"Brave Russian Officers Defend Glorious Motherland From Dangerous Socialist Gay Men!"

[SS107.9MHz]

I don't even know if this is sad or funny, I just think there's a whole lot of repressed sexual tension here :) (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i5M1vDF689E31TZmvszqx5TlUHKA)


So they want the Eurovision but they don't like Gay people? What the Hell do they think Eurovision is all about (besides bad 80's airstyle pastiches)?

Just another one:

Mayor of Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Moscow) Yuri Luzhkov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Luzhkov) has consistently opposed gay parades in the capital for a variety of reasons. In 2007 he attracted international attention when he said of the 2006 parade:
"Last year, Moscow came under unprecedented pressure to sanction the gay parade, which cannot be called anything other than satanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan).":har:

[Kapitan]

civil rights isnt a russian strong point il admit that.

[Steel_Tomb]

To be honest, I don't personally agree with the whole gay marriages/child adoption. I believe something like that should remain between man and women, but that is a different debate for another time. HOWEVER, I have nothing against homosexuality itself... in fact a former work colleague of mine was gay and he was the funniest guy in the shop! Just another example of Russia's exemplary human rights record... what makes me even more worried is the extent of homophobia in Russia. They're bashing these guys and girls like they're scum... quite pathetic, why can't people grow up and adapt to changing society instead of being stuck in the past. They are human beings, just like them. If they prefer to have a same sex partner then fine... its not like they're making outrageous demands. They just want to be treated in public like people, not some kind of abomination.

[Letum]

Homophobia, racism and sexism are all parts of the Russian culture.
It's a shame.

[Kapitan]

What you have to realise is that majority of russians were brought up in a communist society which denounces gays, and also now they are throwing in thier religious beliefs which russians are fairly religious even under the communist regieme they practice russian orthadox which also denounces gays. no win situation in thier society for change.

[Letum]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
There are various countries that changed attitudes despite a long struggle,
even when there was no international presidents or pressure. Russia has made
some progress and I expect that will continue over the next generations.

I hear things are improving in several of the former Yugoslavian countries.

[Skybird]

And here we go again. Haven't we just ended another long gay-debate? I agree, the Eastern-european people exaggerate it with their homophobic attitutde, however, I do not like these provoking gay/levsian parade either. And most important: from a Western perspective, this russian thing now is of no further vital interest for us. I suggest we stick to what really must concern us. Neither this foolish eurovision "song" nonsense (happening to look more and more like a live show-act at an erotic-fair), nor the breakup of this provoking (and btw: forbidden) parade should bother us too much.

The level of violence at the clashes in Berlin on May 1st, and the fact that for 280 arrested criminal thugs more than 500 policemen were wounded (2 wounded officers for 1 arrest), and that the police union complains about a politically wanted but unrealistic operation concept that send their own officers literally to the slaughter - that should pragmatically be much closer to for example Germany's focus of attention. And the German Green gay politician who joined gay parades in Eastern Europe and this one as well, and got his nose dunked two years ago, should remember that he was elected into the German Bundestag - not into the Russian Duma.

As a matter of fact, we are in no powerful enough position to tell the Poles and Russians to be more relaxed towards gays. I wish they were, but as a matter of fact, they are not. That'S reality, I can't help it. There are more important things going on in the world. And many gays over there already would be helped if they would not make such a big fuss about their orientation. Maybe not running around and telling everybody they are gay, would be a clever strategy for them. I personally even am pissed if somebody constantly tells me he is hetero - who cares for that sort of info? Sooner or later, Russians and others will find a balanced stand on these things all by themselves. Let them, then.

[OneToughHerring]

What you have to realise is that majority of russians were brought up in a communist society which denounces gays, and also now they are throwing in thier religious beliefs which russians are fairly religious even under the communist regieme they practice russian orthadox which also denounces gays. no win situation in thier society for change.

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure I would characterize the anti-gay feelings in Russia to come from their communist past. I would rather link it to an overall lack of education and 'backwardness' stemming from an earlier period. I'm sure that gays didn't have it ok in Soviet Union but I think they still had better then in Czarist Russia. Many premier Russian and Soviet artists etc. were gay and were not persecuted as far as I know. Could be that average gays were persecuted in the Soviet Union.

Also the fact that religion seems to be stepping up it's march in Russia could be one factor that spells trouble for gays there.

[XabbaRus]

[...]to lump it as a singularly Russian problem is daft.

Absolutely. that was not at all my intention.

[dyshman]

as i see most of users are tolerant people)))
and big specislists in russian domestic problems))
idea of "human rights domination" make you weak- you cant resist to degradation. "love-parades" mostly looks like "victory-parade". victory on your history and future! they propagandizes their victory on "old-well europe". onse you wake up and you'll see new europe: only "old fags" and muslims occupants! muslims are strong and they are not tolerant to homo's!

[XabbaRus]

Why was my post edited? I didn't say anything unwarranted or offensive I was just pointing a couple of things out.

[Letum]

Oh bugger!

Very sorry XabbaRus! I hit "edit" instead of "quote".
It was a mistake. I'm not used to seeing an edit button below other peoples posts.
Please accept my apologies.

[XabbaRus]

No worries Letum, if I'm grouchy its becasue I am cold turkey quitting smoking. 3rd day without....

Haribo are making a killing out of me though.

[Tchocky]

It's this new avatar that's confusing things :)

[Letum]

No worries Letum, if I'm grouchy its becasue I am cold turkey quitting smoking. 3rd day without....

Haribo are making a killing out of me though.


No need to apologies at all, you where perfectly justified to be annoyed and
quite polite besides. I imagine I would have blown a gasket.

I'm terribly embarrassed. :oops:

Yes Tchocky, the avatar can't have helped. I remember thinking something
was odd, but I navigated away from the page before my brain registered
quite what.

My apologies to everyone for derailing the thread a little.

[SteamWake]

civil rights isnt a russian strong point il admit that.

:haha::har:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Eurovision should be renamed to

"Glorious Eventings for the Betterment of Eastern European Nations by way of Backhanded Votings"

[Skybird]

Eurovision should be renamed to

"Glorious Eventings for the Betterment of Eastern European Nations by way of Backhanded Votings"Why that long? "Lack of taste". Period.

[A Very Super Market]

It is a play on the movie "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan".

At least, I think it is.

[CaptainHaplo]

Gee - whats wrong with a people protecting their cultural and theological views? Oh that's right - its ok as long as it would be persecuting some real undersirables - like Jews or Judeao-Xtians. But taking a stand against homosexuals? That has to be held to the light and ridiculed. Lets make fun of the mayor of Moscow for having a view that isnt gay-friendly.

Lets say this is just a further example of russian human rights violations. Lets blame it on their culture - oh wait - better yet - lets blame it on their religion! Yea thats it - religion is always to blame!

:nope:

The facts are that most societies throughout the world do not approve of homosexuality. There are cultural, religious, health and common sense reasons. It wouldn't be nearly the issue it is - whether in Russia, America or elsewhere - if some of those who are gay were not doing exactly what is listed above - parading what they do in the bedroom in front of everyone and then demanding it be "respected".

I don't approve of homosexuality - I make no apology for that. But as long as you don't make it my business, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. Because it doesn't matter whether I approve or not - because I ain't IN your bedroom. You and another consenting adult do whatever you want. Because while I don't care for what you do - I respect your right to do it in PRIVATE.

Stop trying to MAKE me accept what you do - and then it wouldn't be an issue. Or at least - it would be alot less of one.

[Frame57]

I think I will move to Russia and find a nice round Russian woman who will cook rabbits for for me.....:woot:

[sunvalleyslim]

Skybird...........:up: :up: :up: :up: :yeah:

[Jimbuna]

Eurovision should be renamed to

"Glorious Eventings for the Betterment of Eastern European Nations by way of Backhanded Votings"

It might have been more entertaining last night if a great many had boycotted it :rotfl:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

It might have been more entertaining last night if a great many had boycotted it :rotfl:

http://www.jack-frost.co.uk/fonejacker/fonejacker_george_agdgdgwngo_4.jpg

But what about the cash prize monies?

