A Chance to Open Up Russia?

LoudSilence said:

And I dunno, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, proxy wars, support of Israeli occupation, etc...whatever being "concerned" is, we certainly aren't -- we are instead pretty selective in where we think rights ought to be upheld.



It doesn't make Russia any better or worse than America, though. There are both prejudiced people and sensible people the world over. I dunno why we're comparing them as if America is the standard for everything.

Click to expand...

Well, I mean in terms of how they treat their own citizens (people detained in Guantanamo aren't citizens). I mean, I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to the way we treat the rest of the world, our record is abysmal. But I think the common denominator of what I'm referring to as the civilized world is that they all treat their own people with some semblance of fairness and equality.

The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia's anti-gay laws

OpEd from the Washington Post:

The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia's anti-gay laws

By Ian Ayres and William Eskridge, Published: January 31
Ian Ayres and William Eskridge are law professors at Yale University.


Controversy over a Russian law that prohibits advocacy of homosexuality threatens to overshadow athletic competition at the upcoming Sochi Olympics. Thoughtful world leaders, including President Obama, have criticized Russia for stigmatizing gay identity.

Many of these critics find it hard to believe that in 2014 a modern industrial government would have this kind of medieval language in its statutory code:

• "Materials adopted by a local school board . . . shall . . . comply with state law and state board rules . . . prohibiting instruction . . . in the advocacy of homosexuality."
• "Propaganda of homosexualism among minors is punishable by an administrative fine."
• "No district shall include in its course of study instruction which: 1. Promotes a homosexual life-style. 2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style. 3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex."
• "nstruction relating to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include . . . emphasis, provided in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense."
  

Amid the rush to condemn Russia's legislation, however, it is useful to recognize that only the second quoted provision comes from the Russian statute.

The other three come from statutes in the United States. It is Utah that prohibits "the advocacy of homosexuality." Arizona prohibits portrayals of homosexuality as a "positive alternative life-style" and has legislatively determined that it is inappropriate to even suggest to children that there are "safe methods of homosexual sex." Alabama and Texas mandate that sex-education classes emphasize that homosexuality is "not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public." Moreover, the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that "homosexual conduct is a criminal offense" even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.

Eight U.S. states, and several cities and counties, have some version of what we call "no promo homo" provisions. Before the United States condemns the Russian statute's infringement of free speech and academic freedom, it should recognize that our own republican forms of government have repeatedly given rise to analogous restrictions.

It is no coincidence that these examples focus on what must and must not be said to children. An explanatory note accompanying the 2013 Russian legislation makes clear that the statute seeks to protect children "from the factors that negatively affect their physical, intellectual, mental, spiritual, and moral development." Proponents of the U.S. statutes have offered similar justification. And, like Russian President Vladimir Putin this month, the U.S. laws warn gay people and sympathizers to "leave kids alone, please."

The underlying ideology of these statutes is the same: Everybody should be heterosexual, and homosexuality is per se bad. This ideology has never rested on any kind of evidence that homosexuality is a bad "choice" that the state ought to discourage. The ideology is a prejudice-laden legacy of a fading era. (In fact, the strategy is daffy: Even if homosexuality were a bad lifestyle choice, state laws are not an effective way to head off such a choice.)

Putin has assured the International Olympic Committee that the law is merely symbolic. But in the United States, officially sanctioned anti-gay prejudice has contributed to classroom bullying and to the high level of suicides among gay teens.

The actor and playwright Harvey Fierstein has called on the United States to boycott the Sochi Games because Russia prohibits "propaganda of homosexuality." But recall that in 2002 the United States proudly, and without comment, sent its Olympic athletes to a state — Utah — that prohibits the "advocacy of homosexuality." Maybe Obama ought to send Olympic delegates Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano to Alabama and Texas.

We offer that suggestion somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is an important lesson here. Sometimes the moral failings of others can help us see moral failings in ourselves. It was revulsion toward Nazi Germany's eugenics policy that, in part, caused U.S. legislatures and courts to renounce state sterilization programs. Opposition to South African apartheid and the Soviet Union's totalitarian regime generated greater national pressure for the Eisenhower administration and the Warren court to renounce apartheid in the American South.

