Where will Putin post his selfies now?
A mobile dating app which is popular among Russia's gay community has reportedly been hacked and blocked in the country just days before the Black Sea coastal town of Sochi plays host to the Winter Olympics. Russian users of Hunters, a hook-up app that's similar to Grindr, were also sent threats that a controversial new …
quote from the article: "Last year Russia enacted a controversial law prohibiting distribution of "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" among minors."
I seem to recall homosexuality being mentioned in various texts from 1000+ years ago... if it has been happening for millennia then I reckon it's pretty "traditional" at this point. Is this law just badly worded?
I guess there's too much security for someone to pull off another Munich Olympics style attack so I expect the Chechens and Dagestanis (ya like dags?) will just bomb Volgograd again or try to hit some form of mass transport that's heading for Sochi while it's still outside the security perimeter. If they're feeling audacious they might try carbombing one of the checkpoints. Or they might do nothing. Or they could bowl a googly and attack Moscow or another northwestern city while the sec forces gaze is averted.
Meanwhile there should be some amusing reactions to the one- or two-fingered gestures that various western countries have made by turning up the gaiety on their teams.
Also makes the G4S debacle look pretty tame, at least there was some sort of a refund.
While I heartily applaud the clamour of disapproval of Russian anti-homosexual law emanating from Western nations, I can't help but think of stones and glass houses.
I mean, it's barely been a decade since Section 28 was repealed here in the UK, so I think it's a bit early for us to sit here with smug, self righteous expressions on our faces...
You are right...
Also, people forget that this new law actually enjoys wide support among the Russian population. The condemnation from the Western politicians and the baiting by BBC etc will be pointless and actually counterproductive as lots of people just see it as the case of strong Vlad standing in the way of the contagion spreading from the West.
I have to say that a lot of responsibility for this must be attributed to LGBT community itself and the tactics of their lobbyists. They aim for the quick but short-term gains through pressuring politicians and lawmakers while refusing to understand and disregarding what is it that is causing the resistance from the rest of the population. These tactics barely work in the West (where political correctness covers up a lot of latent homophobia) but they don't stand a chance in places like Russia.
The thing is - Russians are scared of gays because it is widely believed that homosexuality is a choice, a behavioural aberration originating from lack of self control and moral restraint. It is amazing how seemingly rational people would just pale at the thought of their kids being turned into homosexuals through bad influences, just as they fear of them becoming drug addicts.
The LGBT campaigners do not pay attention to that. In fact, some of the gay movements AFAIK are still based around the premise that sexuality is a voluntary choice, a matter of freedom of expression.
They should get their act together and agree among themselves on who they really are and then concentrate on the message that sexuality is not a choice or a contagious disease and direct their campaigns at educating the public. Oh, and they need patience, lots and lots of it, because a country like Russia cannot turn on the spot in a matter like that. You literally have to be prepared to wait for two or more generations until you get true public awareness and acceptance.
Trying to force the issue and achieve immediate results through gay parades and protests and diplomatic pressure will not work IMHO.
The biggest game changer in the acceptance of others is when you know them and are friends or colleagues or related to them.
This the Western gay community has learnt well and through being visible and open have changed the attitude to gay people. It is not that long ago that your comments on 'choice' and 'self-control' were applicable in the West.
So Pride marches, discussing being gay with friends, colleagues, relatives, all help to change opinion by removing ignorance. The Russian legislation stops all of that as it is defined as promotion and encourages discrimination by those that have never met a gay person.
Diplomatic pressure does work. No country wants to be identified as 'out of step' if they truly want to be respected and counted as a fair player on the world scene.
"discussing being gay with friends, colleagues, relatives, all help to change opinion by removing ignorance."
Yes, but the "footprint" is too small.
"So Pride marches ...... all help to change opinion by removing ignorance."
No! Not the marches. When the marches start all communication stops. People see the marches as an affront, a challenge and they respond automatically with aggression. This may be contained or masked by other factors - such as legality but it's there, even in the West. The new Russian law, stupid as it is, is a direct consequence of such societal "push back" against a perceived challenge from the gay community.
"Diplomatic pressure does work."
No, it doesn't. Russia just shrugs it off. They know nobody is going to go at war (cold or hot) with them because of a disagreement about anal sex. They know it's a bluff and they will call it.
Overall, I'm afraid, your suggestions exemplify the problems I already tried to outline in my earlier post - LGBT activists need a serious rethink on tactics.
Mentioning Section 28 misses the point. Russia hasn't just put in a law designed to prevent local authorities giving services to LGBT people, it's being used to completely erase any sign of LGBT people from Russian life. It's either get back in the closet and shut up, or we both beat the crap out of you then arrest you for being a victim. You have to go back further than Thatcher for an equivalent situation in the UK.
" God bless russia and Putin for stopping fagotry menace. Other countries should follow."
I'm not sure whether this post was meant to be ironic or not, butt [my phone did that, really] as one of the lavender persuasion I find Putin's publicity photos of him hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and other manly activities, many times shirtless, very revealing.