[antikristuseke]

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/soapblox/oppressed1.gif

[A Very Super Market]

Whuh-huh? Where are the muslims?

[antikristuseke]

Pie charts are much less fun when they are 100% correct.

[A Very Super Market]

Oh really?

http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/plugins/yet-another-photoblog/cache/piechart_300x1981.6sitjfs3d4kc88skoc40o8g4w.8td8r2 s3w1cs4kksc4okksgg8.th.jpeg

[antikristuseke]

I stand corrected, well played, sir!

[Buddahaid]

The facts are that most societies throughout the world do not approve of homosexuality. There are cultural, religious, health and common sense reasons. It wouldn't be nearly the issue it is - whether in Russia, America or elsewhere - if some of those who are gay were not doing exactly what is listed above - parading what they do in the bedroom in front of everyone and then demanding it be "respected".

I don't approve of homosexuality - I make no apology for that. But as long as you don't make it my business, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. Because it doesn't matter whether I approve or not - because I ain't IN your bedroom. You and another consenting adult do whatever you want. Because while I don't care for what you do - I respect your right to do it in PRIVATE.

Stop trying to MAKE me accept what you do - and then it wouldn't be an issue. Or at least - it would be alot less of one.

Hmmm, where to start. No one can make you accept anything but the inevitable, unless it's your wife. The catholic church attempted to make all people catholics. Even going so far as torture (water boarding for one) during the inquisitions. That is why it's called catholic and it didn't work.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to ; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots)

More seriously, I think revulsion or intolerance of homosexuals, or physical and mental defects, is an instinctual part of the human animal. They have no direct survival value and would be shunned by the tribe. Mix in centuries of development and voila, a cultural norm.

Many will gather from that statement that I am a non religious man. well I am religious when I swear by God!

Let me modify the quote here.
"I don't approve of (a woman's right to be seen in public without a burka) - I make no apology for that. But as long as you don't make it my business, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. Because it doesn't matter whether I approve or not - because I ain't IN your bedroom. You and another consenting adult do whatever you want. Because while I don't care for what you do - I respect your right to do it in PRIVATE".

See what you can do with statements like this? I'm not trying to argue with CaptainHaplo, he just left a convenient statement to use here. Obviously, a free for all can't work, but drawn lines in the sand do tend to get washed away when the tide comes in.

Buddahaid

[CaptainHaplo]

Buddahaid - I see what your trying to say, but your example has a specific problem. Sexuality is in and of itself considered to be a private matter by the vast majority of society. Its between you and your partner, not you, your partner and every person in the street. Whether or not a woman in public wears a burka is exactly that - a public matter. What she does in her bedroom, and with whom (provided its a consenting adult) - is a private matter. I know those devout religious folks would say that there are moral issues there - and I agree, but its not their, or my business.

Homosexuality is - theologically speaking - morally wrong. Thats my views on it. However, I don't go judging gays over what they choose. Its not my business what they do in their bedroom. However, when they want to parade it - its nothing more than shoving it under my nose and saying "See what I do - neener neener neener - now show me some respect!" I don't care what they do in private - why do they choose to make me even KNOW about it? Ain't none of my business - but they are insistent on MAKING it my business, then wonder why they get a negative reaction from the majority of people.

Let me live and I will do the same with you - try and force me to see your private business - then don't wonder when I judge it and react to it in accordance with my own moral values. The rest of society is pretty much the same way......

[Skybird]

well I am religious when I swear by God!

:) Not a few people would say that especially when you swear by God, you are not religious at all! :woot:

Obviously, for an atheist like me theology's view of homosexuality is so irrelevant that I simply do not care to argue about it. So when I put aside all the religious implications, I must agree with Captain Haplo nevertheless, regarding the parading-thing and "let me live and etc etc...".

Last but not least my family-argument also is not because of religous views on marriage (although ethnologists certainly have something to say on that incest and homosexuality are so very often and widespread a big No-No in most historic societies, which relates to simple healthy biological contexts), but because of vital sociological and communal priorities.

[XabbaRus]

I think I will move to Russia and find a nice round Russian woman who will cook rabbits for for me.....:woot:

I did much recommended. Though she doesn't cook rabbits she is a fine cook.

[porphy]

Honestly, the only thing some of you have to say on this, is that these parades are offensive, to you. That their way of showing of their existence is simply bad taste. They should have stayed indoors, out of sight, whatever.

Are you really so easily offended by scanty clad human bodies (I take it is the male bodies that worry the most...) with a bit of explicit sexual references thrown, just bcause it's in public? Ok... that happens. But then you just seem to shrug your shoulders at the violence and blatant hate these people get from other citizens and police in many countries? Not exactly the stand up guys are you now? :nope:

As your feelings of dignity and what is proper behaviour in relation to sex somehow got hurt from these parades, you seem lose all the ability to see what really happens in the streets, or what kind of abuse is going on even when there are no parades. "They should just stay quite about it, as it is sooo revolting and upsetting to any normal person with homosexuality, but as they don't get this, they got what they deserve. What can you do...*sigh*" Classic example of loss of empathy with another group of humans, because of feeling personally offended or threatened by something which is quite easy to let go, even if you don't like it yourself.

Eddie Izzard once said something like "I don't mind homophobics, as long as they keep to themselves, are quiet and don't bother anyone else."

I guees some of you guys look away, blush or feel very morally upset about the current state of society and civilization, when they show pictures from the Carnival in Rio as well... ;)

take care, I'm off for another running session.

[Frame57]

There was a fellow called the "naked man" in Berkely in 92 who would go to class in the buff. His famed reason was to express that each individual should be able to deem what is "normal" behavior. So often it comes to this in topics like this. However, I would not think that having to sterilize the classroom chairs after naked asses have sat on them is normal in any sense of the word. The natural distraction that this would cause is also out of the question. When it comes to the issue of human sexuality again I think I agree that nature itself has dictated what is normal and supports the cycle of life. We as creatures of the earthdo not always have the luxury to determine those things. We may think we do but in the end the rules of nature will win everytime.

[SS107.9MHz]

Lest ye not forget the Catholic Priests and a whole gang of other clergymen, wich by definitions brought upon this thread , show too deviant sexual behavior, practicing the abomination of abstinence and thus relieving their influence upon the genepool, rendering them irrelevant!

Of course we could par up some campy gay dudes with some butch lesbian ladies and resolve the hole procreation dillemma :salute:

Don't know how that would work out:hmmm:

The whole matter of the homies not getting their little boys swimming up the falopian streams has never been a real problem for the majority of homossexuals around history, sexual preference does not mean sexual exclusivity, has many jailed marauders would be able to prove :O:

Also there are many documented cases of homosexuality in mammals and birds wich cannot be acounted by anything but preference, like females displaying homosexual behaviour outside estros period or male dolphins having sex with each other, although there are females avaiable... So that mixes athings up a bit, don't it?

Anywhoo... The thread was't about if the straighs, the gays and gayettes are right wrong or whatever, it was abou the ridicule of having some tenths of police officers, rampaging on a crowd of completely inocuous people, in one of the most corrupted, MOB controlled, dangerous cities in Europe, on the pretext that those guys are SATANICLY dangerous!:har:
If that's not getting your priorities "straighted" up , I don't know what is...

[CaptainHaplo]

Honestly, the only thing some of you have to say on this, is that these parades are offensive, to you. That their way of showing of their existence is simply bad taste. They should have stayed indoors, out of sight, whatever.

Porphy - if you met me on the street, could you say at a glance whether or not I was heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or tri-sexual? No - you couldn't - and thats because its none of your concern - thus I don't "advertise" it. What you continue to fail to address is why they want to take a private choice, and make everyone else aware of it.