Putin's inability to justify this law puts a spotlight on the inability of Utah, Texas, Arizona and other states to justify their gay-stigmatizing statutes. They should be repealed or challenged in court. Just as judges led the way against compulsory sterilization and racial-segregation laws, so they should subject anti-gay laws to critical scrutiny.

As things stand, one could imagine Putin responding to U.S. criticism by saying: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye."

Click to expand...

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

BlahISuck said:

I think there might have been an undercurrent of homophobia throughout Russian society that even the Soviets couldn't root out. I'm nowhere near an expert on Russian society though.

Click to expand...

The USSR didn't exactly try to raise awareness/support for gays. Homosexuality was illegal until the very end in late 90-91, the time by which Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika policies had basically led to open revolution.

Alessi_sys said:

American homophobia gone? Not by a long shot. It's alive and well and government supported, and I dare say, even funded. A number of politicians in the U.S. have even spoken up in support of the Russian law that prohibits "gay propaganda".

Click to expand...

Certainly in many states you could argue that it's both funded and supported, yes. Some states are dramatically more progressive, though. One big obstacle in the United States is getting people to open up their religious beliefs. It may not ever be declared legal at the federal level, though it is currently recognized by the federal government it's from a country or state that recognizes same-sex marriage. In the United States, marriage equality is in the hands of the courts as well as the individual states. It's not considered an enumerated federal responsibility.

The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages. The hypocrisy is from the states themselves, and not the government, as the government is trying to force the acceptance on each state, one by one. Look at Utah and Oklahoma. Their bans were struck down just last month, and the states are fighting against a federal ruling, despite the fact that given the way our government works, they have no grounds to do so. The State must follow Federal rulings and laws, whether they like it or not.

Thus, there is no hypocrisy from the government, just from those kicking and screaming against the inevitable change that the States are doing. And last I checked, homosexuality is not illegal in any state, although there is still discrimination and marriage bans, unlike in Russia.

Beloved said:

And last I checked, homosexuality is not illegal in any state, although there is still discrimination and marriage bans, unlike in Russia.

Click to expand...

That would be true if not for the fact that homosexuality is actually not illegal in Russia, and hasn't been since 1993.

Beloved said:

The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages. The hypocrisy is from the states themselves, and not the government, as the government is trying to force the acceptance on each state, one by one. Look at Utah and Oklahoma. Their bans were struck down just last month, and the states are fighting against a federal ruling, despite the fact that given the way our government works, they have no grounds to do so. The State must follow Federal rulings and laws, whether they like it or not.

Thus, there is no hypocrisy from the government, just from those kicking and screaming against the inevitable change that the States are doing. And last I checked, homosexuality is not illegal in any state, although there is still discrimination and marriage bans, unlike in Russia.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality is indeed illegal in several states, as those laws are still on the books. Texas being a prime example. And as the article even states, in Texas and Alabama it's mandated that children be taught that "homosexual conduct is a criminal offense." The problem is those laws, while still on the books, are unenforceable thanks to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas which decided that those laws are unconstitutional. So your assertion that homosexuality is not illegal in the U.S. is not entirely correct.

Beloved said:

The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages. The hypocrisy is from the states themselves, and not the government, as the government is trying to force the acceptance on each state, one by one. Look at Utah and Oklahoma. Their bans were struck down just last month, and the states are fighting against a federal ruling, despite the fact that given the way our government works, they have no grounds to do so. The State must follow Federal rulings and laws, whether they like it or not.

Thus, there is no hypocrisy from the government, just from those kicking and screaming against the inevitable change that the States are doing. And last I checked, homosexuality is not illegal in any state, although there is still discrimination and marriage bans, unlike in Russia.

Click to expand...

This is basically right on the money. The federal government doesn't really have much power over the states' laws. In most of those places those laws aren't even enforced, because if they are enforced the state would probably be taken to task by the Supreme Court and have them overturned. In other words, those laws are as good as unenforceable.

The United States is kinda weird in that regard...

zomgitscathy said:

This is basically right on the money. The federal government doesn't really have much power over the states' laws. In most of those places those laws aren't even enforced, because if they are enforced the state would probably be taken to task by the Supreme Court and have them overturned. In other words, those laws are as good as unenforceable.

The United States is kinda weird in that regard...

Click to expand...

