Comments:Russian government homosexuality position leads to NYC Russian vodka boycott
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Manifestus||1||18:29, 8 August 2013|
|This is utterly stupid...||8||18:51, 7 August 2013|
1. Idiotic laws do not give you right to offend a whole country, especially a country which is to be insulted for any western mass media mishearing.
2. Though idiotic, this law does not force to stone gays and lesbians and even does not completely ban homosexuality propaganda, you can mark it with 18+ and show what you want.
3. This law is not Putin's obscurantism, it came up from the civic society and supported by majority of Russian and other peoples in the world (see any unbiased statistics as well as your own society several decades ago). Maybe it is the most democratic law ever adopted in this world's region.
4. I am not agree with this majority, though being heterosexual, I think this law pushes emotions over the common sense. But as a famous Russian poet said, I frankly hate my motherland but I feel sad when a foreigner shares with me this opinion.
1. If you feel stung by this law you should blame not Russian government but Russian people. 2. If you blame Russian people, you are fascist and russophobe and [...imagine the worst insults here...]
So you have no choice besides seeing any country positive, hating your own motherland (if you have enough IQ to do it properly) and let native people struggle for their rights within the cell membrane of the land.
P.S. Supporting the boycott, boycotting it myself, vodka = poison. Drink Russian.
1. Yes they do. A country's laws represent their values, therefore I am allowed to judge a country based on their laws. Thus, if I find their values reprehensible I am given the right to offend them by boycotting. Also, USA, therefore I can offend anyone I wish, first amendment FTW.
2. Makes homosexual relationships illegal, "It could be worse" is not an argument. Btw, their definition of homosexual propaganda consists of anything homosexual.
3. My society several decades ago was several decades ago. Obvious but had to be said. As we now allow minorities and women to vote, clearly our society has advanced. Here's a idea, look up the countries that have antihomosexual laws, then compare that list with countries that have terrible human rights records. Just because a bunch of other places are doing it does NOT make it right or acceptable.
4. Heh, famous poet. You hate your country but loathe foreigners who express disagreement with it's laws. My nation right or wrong is a dangerous idea that tends to lead to bad things.
1. If the Russian people are responsible for these laws, then of course we will blame them, it's their fault. It is not fascist, word makes no sense in this context, perhaps you meant something else. And judging a people based on their actions is the exact opposite of phobic. I do not disagree with them because they are Russian, I disagree with them because they are wrong.
"So you have no choice besides seeing any country positive, hating your own motherland (if you have enough IQ to do it properly) and let native people struggle for their rights within the cell membrane of the land." Interesting statement, hard to understand. You seem to think that we automatically hate other countries. or not, sentence is really confusing. You also think that an intelligent person should hate their own nation, which says a lot about either you or Russia, and should ignore the rest of the world. Well, welcome to the modern age, ignoring the rest of the world fell out of favor after WW2. Tried it then and it ended poorly, Russia doesn't want people to judge them then they should completely sever ties with everyone else. We'll still judge them, but you won't hear about it.
9/11 - Arab terrorists KILLED thousands of innocent civilians. I don't remember any boycott on Arab oil or Arab products. Russia now - says that homosexuals are not allowed to engage in homosexual acts in public (something I highly support, by the way; kiss whomever, eat whatever, or do whatever at home but don't bring it to the public and affect our children!), and now they boycott vodka. Quite childish and dull in a way. A boycott on oil would make more sense since the terrorists actually KILLED our people, not just threatened to arrest people who BREAK THEIR LAW. By the way, Arabs are even more intolerant of homosexuals... And yet, no boycott. This is pretty dull. Also, a tip for the writer - lower the bias. Using conservative resources along with the liberals shows great versatility and enhances the article overall. This is too left-leaning.
Time Magazine and Russia Today are liberal publications?
Also, how the hell does a pair of women kissing affect children?
The Arab world intolerance of homosexuality was mentioned in the article. I do find it strange that you are keen to call Arabs terrorist, claim to share a position with them, imply that two women kissing harms children and claim affinity with the people you call terrorists by highlighting your equally intolerant positions. What does that say about you?
But the quotes used are highly selective. As in, the article is largely liberal.
A pair of women kissing does affect children - if our society values humanity, we should be encouraging our children to mate with people of the opposite sex and NOT the same sex. If we don't want to encourage kids to do something, we don't allow it in public. How does nudity affect children? How does sex affect children? We don't want our kids to imitate such acts and hence they are not allowed in public. Simple as that.
It says that I'm not provincial or bigoted. Although I am hostile to the Arabs, I do believe that their anti-homosexuality policy is quite appropriate. I don't FORCE myself to believe something. Maybe you should open your mind also.
No, the problem is verifable facts tend to have a liberal bias. Your argument against neutrality is you disagree with the premise of the boycott.
No, sorry. That does not effect our children. You are assuming that the view that you share with people happily identify with and call Arab terrorists is the ideal one. You have not made any argument regarding harm for children. Please, come at me with some facts that support harm to children by seeing two women kissing. Facts. Even the opponents of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court couldn't demonstrate any harm in same-sex marriage. There are plenty of studies that actually demonstrate that there is no harm, that children with same-sex parents do as well or better than their peers.
I see: You are a bigot towards Arabs, but you do have something in common. And I do have an open mind. I am not forcing you to boycott anything. I am not forcing you to engage with sex with someone of the same gender. I am not forcing you to be supportive of our children who are gay who come out to you, and telling you to feed, clothe and love them. I am not telling you what news stories you can contribute to Wikinews. The force appears to be on your part, where you are demanding content be written to your specific point of view, that caters to your prejudices and ignores facts to suit your world view.
If you believe the story is non-neutral, I invite (but do not force) you to write a follow up as the protests are ongoing that conforms to what you perceive as a more neutral point of view.
If homosexuality is allowed on the street, why can't I do the following things in public:
- make out with my dog
- make out with a dead body
- eat a dead human in public
- be naked in public
- have sex in public
According to your logic, these (especially the first few) have NO effects on children. So I guess we should allow people to engage in such acts in public?
It's really hard to take your above remark seriously. Are you practicing, illustrating that bigots when left to their own devices will ultimately embody the idiocy of their position?
If heterosexuality is allowed on the street, why can't you have sex with a dead dog in public while eating a sandwich from a corpse you just killed? According to your logic, you can.
Why are you coming at me with the fallacy of the slippery slope? Oh, that's right. Because your reality is an opinion based reality derived from what you believe, not from facts. You have no proof to support the claims you made, so you made something up to try to win. I can see this argument. Let's start with the slippery slope here: All promotion of heterosexual behavior is the problem. No public affection of any kind should be public, be it on the streets or on television. By encouraging heterosexual behavior, we encourage homosexual behavior. This heterosexual behavior will eventually lead you to making out with your dog and eating a dead dog in public.
Now, after that laugh, let's get back to our fact based reality where you still have provided no research that supports your claim of harm to children.
Also, hey, remember in sharing your bigotry: Uninformed people hearing your view that homosexuality is wrong, ungodly and harms children could easily confuse you with those Arab terrorists you don't like. If you don't want to be confused with them, ... well, not sure what to say given the affinity you claim with their message.