Are you really so easily offended by scanty clad human bodies (I take it is the male bodies that worry the most...) with a bit of explicit sexual references thrown, just bcause it's in public? Ok... that happens.

When people decide to act in public like they do in private, with no respect for everyone else around - including children, yes I do get "offended".

But then you just seem to shrug your shoulders at the violence and blatant hate these people get from other citizens and police in many countries?

When have I ever condoned violence or hate against "these people"?

Not exactly the stand up guys are you now? :nope:

Oh - so I disagree with their throwing THEIR sexuality in my face and would rather them keep their private business exactly that - just like I do my own out of respect for my fellow citizens, and suddenly I'm some homophobic person with a double standard? Lets keep the personal insults out of this since you don't know me one bit eh?

As your feelings of dignity and what is proper behaviour in relation to sex somehow got hurt from these parades, you seem lose all the ability to see what really happens in the streets, or what kind of abuse is going on even when there are no parades.

Ok - so your saying that someone somewhere has abused all these people? So that makes it ok for them to act out and we should all just turn a blind eye to it? We should just go "oh poor people who feel so rejected by society - its ok that you trample on OUR rights because someone somewhere abused yours."????

Last time I checked - two wrongs don't make a right.


"They should just stay quite about it, as it is sooo revolting and upsetting to any normal person with homosexuality, but as they don't get this, they got what they deserve. What can you do...*sigh*" Classic example of loss of empathy with another group of humans, because of feeling personally offended or threatened by something which is quite easy to let go, even if you don't like it yourself.

Again - NOWHERE did I ever say that the reaction listed was condoned or approved of by me. But like most folks, you seem to think that disagreement on an issue suddenly makes me some monster just because I don't go along with every point.

Eddie Izzard once said something like "I don't mind homophobics, as long as they keep to themselves, are quiet and don't bother anyone else."


Well, I am not a homophobe, as I have known quite a few, and called some friend, including one very good man that this community lost. So I can't speak for any homophobes, but as a man who does have very strong moral feelings on this issue, I would say this in reply:

"I won't speak out on an issue that doesn't have anything to do with me, until - as in this case - someone MAKES it have to do with me. At that point, their decision means that they choose to try and gain my support - but they thus also must be willing to accept my refusal to support them."

Again - what we have here is that its either agree or be called homophobic and such. That kind of rhetorical trap gets kind of old. Its almost as tired as every tax hike being "for the children".

I guees some of you guys look away, blush or feel very morally upset about the current state of society and civilization, when they show pictures from the Carnival in Rio as well... ;)

Not sure what carnival your talking about, but yes, I do have numerous concerns about the state of society and civilization. The moral depravity we have exported is one large cause of middle eastern hatred toward the west for example. Its a moral shame we pay athletes millions a year and teachers don't make enough to be above the poverty line. I could go on and on......

take care, I'm off for another running session.

You do the same, I ought to run more often but I keep telling my lady that I am in shape - round is a shape after all!

[Skybird]

Porphy, you may want to read a bit of Sigmund Freud discussing the effect and influence of taboos.

Next, taboos vary, and Brasil is not Europe or North America. You maybe have noted the cultural differences between these places, and the differences in their forms of carnival as well. Ypou could also compare public bathing and Sauna habits in America, Germany, Finland and Japan, to give a very obvious example of how different for example "public nudity" can be interpreted in different societies.

Beyond that, again I have to cover Captain Haplo's argumentation.

[Frame57]

Two male dolphins having sex???? yeah right. Where does it go? In the "blow hole". The notion is ridiculous. When a dog humps a humans leg for example. Why is the dog doing that? It is not because he thinks your leg is hot, it is because the scent of a female dog in heat somehow got on you and the dog reacts to it. Animals are triggered by instinct and nothing more.

[porphy]

Porphy - if you met me on the street, could you say at a glance whether or not I was heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or tri-sexual? No - you couldn't - and thats because its none of your concern - thus I don't "advertise" it. What you continue to fail to address is why they want to take a private choice, and make everyone else aware of it. Well, concerning the parades, those are obviously meant to highlight a problem with how some people react and act when they hear of or meet persons that live a life as openly homosexual. I agree there is no need for a everyday "advertisement" of this kind when you meet people on the street, and I would guess most people, regardless of sexuality, doesn't do that, as you say. Just the same way as people don't shake hands and say "Hi I'm John and I'm politically a socialist". Hence, the parades are once a year, not every day.

When people decide to act in public like they do in private, with no respect for everyone else around - including children, yes I do get "offended".

When have I ever condoned violence or hate against "these people"?
Sure, everyone one can get offended, I probably get offended by stuff you find nothing to worry about.
What I don't like is the personal reaction to the parades that wish them to just go away, be out of sight, simply because they are concerned with a group that have sexual preferences in common and show by their very explicit performance, that this is what the problem of tolerance is about. The stay low attitude it often, to me, a clear extension of a more general attitude against homosexuals to repress them, and that strategy has been kept used against this group for a very long time. It's a I don't want to see, I don't want to know, not my problem policy, coupled with quite bland reactions to violence and abuse, which I don't like. It's like looking at the parade and say how awful, and on the street corner to your right some one from the parade gets beaten up. I think some of you cry out about the wrong thing in relation to these parades. No, you don't condone violence, but you and others sometimes seem more upset about the nudity than the violence and hate that surrounds the parades, which gets directed at the group parading.

Oh - so I disagree with their throwing THEIR sexuality in my face and would rather them keep their private business exactly that - just like I do my own out of respect for my fellow citizens, and suddenly I'm some homophobic person with a double standard? Lets keep the personal insults out of this since you don't know me one bit eh?I haven't called you or any one else in this thread homophobic, you seem to infer that from the quote from Eddie Izzard, which illustrated the logic of the stay out of sight attitude in a humorous but illuminating way. Perhaps it just hit the mark, and you thought I thereby labelled you homophobic?


Ok - so your saying that someone somewhere has abused all these people? So that makes it ok for them to act out and we should all just turn a blind eye to it? We should just go "oh poor people who feel so rejected by society - its ok that you trample on OUR rights because someone somewhere abused yours."????

Last time I checked - two wrongs don't make a right.
What rights of yours are getting abused in these parades, which in most countries only happen once a year? Have some formal rights of yours actually have been "trampled" upon? The parades highlights (by acting out) issues around the real rights for a real group of people in society, it's not about acting out because of feeling rejected. The latter is your take on it.

As soon signs of homosexuality is spotted in public, the reaction is often very intolerant, even violent, from some people or in many countries (it does not have to be a parade). In light of that I find it not fully convincing when people say, "I accept their choice and I don't condone violence against people, but I don't like this kind of sexuality so please don't show your existence in public".
I agree, the parades are quite spectacular, some find them vulgar, no surprise. But my point is that the "stay out of public" is very easy to use against anything where persons openly show where they belong when it comes to sexuality. Imagine that quite innocent signs of love for a woman on your part could even trigger severe violence upon you and here, and that you two at the same time were being asked to stay out of public, maybe one day you and your wife would join a parade as well to reclaim some public space lost during the years?

Again - NOWHERE did I ever say that the reaction listed was condoned or approved of by me. But like most folks, you seem to think that disagreement on an issue suddenly makes me some monster just because I don't go along with every point.

Well, I am not a homophobe, as I have known quite a few, and called some friend, including one very good man that this community lost. So I can't speak for any homophobes, but as a man who does have very strong moral feelings on this issue, I would say this in reply:

"I won't speak out on an issue that doesn't have anything to do with me, until - as in this case - someone MAKES it have to do with me. At that point, their decision means that they choose to try and gain my support - but they thus also must be willing to accept my refusal to support them."