Never mind the Supreme Court, if ever a state were to attempt to make homosexuality illegal and enforce those laws, they would very quickly be struck down by the district courts (likely in summary judgement) and neither the appeals courts or the supreme court would even accept an appeal by those states. In 2013, in Louisiana, a sheriff there was made to apologize for arresting 12 gay men on sodomy charges when that state's anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable (a link to they story here: http://www.dallasvoice.com/men-arrested-baton-rouge-unconstitutional-sodomy-law-10153800.html).

I do agree that with all the states that still do not recognize same-sex marriage (or same sex-activity, yet another reason why I think Texas is a cesspit of hypocrisy and violations of individual rights) that the United States definitely doesn't have any place officially to criticize Russia's position.

But even so, even though we're being hypocrites about it, that doesn't mean that saying "banning gay marriage is wrong" isn't true.

Unfortunately, lots of things go state by state in the US, including LGBT rights. Personally, I'm hopeful that a domino effect will occur and states will realize being against homosexuality and same-sex marriage is a lost cause (and if it isn't a lost cause, it should be).

America isn't perfect, but we try and eventually get there...sometimes.

Alessi_sys said:

Homosexuality is indeed illegal in several states, as those laws are still on the books. Texas being a prime example. And as the article even states, in Texas and Alabama it's mandated that children be taught that "homosexual conduct is a criminal offense." The problem is those laws, while still on the books, are unenforceable thanks to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas which decided that those laws are unconstitutional. So your assertion that homosexuality is not illegal in the U.S. is not entirely correct.

Click to expand...

You have much to learn. There is a difference between being taught that it is illegal, and it actually BEING illegal. For example, say I go up to someone and teach them that coke tastes just like pepsi. While that person might believe that it is true, that belief does not make it true. Truth is, coke and pepsi taste nothing alike, yet I had told them it had anyway. So just because its mandated that it be taught that homosexuality is illegal does not directly infer that it is in fact illegal, as no such law exists in the United States that says relationships between same-sex couples is illegal, and can be arrested and tried for the crime of homosexuality.

So please, learn to differentiate between what is illegal, and what people tell you is illegal.

You two are about to get into a debate over semantics, so beware. However, Jay made the point that:

your assertion that homosexuality is not illegal in the U.S. is not entirely correct.

Click to expand...

... and I think he has both defined and supported his point well. It was about the fact that homosexuality is still formally illegal in some jurisdictions, even though those laws are unenforceable. I don't think you could make the argument that homosexuality is legal in the United States without qualifying that statement given that:

as no such law exists in the United States that says relationships between same-sex couples is illegal, and can be arrested and tried for the crime of homosexuality.

Click to expand...

...there do exist laws (as Jay had referred to) that prohibit sodomy. Some slap you with a fine, others slap you with a prison sentence. They don't happen to be enforced, but you cannot say that "no such law exists".

source:http://www.bilerico.com/2011/08/18_states_still_have_sodomy_laws_on_the_books.php

Beloved said:

You have much to learn. There is a difference between being taught that it is illegal, and it actually BEING illegal. For example, say I go up to someone and teach them that coke tastes just like pepsi. While that person might believe that it is true, that belief does not make it true. Truth is, coke and pepsi taste nothing alike, yet I had told them it had anyway. So just because its mandated that it be taught that homosexuality is illegal does not directly infer that it is in fact illegal, as no such law exists in the United States that says relationships between same-sex couples is illegal, and can be arrested and tried for the crime of homosexuality.

So please, learn to differentiate between what is illegal, and what people tell you is illegal.

Click to expand...

Condescending much? You skipped right over the part where I remind you that Texas law, as well as law in several other states, says that homosexual acts are illegal. These laws are still on the books. Look it up if you don't believe me. Why do think I later provided a link for a 2013 case in Louisiana where 12 gay men were charged under that state's anti-sodomy laws? To demonstrate to you that those laws still exists and to show that people are still being prosecuted for violating those laws. They cannot be legally enforced, however, because of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas. Which is why the charges against those 12 men were dropped and why the Sheriff was forced to apologize (as pathetic an apology as there ever was). I mentioned the educational mandate only because it reinforces the Texas's already existing anti-sodomy statutes.

