameleon politicians and scientists smacking our heads with "homosexuality is normal" suddenly say "oh my goodness, this is catastrophic", if for one reason or other, homosexuality percentage came to exceed the reproduction necessary rate to survival. What I said: gays have no control over being gay, so we deal with, there is no other option. I could have been born gay, you could, any of us could.
Nature is never perfect. There is a percentage of dysfunctions in every thing surrounding us. Our social models have dysfunctions, our organism has dysfunctions. As long as those dysfunctions are not a threat to our survival, is acceptable. But I won't call a cat a dog, like most here, I just can't.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2015 12:10 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
It's impolite to people who are embarassed to see such kind of things in public. It's like men who walk with a naked torso on the street.
Or women with too short skirts, men with too tight trousers - or just women with bare faces and men without headgear.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