Again - what we have here is that its either agree or be called homophobic and such. That kind of rhetorical trap gets kind of old. Its almost as tired as every tax hike being "for the children". We have been through the homophobia and condoning of violence thing already, so I wont repeat myself there.
Of course you don't have to actively support homosexuality, but one could voice support for a group of people that sometimes find themselves hunted down the street, getting kicked out of work, etc because of showing signs of their sexual preferences, which sometimes mean no more than you and I would do on a night out with ladies around, or walking in the park with a girlfriend.


Not sure what carnival your talking about, but yes, I do have numerous concerns about the state of society and civilization. The moral depravity we have exported is one large cause of middle eastern hatred toward the west for example. Its a moral shame we pay athletes millions a year and teachers don't make enough to be above the poverty line. I could go on and on......That one was a bit of a joke, but with a bit of serious side to it as well. The Carnival in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil is quite famous for the lightly clad women. But also a lot of men go very light on the clothing. Both men and woman do "act out" as well. But people usally don't protest about this for some reason. That's why I brought it up, public display of sexuality and almost naked bodies is sometimes very much approved of, without the cry offence, at least not from the same people that find a gay parade disturbing. :cool:
In a way you could say that some of the homo parades have a lot of inspiration from this one, but with a take on it which doesn't conform with heterosexual preferences.

You do the same, I ought to run more often but I keep telling my lady that I am in shape - round is a shape after all!Ah, thats a good one. I should perhaps use that one on occasions as well! :yep:

[porphy]

[quote]Porphy, you may want to read a bit of Sigmund Freud discussing the effect and influence of taboos.
Skybird, I have read some works by Freud, including Totem and Taboo. I can't say Freud is my favourite thinker. Especially Totem and Taboo is a weak book in my view. But it is a quite along time ago I read it, so maybe I should do a revisit.

Next, taboos vary, and Brasil is not Europe or North America. You maybe have noted the cultural differences between these places, and the differences in their forms of carnival as well. Ypou could also compare public bathing and Sauna habits in America, Germany, Finland and Japan, to give a very obvious example of how different for example "public nudity" can be interpreted in different societies. Yes, sure Carnivals are not the same everywhere. My point was only to show, as you say, different examples of displays of public nudity and explicit sexuality.
Saunas is a good example. I was very surprised when my English friends insisted on having their swimming trousers on in the sauna! :-?

[Skybird]

But there you have it: the explanation why public display of sexual-related actions, or public nudity, raises anger in our society if it is done outside the compromise of banning it to tolerated situational and locational contexts: special bars, sexshops etc. Because our society is like it is, and it is not that of a far away country where maybe it may be different. In Europe and North America, it is seen as a provocation, and breaking of a social taboo. No wonder then that it triggers hostile reactions. If getting provoked, quite many people turn aggressive. It is a form of self-defense.

BTW, some Western law codes forbid public nudity and/or public actions with a sexual reference. ;) that is also true for you quoted Brasil, where an obligatory "minimum dress" code has been established for beaches years ago, after too many people were complaining about too much naked skin.

[CaptainHaplo]

Porphy.
When you made the statement "Not very stand up guys" I took that as a personal slam when you wouldn't have enough knowledge to know whether or not I am a stand up guy or not. I see now it was not meant personally, though its wording made it appear as if it was aimed at any who disagree with every single point.

Now - lets deal with the meat of the issue.

Well, concerning the parades, those are obviously meant to highlight a problem with how some people react and act when they hear of or meet persons that live a life as openly homosexual. I agree there is no need for a everyday "advertisement" of this kind when you meet people on the street, and I would guess most people, regardless of sexuality, doesn't do that, as you say. Just the same way as people don't shake hands and say "Hi I'm John and I'm politically a socialist". Hence, the parades are once a year, not every day.

You bring up the exact point I am trying to get across here. Let me play devil's advocate here - and pretend that I am "violently" anti-gay. *For the record I do not agree with targeting violence against anyone based only on their race, religion or sexual preference.* Now - lets say I am prone to attack someone I find out is openly gay. If thats the case, is it any suprise that a gathering of gays would illicit a violent response? No its not. The fact is there ARE people in the world who react with hatred toward ALL kinds of people, for reasons ranging from sexual orientation, color of skin, and religion, to other even more petty reasons such as the car they drive or the shoes they wear. Thats a blasted shame, but its fact none the less. But here is the problem - this idea that gay parades are about highlighting the treatment of gays by the rest of society is pure, unadulterated bull.

If it was about how gays are treated - then how does it help highlight the problem when the people taking part in the parade INTENTIONALLY act in an offensive manner? If it was about getting recognition for true wrongs perpetrated by others, how does running around barely clad and making out with someone in the middle of the street address that problem?

The article you posted said the following:

He later called for an artists' boycott of Eurovision to protest the breakup of the "Slavic Gay Pride" parade.

Funny - its not called the Slavic Antiviolence Parade is it? Or the Slavic Lets End Gay Bashing Parade? No - its called the "Slavic Gay Pride" parade. And the reason for that is that its NOT about addressing violence. Sure, there were a few anti-violence signs, but the majority?

Nice try in the attempt to cover the real purpose. Even the article itself tries to make the same arguement you do - that it was an antiviolence parade. They screwed up when they quoted one of the organizers though - because HE left no doubt as to its purpose.

I happen to live in what is called the San Fransico of the East Coast. We have more homosexuals here per capita than SF does. The majority of them are decent people who just want to live their lives and let others live as well. However, you do have the few agitators like the organizer of this event, and those who follow folks like them, that take a political agenda and CREATE situations where bad things can happen on purpose, just so they can look like victims.

There have been many "parades" and such here - and they are alot more often than once a year. The funny thing is, the counter-protesters are usually the ones that get attacked physically - not the other way around. And when the attackers get arrested, they scream police brutality and repression due to their sexual preference. Its just a few bad eggs, but it makes the community LESS accepting, not the other way around.

Also - if you read the article with an objective eye -it talks about how the police put their arms behind their backs and maybe even twisted a wrist or two. Oh my goodness - how horrible. What the article doesn't tell you is that is a standard way to control someone who is being taken into custody, its a standard way of gaining leverage and physical control. The same cops would do the exact same thing with any other person they arrested. Also - and I speak from personal experience on this - roughly 95% or more of the people arrested or taken into custody in some form will resist. However, only 3-5 percent of them will resist VIOLENTLY. So its very few that have to be manhandled and forced by pain to hold the heck still. But most will squirm, move their wrists to keep the cuffs off, shift away, etc - and those are reasons to exert leverage within reason. Even the protesters themselves gave descriptions that were NOT excessive.

Ultimately - those who live their private life private, just as the rest of society does regardless of the sexual choice, will continue to enjoy the protection of a civil and accepting society. Those who choose to take their private life and force it in front of eyes of the rest of society with intentional, outlandish behavior, are going to continue to find themselves ostracized and rejected from the majority of that society.

When these few bad apples decide to respect the rights of society, society will be more inclined to accept them. Those that already do, have vastly less problems in society for that very reason.

[porphy]

[quote]But there you have it: the explanation why public display of sexual-related actions, or public nudity, raises anger in our society if it is done outside the compromise of banning it to tolerated situational and locational contexts: special bars, sexshops etc. Because our society is like it is, and it is not that of a far away country where maybe it may be different. In Europe and North America, it is seen as a provocation, and breaking of a social taboo. No wonder then that it triggers hostile reactions. If getting provoked, quite many people turn aggressive. It is a form of self-defense. Skybird, I would think the taboo is more about homosexuality in public, rather than about sexuality and nudity in general though, the public display of the latter is quite widespread in many western countries, although always channeled in special ways, as you say.
I don't myself find everything intimate and sexual displayed in public just fine. Actually I'm a guy that easily find people of today too loud, rude or inconsiderate about their surroundings. But I find it hard to be that upset or offended by a prearranged parade that make a point of being a bit vulgar or over the top.
In a way a parade has a sort of situational and locational context you talk about, and that makes it very much more tolerable, even when in public. A parade is a social institution used in different ways, many times political and cultural, and here the political and cultural message is dressed up in exactly that way which trigger the intolerance one wants to see challanged. That is abuse, violence and repression against a group of people with a different sexuality. This public strategy is as old as taboos I would think. :yep:

That is why I find it a bit too much like shrugging shoulders, when you say that this is how it works. Ok, and then? Throughout history you could find countless examples of successful claims from political and social movements, that would be simply absurd to reject today, with reference to the fact that when people get offended they get agressive as a kind of self defense. There are limitis and taboos that control public agression and violence in a society as well...
The conclusion that the gay provokers should just go away or stay invisible, when the slightest sign of their sexuality can trigger the same aggressive behaviour as the very provocation of the parade, that is simply naive and a non progressive attitude to me. Of course the thought that everyone will instantly accept you when parading for example is also naive. But somehow I don't think many people in the parades count on the latter, but I would think that they don't accept the stay low, stay out of sight approach as a good way to change the sometimes well spread tendency to trigger violence and abuse simply by people getting offended by their very existence in a society.