Alessi_sys said:

Condescending much? You skipped right over the part where I remind you that Texas law, as well as law in several other states, says that homosexual acts are illegal. These laws are still on the books. Look it up if you don't believe me. Why do think I later provided a link for a 2013 case in Louisiana where 12 gay men were charged under that state's anti-sodomy laws? To demonstrate to you that those laws still exists and to show that people are still being prosecuted for violating those laws. They cannot be legally enforced, however, because of the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v Texas. Which is why the charges against those 12 men were dropped and why the Sheriff was forced to apologize (as pathetic an apology as there ever was). I mentioned the educational mandate only because it reinforces the Texas's already existing anti-sodomy statutes.

Click to expand...

...seriously going with sodomy laws? Allow me to educate you a little bit, okay? Not all homosexuals have anal-sex. Thus, just because anal sex is illegal in some states does not equate the law to making homosexuality illegal. In fact, for the longest time, I didn't want to have anal sex, and preferred other methods. Just because there are two guys in the relationship does not mean that anything enters the backdoor.

And, as I recall, those anti-sodomy laws also apply to heterosexual couples, thus not discriminating against same-sex couples. There is no law in the united states that says, "Any person caught committing an act of homosexuality shall be punished by law." Thus, homosexuality is NOT illegal in the USA, and your entire argument falls short.

And yes, I am being condescending towards you, because you tried to make it sound like you knew for a fact that being homosexual was illegal, despite no such law existing. Learn to do some research before making asinine assumptions like the ones you already have.

Beloved said:

...seriously going with sodomy laws? Allow me to educate you a little bit, okay? Not all homosexuals have anal-sex.

Click to expand...

You do realize you're talking to a gay man here, right? LOL. I think I have a fair idea of what gay men do when they have sex.

Allow me to educate you on sodomy: it is not restricted to anal sex only.

sod•om•y (ˈsɒd ə mi)
n.
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex.
2. enforced anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).

Click to expand...

Beloved said:

Thus, just because anal sex is illegal in some states does not equate the law to making homosexuality illegal.

Click to expand...

As I indicated, sodomy is not restricted to anal sex only. In fact, some would even define it as any act that does not restrict itself to two people of the opposite sex in the missionary position.

Also, because politically homosexuality has been so closely associated with sexual acts, legislators issued sanctions against actions taken by homosexuals. Anti-sodomy laws were the only way, legally at the time, governments could outlaw homosexuality.

Beloved said:

And, as I recall, those anti-sodomy laws also apply to heterosexual couples, thus not discriminating against same-sex couples.

Click to expand...

That point was brought up and rejected during the Lawrence v. Texas case.

Beloved said:

There is no law in the united states that says, "Any person caught committing an act of homosexuality shall be punished by law." Thus, homosexuality is NOT illegal in the USA, and your entire argument falls short.

Click to expand...

I'm not the only one to show you that you're wrong on this. Those laws do exist! They just cannot be legally enforced because of the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Seriously. Look it up. Look up Texas statute, or Louisiana, or any of the 16 other states where anti-sodomy statutes STILL exists and where some STILL attempt to enforce those laws.

Beloved said:

And yes, I am being condescending towards you, because you tried to make it sound like you knew for a fact that being homosexual was illegal, despite no such law existing. Learn to do some research before making asinine assumptions like the ones you already have.

Click to expand...

Since it's proven that you are wrong on this, your condescension is both unwarranted and rude. I will thank you to be more respectful in the future.

Alessi_sys said:

You do realize you're talking to a gay man here, right? LOL. I think I have a fair idea of what gay men do when they have sex.

Allow me to educate you on sodomy: it is not restricted to anal sex only.





As I indicated, sodomy is not restricted to anal sex only. In fact, some would even define it as any act that does not restrict itself to two people of the opposite sex in the missionary position.

Also, because politically homosexuality has been so closely associated with sexual acts, legislators issued sanctions against actions taken by homosexuals. Anti-sodomy laws were the only way, legally at the time, governments could outlaw homosexuality.



That point was brought up and rejected during the Lawrence v. Texas case.



I'm not the only one to show you that you're wrong on this. Those laws do exist! They just cannot be legally enforced because of the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Seriously. Look it up. Look up Texas statute, or Louisiana, or any of the 16 other states where anti-sodomy statutes STILL exists and where some STILL attempt to enforce those laws.