Are we trying to compensate for something?
.. just go to Google images and put in the two words "putin hunting" and see what you get.
<wanders off with hands in pockets humming the lumberjack song>
Gay people are born to heterosexual parents. Gay people, mostly, do not procreate themselves. That means that being gay is not a genetic trait that can be selected for or against. It is something that happens intrinsically within a species, like gender differentiation (that makes me laugh at the suggestions that being gay is somehow "unnatural" BTW).
If today you kill all gay people in the world, within a generation their numbers will be back to previous levels again. Your Darwin invocation is invalid.
"but that is very clearly genetic (X vs Y chromsome) and can already be selected for...."
It cannot be evolutionary selected for. You can artificially screen for an embryo with a certain combination of genes... or you can wait a bit and shoot the children which come out with a particular configuration of genitals - while the ethics of these methods differ, they both share the distinction of having nothing to do with the evolution.
To the prior posting AC: you contradict yourself in your own post. Even some apparently simple genetic trait (like the ginger hair) cannot be easily eradicated by evolutionary process as too many individuals have the genes present but in a dormant state.
It is practically an established fact now that human sexuality is defined by a combination of genes which are present in many/all heterosexual individuals and which are in addition influenced by pre-natal hormonal exposure in the womb. So, a particular combination of genes may increase the likelihood of a child being born homosexual but not necessarily result in it. In addition, the basics of genetics also strongly suggest that the very same combination of genes that increases the probability of homosexuality confers some advantages to those carriers who remain heterosexual and therefore is preserved by the evolutionary process.
"It cannot be evolutionary selected for. "
Sex CAN be evolutionarily selected for. Humans approach a 1:1 ratio due to evolution (Fisher's principle) and some other animals have different ratios. The point is that sex (like as is claimed for being gay) is determined largely by the genes you start with. In some animals temperature can change the sex ratio for instance so much like gayness, it's not an absolute.
"you contradict yourself in your own post. Even some apparently simple genetic trait (like the ginger hair) cannot be easily eradicated by evolutionary process as too many individuals have the genes present but in a dormant state."
Over time recessive gene mutations like red hair or gene mutations that prevent breeding (like being gay) will gradually reduce in the population unless specifically bred for, or they have an evolutionary advantage. Those "too many individuals" will eventually become not so many - it might take a long time but it will happen.
"So, a particular combination of genes may increase the likelihood of a child being born homosexual but not necessarily result in it"
So as stated, it is primarily genetic and can potentially be filtered for and possibly corrected. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but the principle is still valid.
"In addition, the basics of genetics also strongly suggest that the very same combination of genes that increases the probability of homosexuality confers some advantages to those carriers who remain heterosexual and therefore is preserved by the evolutionary process"
The basis of genetics doesnt suggest that at all. Specific research might indicate it (citation?), but otherwise this is just a random assertion. The suggestion above that gays have historically been forced to conform and breed is far more likely imo - and there is significant historical evidence to support this.
I am getting slightly tired of this. I am not a geneticist, neither are you, but I can see obvious (don't know intended or not) logical flaws in your argument. You can deduce them yourself, I'll just quote from a Wiki article:
Sexual practices that significantly reduce the frequency of heterosexual intercourse also significantly decrease the chances of successful reproduction, and for this reason, they would appear to be maladaptive in an evolutionary context following a simple Darwinian model of natural selection—on the assumption that homosexuality would reduce this frequency. Several theories have been advanced to explain this contradiction, and new experimental evidence has demonstrated their feasibility.
Some scholars have suggested that homosexuality is adaptive in a non-obvious way. By way of analogy, the allele (a particular version of a gene) which causes sickle-cell anemia when two copies are present may also confer resistance to malaria with a lesser form of anemia when one copy is present (this is called heterozygous advantage).
The so-called "gay uncle" hypothesis posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton and Mary Jane West-Eberhard. This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.
Brendan Zietsch of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research proposes the alternative theory that men exhibiting female traits become more attractive to females and are thus more likely to mate, provided the genes involved do not drive them to complete rejection of heterosexuality.
In a 2008 study, its authors stated that "There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency." They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them." and their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.". However, in the same study, the authors noted that "nongenetic alternative explanations cannot be ruled out" as a reason for the heterosexual in the homosexual-heterosexual twin pair having more partners, specifically citing "social pressure on the other twin to act in a more heterosexual way" (and thus seek out a greater number of sexual partners) as an example of one alternative explanation. Also, the authors of the study acknowledge that a large number of sexual partners may not lead to greater reproductive success, specifically noting there is an "absence of evidence relating the number of sexual partners and actual reproductive success,either in the present or in our evolutionary past."
The heterosexual advantage hypothesis was given strong suppprt by the 2004 Italian study demonstrating increased fecundity in the female matrilineal relatives of gay men. As originally pointed out by Hamer, even a modest increase in reproductive capacity in females carrying a "gay gene" could easily account for its maintenance at high levels in the population.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019