BTW, some Western law codes forbid public nudity and/or public actions with a sexual reference. ;) that is also true for you quoted Brasil, where an obligatory "minimum dress" code has been established for beaches years ago, after too many people were complaining about too much naked skin.Certainly it is called "minimal dress code" for a reason... :o

cheers Porphy

[porphy]

Porphy.
[quote]When you made the statement "Not very stand up guys" I took that as a personal slam when you wouldn't have enough knowledge to know whether or not I am a stand up guy or not. I see now it was not meant personally, though its wording made it appear as if it was aimed at any who disagree with every single point.

Now - lets deal with the meat of the issue.

You bring up the exact point I am trying to get across here. Let me play devil's advocate here - and pretend that I am "violently" anti-gay. *For the record I do not agree with targeting violence against anyone based only on their race, religion or sexual preference.* Now - lets say I am prone to attack someone I find out is openly gay. If thats the case, is it any suprise that a gathering of gays would illicit a violent response? No its not. The fact is there ARE people in the world who react with hatred toward ALL kinds of people, for reasons ranging from sexual orientation, color of skin, and religion, to other even more petty reasons such as the car they drive or the shoes they wear. Thats a blasted shame, but its fact none the less. But here is the problem - this idea that gay parades are about highlighting the treatment of gays by the rest of society is pure, unadulterated bull.

If it was about how gays are treated - then how does it help highlight the problem when the people taking part in the parade INTENTIONALLY act in an offensive manner? If it was about getting recognition for true wrongs perpetrated by others, how does running around barely clad and making out with someone in the middle of the street address that problem? Captain, I think most of my way of reasoning when it comes to this issue, is connected to the fact that homosexuality tends to trigger abuse and harassment, even when persons are very low key, out of the way about it. And I don't mean in the streets only. (That there are people prone to violence and hate for the most petty reasons is both a fact and sad indeed. But I don't think anyone is really surprised at the reactions to the parades in many places)
The problem, as I see it, is that some people find the very existence of homosexuality so offensive as to react with both aggression, abuse or moral condemnation. Being openly gay in their view is the same as to exist as homosexual at all.
That is why the strategy to improve recognition and acceptance, in a given society, through being non existent/visible in public will not work. You simply have to bring the issue out in the open, that is in this case making homosexuality something that is accepted in public to the same degree as accepted heterosexual behaviour.
Sure the parades are a bit over the top for many people, and one can have doubts about if this is the best way to reach the goal. But as I said to Skybird, the strategy to go public and challenge taboos and values is as old as taboos themselves. To challenge something you might have to be a bit excessive, and you certainly need to do it intentionally.

The article you posted said the following:Hmm, I never posted any article...


Funny - its not called the Slavic Antiviolence Parade is it? Or the Slavic Lets End Gay Bashing Parade? No - its called the "Slavic Gay Pride" parade. And the reason for that is that its NOT about addressing violence. Sure, there were a few anti-violence signs, but the majority?

Nice try in the attempt to cover the real purpose. Even the article itself tries to make the same arguement you do - that it was an antiviolence parade. They screwed up when they quoted one of the organizers though - because HE left no doubt as to its purpose.I haven't made the argument that the parade was anti violence to it's purpose. I'm not even discussing said article, so I'm not sure how much of this is about my view really. I'm discussing violence in connection to parades, be they called Slavic Gay Pride or something else, sure. I'm also discussing violence, abuse and condemnation against a group of people in general, which goes hand in hand with the attitude that they should preferably not be visible as openly homosexual in public, in parades or otherwise, to get a better recognition. This is a reasoning I find doubtful, but I also agree that seeking to start violent trouble is simply low. But to say that all parades have this purpose, or that they just add fuel to the fire, is also to go a bit too far. My view is that parades should be tolerated, even if that means public display of homosexuality, but of course with some sense to it. I don't see the point of a gay pride parade where everyone looks and behaves as heterosexuals.


I happen to live in what is called the San Fransico of the East Coast. We have more homosexuals here per capita than SF does. The majority of them are decent people who just want to live their lives and let others live as well. However, you do have the few agitators like the organizer of this event, and those who follow folks like them, that take a political agenda and CREATE situations where bad things can happen on purpose, just so they can look like victims.

There have been many "parades" and such here - and they are alot more often than once a year. The funny thing is, the counter-protesters are usually the ones that get attacked physically - not the other way around. And when the attackers get arrested, they scream police brutality and repression due to their sexual preference. Its just a few bad eggs, but it makes the community LESS accepting, not the other way around.

Also - if you read the article with an objective eye -it talks about how the police put their arms behind their backs and maybe even twisted a wrist or two. Oh my goodness - how horrible. What the article doesn't tell you is that is a standard way to control someone who is being taken into custody, its a standard way of gaining leverage and physical control. The same cops would do the exact same thing with any other person they arrested. Also - and I speak from personal experience on this - roughly 95% or more of the people arrested or taken into custody in some form will resist. However, only 3-5 percent of them will resist VIOLENTLY. So its very few that have to be manhandled and forced by pain to hold the heck still. But most will squirm, move their wrists to keep the cuffs off, shift away, etc - and those are reasons to exert leverage within reason. Even the protesters themselves gave descriptions that were NOT excessive.

Ultimately - those who live their private life private, just as the rest of society does regardless of the sexual choice, will continue to enjoy the protection of a civil and accepting society. Those who choose to take their private life and force it in front of eyes of the rest of society with intentional, outlandish behavior, are going to continue to find themselves ostracized and rejected from the majority of that society.

When these few bad apples decide to respect the rights of society, society will be more inclined to accept them. Those that already do, have vastly less problems in society for that very reason.I can't really comment on all that, as this obviously is a lot about your home turf, literally. I find some of your views quite reasonable, but remain doubtful about a few things, which have to be the way my writing on the subject ends for tonight!

Going rock climbing again tomorrow, so I need my sleep to be focused. :yep:

cheers Porphy

[Skybird]

[quote=Skybird;1103992]Skybird, I would think the taboo is more about homosexuality in public, rather than about sexuality and nudity in general though, the public display of the latter is quite widespread in many western countries, although always channeled in special ways, as you say.
I don't myself find everything intimate and sexual displayed in public just fine. Actually I'm a guy that easily find people of today too loud, rude or inconsiderate about their surroundings. But I find it hard to be that upset or offended by a prearranged parade that make a point of being a bit vulgar or over the top.
In a way a parade has a sort of situational and locational context you talk about, and that makes it very much more tolerable, even when in public. A parade is a social institution used in different ways, many times political and cultural, and here the political and cultural message is dressed up in exactly that way which trigger the intolerance one wants to see challenged. That is abuse, violence and repression against a group of people with a different sexuality. This public strategy is as old as taboos I would think. :yep:

That is why I find it a bit too much like shrugging shoulders, when you say that this is how it works. Ok, and then? Throughout history you could find countless examples of successful claims from political and social movements, that would be simply absurd to reject today, with reference to the fact that when people get offended they get agressive as a kind of self defense. There are limitis and taboos that control public agression and violence in a society as well...
The conclusion that the gay provokers should just go away or stay invisible, when the slightest sign of their sexuality can trigger the same aggressive behaviour as the very provocation of the parade, that is simply naive and a non progressive attitude to me. Of course the thought that everyone will instantly accept you when parading for example is also naive. But somehow I don't think many people in the parades count on the latter, but I would think that they don't accept the stay low, stay out of sight approach as a good way to change the sometimes well spread tendency to trigger violence and abuse simply by people getting offended by their very existence in a society.

Certainly it is called "minimal dress code" for a reason... :o

cheers Porphy
I fail to see why the social ban to seeing homosexuality of equal status and importance for the social community as something that must be changed just for the sake of the change itself. And yes, there are other violations of the taboo of public nudity as well, as illustrated in media, advertising, and subcultures - like there also is a massive violation of the constitutional guarantee for families receiving special protection and support by the state - a recent OSCE study revealed that in Germany especially families get over proportionally taxed, while I argue for exactly the opposite, and politicians claim that it is like that opposite indeed. but that these violations are realties does not mean that it doesn't matter to violate the issues a bit more. Two bads do not make one good. the errors in tax system should be corrected instead of making the flaws an argument to add even more damage to families. The nudity thing in the modern present should be understood as a counter-extreme to the sexual inhibitions and prudishness of the 50s and 60s - but the socalled sexual revolution has reached far beyond it's goal, IMO, leading the "unleashing of the sexus" to opposite trends that are as extreme and in some cases: perverse as the former social inhibitions regarding sex have been. For example the easy availability of pornography to even children of the age of 11, if only they can handle a computer (and most of them know more about computers than their parents ever will), is just one symptom that shows how insanely "sexualized" the modern Western living environment has become. and it affects they further socialization of the kids - and definitely for the better. Porno actors have become to serve as social role models that children and juveniles take as orientation examples. but when a 13 year old girl expresses a body language of a 25 year old porn actress and thinks that is normal and is expected from her, then there is something going terribly wrong. However, social workers and psychologists dealing with young people observe and report that exactly this is happening.

Regarding homosexuals, again I say: they wouldn't be a problem for anybody, not for the community and not for themselves, if they would not make a big story of their personal tastes and orientations, and simply keep their habits where they belong: to their privatsphere that is hidden and safeguarded from the public (else it wouldn't be a privatesphere). I mean I do not run around and parade myself to show and tell people what i like - even when not being asked and nobody even is interested.

Regarding adoption rights and equal status to marriages for homosexual couples, I stand to my total rejection of that, with all determination, for the reasons I gave several times before. So, just because history means change I will not conclude that any change that is possible must necessarily be wanted and helped. change not only can be good - it also can be towards the worse. In a way I am a conservative, and conservatism for me is less a values-and-ideals-thing, but means to preserve what has proven itself, eventually to renew it, or go back to it if it strayed off by mistake meanwhile. An intentional change of things usually I only support if I see a benefit from it where the positive outclasses the negative. This is - by far - not the case regarding the issues discussed in this thread.

[SS107.9MHz]

Two male dolphins having sex???? yeah right. Where does it go? In the "blow hole". The notion is ridiculous. When a dog humps a humans leg for example. Why is the dog doing that? It is not because he thinks your leg is hot, it is because the scent of a female dog in heat somehow got on you and the dog reacts to it. Animals are triggered by instinct and nothing more.

I don't know why I even bother, but here you go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

I won't even go on other species like bonoboes and penguins, etc, etc...
It's not that I apreciate homossexual behaviour, (cuz I don't, not between males at least :O:) it just exists, and if it does I'd rather comprehend it than to denie it or label it as wrong or right.

As for your question of "where does it go" you could've easily asked if male dolphins even had penises by that logic...

If people just took time to think about things a bit before they come out with smart ass responses we could be a whole lot happier :O: (cuz these are 60 secs ogf my life I won't be getting back!)

[CaptainHaplo]

Porphy,

I agree with you that regardless of what someone may be protesting or parading over, there should not be violence against them. If abortionists want to rally, they should have the right to gather, after obtaining the proper permits, just like anyone else. Same should go for kkk members. I disagree vehemently with both groups, but they have the right to voice their opinion in public. So do gays.

However, I would advise some groups - like "gay pridesters" or "white supremecists" to be a bit smarter than trying to organize a public event when their whole platform is rather abhorent to the majority of society. Also, when such groups or individuals chose to violate public statute in the pursuit of promoting their specific agendas, then they violate the civic trust and law and therefore are subject to arrest. For example, lets say you have a lewdness law - and its violated. A "parade" does not put into abeyance the law. Same with the kkk - if a threat or incitement to violence is uttered by a "parader" - or if any violent act is taken - then they should also be arrested and prosecuted as the law requires.

Its like a illegal alien rights parade - you can hold one - but if ICE shows up don't be suprised - they have every right to insure the LEGALITY of the people there. As long as all the protesters are here legally - and conduct themselves within the law - no problem.

[SS107.9MHz]

Its like a illegal alien rights parade - you can hold one - but if ICE shows up don't be suprised - they have every right to insure the LEGALITY of the people there. As long as all the protesters are here legally - and conduct themselves within the law - no problem.Agreed, but what if Laws, or law enforcement agencies, use their power in an abusive way? When do we draw the line of wether or not the law is just or right, or wether is just a way to provide leverage for the state or any other agency? This example could be applied to the police forces action on some of the rallies of the civil rights movement.

For instance, legally, homossexuality is viewed very differently in Europe and the States, than in Iran. Just a few decades ago homossexuality was cause for arrest wasn't it?

Bare with me, if the demo was being organized by a women's right movement, in Iran, and the demonstration was deemed illegal, and if the group decided to do the rally anyway, most probably they would be met with the same kind of response, delivered by the russian forces.

If that was the case, I do believe that this thread's discussion would be very much a one-sided one, or am I wrong gentlemen (and ladies if there are any - by the way are there any women members in subsim? What is that all about?:O:)?

[Frame57]

I don't know why I even bother, but here you go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

I won't even go on other species like bonoboes and penguins, etc, etc...
It's not that I apreciate homossexual behaviour, (cuz I don't, not between males at least :O:) it just exists, and if it does I'd rather comprehend it than to denie it or label it as wrong or right.

As for your question of "where does it go" you could've easily asked if male dolphins even had penises by that logic...

If people just took time to think about things a bit before they come out with smart ass responses we could be a whole lot happier :O: (cuz these are 60 secs ogf my life I won't be getting back!)It is common knowledge that Dolphins run in male packs. The stimulation process is shared and the video explained that they then seek out females. So the video tape does not support the idea that the stimulation process is an indigent homosexual behavior. Again it is sensory stimulation process that the dolphin does prior to seeking out a female. I learned that in college back in the 70's.

[CaptainHaplo]

Porphy,

Your point regarding the civil rights movement is dead on. But the abuses that were committed led to even more support, because the abuses were committed against those who in no way PROVOKED such abuse. Blacks, and some whites, marched and peacefully demonstrated. They didn't set out to act in a way that was societally inflammatory. Sure there were a couple of incidents where things WERE provoked - but they were not the mainstream. The vast majority of those active in the movement put their message out there, in a socially acceptable way. Thus, when abuse and extreme action was used, the activists were seen as the victims of a society that repressed them, and rightly so in many ways. Thus, society took stock of themselves because of the DIGNITY that so many in the civil rights movement carried themselves with.

As a young boy, my father took me to the woolworths where the sit in happened. Look at how that entire process went down - there was no fights, the blacks were even spat on, and not once did they react violently, but with the dignity and patience of the righteous they perservered, and won a great victory in that. I cannot tell you the depths that showed me, not only how far we could go, but also how change CAN often be brought about with peaceful means. *Unfortunately, that isn't always the case*

The difference is that the "gay movement" doesn't want to act within any realm of societal properness. It sees itself as an outcast, and thus acts rebelliously against EVERY societal norm out of that sense of rebellion, when it would better be served to act in a mature manner on its issues, instead of acting out in public in ways intentionally meant to offend.

As to your question of what if this was a women's rights movement - again, it wouldn't matter. The question is, did those protesting - for this or whatever reason, violate the law as it stands there? If so, then they failed to work within the societal framework for change, and thus have to expect a legal repercussion. It is when that action is overboard, that they then fall into the place of victim.

Ultimately, you have a choice in anything you don't like legally speaking. Deal with it, work within the framework that exists to change it, or cross the legal lines to try and draw attention and support within society to change it. Sometimes that latter is necessary, as it was with the civil rights movement. However, if you want to draw attention and support, it is wisest not to intentionally offend those you wish to get to support your agenda. This is where, as I said, gay activism has gone terribly wrong.

[SS107.9MHz]

It is common knowledge that Dolphins run in male packs. The stimulation process is shared and the video explained that they then seek out females. So the video tape does not support the idea that the stimulation process is an indigent homosexual behavior. Again it is sensory stimulation process that the dolphin does prior to seeking out a female. I learned that in college back in the 70's.

Point taken, but the same behaviors have been observed in both sex pods AND between different dolphin species. Same gender sex in bonobos familial groups are well known. The thing is these animals engage in same sex and other sex behaviours almost in an undifferentiated manner, hey practise sexual stimulation for pleasure and not by any means for a reproductive or even courtship behavior. It's akin to the sexual behavior of some previous human societies. But while animals don't need a notion of morality applied to thir sexual behavior in their societies, in humans that's not so clear cut... And maybe that has an adaptive significance or maybe is detrimental.

Sex as a physiological and genetic based mechanism mediated by psychological and social acquired patterns is a much more complex procedure in humans...
It's evolutionary function is indeed reproduction. But the drive for the behavior is, arguably, pleasure. So, there are two very different variables at play here.

[SS107.9MHz]

The difference is that the "gay movement" doesn't want to act within any realm of societal properness. It sees itself as an outcast, and thus acts rebelliously against EVERY societal norm out of that sense of rebellion, when it would better be served to act in a mature manner on its issues, instead of acting out in public in ways intentionally meant to offend.

Agreed, I too think some of "gaypride" express their views a bit "inyourface", it's a rather maladaptive choice if you ask me... Though the line of what is acceptable/offensive is too a thin line... Remember all of that Coran/Cartoon crap years ago? Or the pope/condom cartoon for that matter...

As to your question of what if this was a women's rights movement - again, it wouldn't matter. The question is, did those protesting - for this or whatever reason, violate the law as it stands there? If so, then they failed to work within the societal framework for change, and thus have to expect a legal repercussion. It is when that action is overboard, that they then fall into the place of victim.

I can't quite agre with wou on this one, because laws can be made to restrict civil liberties beyond what be socialy acceptable for us, but not for others, like on the Taliban Afghan state; for women what kind of protest form was there wich wasn't against the law?

What about states where the Sharia law is applied, should everyone be forced to live by that law?

Ultimately, are our own countrie's Laws right all the time? Or can we always be wrong when we break or Laws?

The thing is really, ultimately if/when are laws WRONG?

Ultimately, you have a choice in anything you don't like legally speaking. Deal with it, work within the framework that exists to change it, or cross the legal lines to try and draw attention and support within society to change it. Sometimes that latter is necessary, as it was with the civil rights movement. However, if you want to draw attention and support, it is wisest not to intentionally offend those you wish to get to support your agenda. This is where, as I said, gay activism has gone terribly wrong.

And here is AN answer for my statements above :)
I agree with you agin on this one, but I tend to believe that in Western Europe things are a bit more low-profile... Wether that is the reason why it seems to be more accepted here or it's the other way around, it's a new thread altogether.

[Skybird]

The socialists in Germany try to win votes now for the elections this year by sending the SPD minister of justice into the arena, propagating that article 6 of the German constitution, expressing special protection by the state for marriage and family, should be changed to express that special status for homosexual partnerships as well. To equalise the tax status of homo partnerships and marriages, is a demand since longer. Which means that special protection of family and marriage by the state gets so much relativised so that in the end it does not exist anymore.

Sometimes I feel like wanting to slam my head against a wall. Only a society knowing no times of emergencies, suffering and threat, can give away the fundaments of its safety and wellbeing so idiotically. Sometimes I wonder if too long a time of peace really is such a good idea. It always seem to come at the price of weaking what is healthy, reasonable and strong, and bring to importance what is not as important at all. Maybe because people are bored when not needing to fight for their survival.

Singles do not get considered to be worthy receiving special guarantees by the constitution like families, marriages and now as intended: homosexual couples . Help, I am getting dicriminated! I think I need to yell louder and launch some provocative parades. What is to become of a society without single households and people living alone without raising kids?

Just kidding. So, to be serious now, we singles are humans, too. We contribute to a balanced social climate by preventing an anti-democratic dominance of families, and are a worthy and integral part of the spectrum of society. We have rights, too, you know! We also demand tax reliefs , because we serve as a needed healthy antidot to too many children being raised in society, we suffer from loneliness while serving the social community , and we Singles want recognition and equality by not favouring the injust and dominant special idea of families anymore. Children belong into kindergartens from first birthday on, so that they learn to become influenced by the collective as early as possible. And since their parents are responsible for them existing, I think it is only fair that they need to pay additional special taxes that can be used for kindergartens and fighting inhumane discriminations of us singles as well, it also could serve as a needed prevention of getting more children.

We all are equal! We all have rights! Narcissistic egos of all countries, unite! Send those damn evil wicked anti-social non-collective deeply subversive equality-undermining families into the abyss where they belong! Give them more poverty and rip them off even more, so that more money is there to promote equality! All nations need to follow Germany's example and tax families to even higher proportions than any other social group in society!

Comrades and friends of global humanism - that is true freedom...! Constitutional guarantees and special rights for gays, lesbians and singles! Prevent families from ursurping social protection and status that is undeserved!

Chase all what is family into the sea...! :up:

[porphy]

[quote]The socialists in Germany try to win votes now for the elections this year by sending the SPD minister of justice into the arena, propagating that article 6 of the German constitution, expressing special protection by the state for marriage and family, should be changed to express that special status for homosexual partnerships as well. To equalise the tax status of homo partnerships and marriages, is a demand since longer. Which means that special protection of family and marriage by the state gets so much relativised so that in the end it does not exist anymore. It looks like you’re not done with this subject from the other thread... ;)

I can't see traditional married couples and families getting robbed of anything. I can't see that the special protection of the family is now going out of existence. Honestly, that stuff happens only in your head Skybird.
According to the proposed change marriage and family is changed and extended, which is not the same thing as the old stuff going out of existence, even if you feel that way. Families and marriages, new and old in style, will get real support and the traditional concepts of marriage and family will of course live on as well, as church, religion, heterosexual couples forming families and having kids are not going up in smoke, but will continue to be a fundamental part of society. The only thing to die or disappear is hopefully your fantasy about all the horrible stuff that will happen with the decline of the west in this respect. In that case, good riddance I say. :yep:

Sometimes I feel like wanting to slam my head against a wall. [Only a society knowing no times of emergencies, suffering and threat, can give away the fundaments of its safety and wellbeing so idiotically. Sometimes I wonder if too long a time of peace really is such a good idea. It always seem to come at the price of weaking what is healthy, reasonable and strong, and bring to importance what is not as important at all. Maybe because people are bored when not needing to fight for their survival.Please reread your paragraph and tell me that even you think this is over the top. Are you really invoking war to bring out what is supposed to be reasonable, healthy and strong in your society? That is pathetic and disgusting, and furthermore without any foundation in reality, and you should know it. :down:

If that law is changed, what on earth do you imagine will happen, for real, which would mean a significant threat to the "fundamental safety and well being" of German society? Can you be a bit more detailed on that point of prediction, rather than throwing around bombastic sentences of doom...

Singles do not get considered to be worthy receiving special guarantees by the constitution like families, marriages and now as intended: homosexual couples . Help, I am getting dicriminated! I think I need to yell louder and launch some provocative parades. What is to become of a society without single households and people living alone without raising kids?

Just kidding. So, to be serious now, we singles are humans, too. We contribute to a balanced social climate by preventing an anti-democratic dominance of families, and are a worthy and integral part of the spectrum of society. We have rights, too, you know! We also demand tax reliefs , because we serve as a needed healthy antidot to too many children being raised in society, we suffer from loneliness while serving the social community , and we Singles want recognition and equality by not favouring the injust and dominant special idea of families anymore. Children belong into kindergartens from first birthday on, so that they learn to become influenced by the collective as early as possible. And since their parents are responsible for them existing, I think it is only fair that they need to pay additional special taxes that can be used for kindergartens and fighting inhumane discriminations of us singles as well, it also could serve as a needed prevention of getting more children.

We all are equal! We all have rights! Narcissistic egos of all countries, unite! Send those damn evil wicked anti-social non-collective deeply subversive equality-undermining families into the abyss where they belong! Give them more poverty and rip them off even more, so that more money is there to promote equality! All nations need to follow Germany's example and tax families to even higher proportions than any other social group in society!

Comrades and friends of global humanism - that is true freedom...! Constitutional guarantees and special rights for gays, lesbians and singles! Prevent families from ursurping social protection and status that is undeserved!

Chase all what is family into the sea...! After reading this rant, which I guess was supposed to be ironic and showing the absurdities of the proposed change in paragraph 6, I really start to think that you actually do feel discriminated and left behind as a single when some homosexual couples and parents "threatens" to join the ranks of marriages and families in Germany. :-?
In the other thread on this subject, at least you tried to build an argument, although pretty patchy and tottering, from bits and pieces of biology, psychology and sociology. But now there is nothing but glee and vehement rhetoric about ego narcissism and misplaced ideas about equal rights, directed at a group of citizens, that has been, and still is in many ways abused and repressed in today’s societies. It seems more and more clear to me that the argument from biology, sociology and psychology is pulled together in defence of an idea of what marriage and family is, but this is then presented as evidence for a real threat to society. You have not showed very convincingly that a changed idea and concept really, and the resulting few new families, would cause any serious trouble for a society or the individuals, but none can of course miss that you feel this way.

You have been fond of the idea that homosexuals should not use any provoking and upsetting strategies to further their cause, but after reading this stuff it seems to me like you might need to read up and learn from those parts in your own postings. The difference is that they try to break free from a real social taboo with their transgressions, but you simply label them with egoism and misplaced ideas about equal rights, and try to dress it up as ironic humour in, all in defence of your idea that a future healthy society is threatened. That is, threatened by the changed legal status of those couples, among the about 3 - 4% of the population, that actually could form a homosexual marriage or family. Really a huge threat that is. :06:

Ok, I'm done venting! Feeling all fine again. Unfortunately your post wasted time which I could have used to discuss related things in a more senisble and responsible way in this thread. So I guess your provocation was successful... :cool: Take care.



Cheers Porphy

[Skybird]

Well, this news from Miss Zypris yesterday (our justice minister) kicked me into a mood where I did not want to discuss anymore. She already was one of the driving forces to prevent fathers being given a right to demand a genetic test if they are in doubt about "their" kids really beeing theres. Her arguments were so very hypocritical. The new law'S obstacles to legally achieve that right at court are so high now that it is practically impossible in almpst all cases to ever get that right by court.

If stupidity goes beyond a certain level, I am either leaving, or it makes me aggressive. We people are always beeing plastered with nonsens and stupid slogans, but we are always expected to stay polite, calm, reasonable about the sh!t they are throwing at us - so that no reblellious oppositional spirit could form up preventing by deed what certain stupid nutheads are doing to our country.

I do not want to discuss these things only anymore. I want these things being stopped, no matter how. Since years I see the world around me going down the drain, and words and words and more words, while the nutheads take over. And as long as it goes like this, they tell me to stay like I always was: calm, polite, reasonable - not to stop them.

Scheisse. I am by far no rightwing extremist, I hate that breed, really. No brain, no culture, no class, no sign of intelligent life. But I can very well explain why extremists on the left and right side win in support so massively in all social classes. It's because the conventional political class has turned politcal culture into a festival of failures, shamelessness and lies, and arrogantly always talks nonsens to people just to make them be quiet and reasonable and polite.

Yes, it was a sarcastic rant. Just to illustrate what kind of nonsens argumentation in favour of homo marriages and relativising of the family's social importance is being done today. But the truth is that it makes me not only angry, but also very sad and desperate needing to live in this culture's winter of the year, seeing it destroying itself more and more, without need, just for stupidity, greed and short-sightedness. Und das muß man sich nun Tag für Tag ansehen. And always remaining calm, polite, reasonable, acchieving nothing. Zum Kotzen.

[kiwi_2005]

Voted best forum title ever! :DL

[Tribesman]

They didn't set out to act in a way that was societally inflammatory.
Don't be silly. Black people demanding equality was very societally inflammatory to a racist society , having white people marching with the blacks was probably even more inflammatory .
when it would better be served to act in a mature manner on its issues, instead of acting out in public in ways intentionally meant to offend.

Rosa Parks intentionally offended people by refusing to give up her seat , she flaunted her rejection of that societies accepted view of "normal" behavior .

[CaptainHaplo]

Rosa Parks was sitting and refused to give up her seat - that isnt "intentionally offensive". Her intent was not to piss people off with her actions, but by her actions call attention to unfair societal actions. Had she intended to be offensive, she would have spit on those demanding that she move, she would have ACTED immaturely. Instead, she sat with simple diginity instead of moving to the back of the bus.

Had she used vile language, insulted those who demanded that she move, physically assualted them due to the request, etc - it would have been her who was wrong. It is the dignity in which she acted that raised the awareness.

[Frame57]

To equate the social dillemma that the blacks went through with the pandering homosexual is not an axiomatic comparison. There still is debate and controvery over whether or not homosexuals are born that way, or patterned, or just plain choice. Blacks on the other hand are quite obviously born that way, and had every human right to demand equality based on race, Inflammitory or not.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh I totally agree - I have heard the gay agenda called the "new equal rights movement" and thats a bunch of bull.

What I am trying to get at is that - regardless of what cause your promoting, if you do so with some dignity and respect for your fellow man, your going to get alot more support than if you intentionally act like an ass.

Strictly speaking, there isnt anything that a gay "couple" can't do that a heterosexual married couple can. Sure they have to go through a little legwork to do things for stuff like medical power of attorney, etc. But then again, my mother is with a man who she will be with till one of them dies, but due to finances they cannot marry. So she does the same thing, and now has a medical PoA for him. If its good enough for non-married partners that are straight, whats the problem for same sex couples?

It all goes back to wanting to redefine what marriage is. And Skybird has spoken on that at length.

[Tribesman]

Rosa Parks was sitting and refused to give up her seat - that isnt "intentionally offensive".
Bollox
It was intentionally offensive to the people who wanted her seat, it was intentionlly offensive to the driver who wanted to enforce the regulations, it was intentionlly offensive to all those people who thought blacks were second class citizens.
The whole civil rights movement was intentionally offensive to bigots

[CaptainHaplo]

:har:

Its funny how sometimes you can insert such inane ludicriosity into something.

Intentionally offensive to bigots indeed :rotfl:

[Tribesman]

Intentionally offensive to bigots indeed
Indeed .
And the bigots just happened to be businessmen , politicians , police , judges and good old average citizens with crazy prejudices .