Since it's proven that you are wrong on this, your condescension is both unwarranted and rude. I will thank you to be more respectful in the future.

Click to expand...

If you have a fair idea, then you know that it does not always involve penetration of either mouth or anus. Is mutual masturbation covered under the anti-sodomy laws? Probably not.

And again, just because there are laws outlawing certain acts does not mean that it outlaws an entire sexuality. Plus, the law was invalidated by the Supreme Court, as it was in 13 other states as well. Just because it still is written on paper does not mean it is considered a law anymore. In fact, anyone arrested for sodomy could file a lawsuit because of it.

And since they were using the law to discriminate against a group of people, it violated the Constitution, and could not legally be called a law, since the Constitution does not allow discriminatory laws. Hence why there are some many states legalizing same-sex marriage.

It's naive to separate homo-/sexuality/ from homosexuality. Furthermore, there are sodomy laws that explicit refers to members of the same sex - although, by your logic they wouldn't be targeting the homosexual population as they also mention sex with animals in the same breath. I mean, it sounds like you won't be convinced unless somebody shows you the letter of the law with the term "homosexuality" emblazoned on it. Is "members of the same sex" not enough?

Just because it still is written on paper does not mean it is considered a law anymore.

Click to expand...

Says who?

And since they were using the law to discriminate against a group of people, it violated the Constitution, and could not legally be called a law, since the Constitution does not allow discriminatory laws.

Click to expand...

Well, some of those sodomy laws are still on the books. Am I at fault for referring to them as "laws" illegally?

source: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_35/21-3505.html

BlahISuck said:

It's naive to separate homo-/sexuality/ from homosexuality. Furthermore, there are sodomy laws that explicit refers to members of the same sex - although, by your logic they wouldn't be targeting the homosexual population as they also mention sex with animals in the same breath. I mean, it sounds like you won't be convinced unless somebody shows you the letter of the law with the term "homosexuality" emblazoned on it. Is "members of the same sex" not enough?



Says who?



Well, some of those sodomy laws are still on the books. Am I at fault for referring to them as "laws" illegally?

source: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_35/21-3505.html

Click to expand...

Way to take what I said out of context. Reread the part you asked "Says who?" I clearly state that the law was invalidated, thus it can no longer be considered a law. It was invalidated in 13 other states as well.

So, I still have yet to see any law stating that being gay was a crime. Some of the sex, maybe, but not the sexuality in itself, which is essentially what Russia did with their law, since the term "propaganda" is so broad that they could use it for anything.

So a law ceases to remain a law once it is invalidated? Then my sources must be wrong for referring to these "laws" on the books. You said I couldn't legally call them laws, now you're saying I can't consider them laws, and yet they are still referred to as laws in journalism. To clear up any misunderstanding I went to law.com and found a definition of "law" in the context we're using here:




Those laws-but-not-actually-laws we have been mentioning above are statutes: it took a legislature to sign them in. Is constitutionality part of the definition of what a law is? No, which is why we can call unconstitutional laws "unconstitutional laws". You might not consider them a law, but I do - to the extent that a piece of writing is enacted by a legislature and signed, that piece of writing is law. Let's look at these laws-but-not-actually-laws. Are they statutes? Yes. Were they de-enacted by a legislature, whatever that means? No. Are they un-signed? No. So they're laws. I'll stop calling it a law when it ceases to exist though, then there'd be no statute for me to refer to.

Let's take your point about the non-existence of laws criminalizing homosexuality in the US. How about we take a look at Uganda's recent anti-homosexuality bill:

It defines the offence of homosexuality - in section 2 - as:




Section 3 refers to "aggravated homosexuality" which is a more "serious" version of the acts listed above, section 4 refers to "attempt to commit homosexuality" which is again based on the definition outlined in section 2, section 5 and 6 recognize compensation and confidentiality of victims of these "homosexual acts", section 7 refers to advising others to commit homosexuality, section 8 refers to conspiracy to commit homosexuality, I'm going to skip a few and go to section 13 which refers to what to do in case of somebody promoting homosexuality. The important point here is that all subsequent sections refer to "homosexuality" as it is outlined in section 2.

So even in Uganda homosexuality is legal, as only homosexual acts are prohibited but not the sexuality. But it's true. Even in Ugandan law homosexuality is defined as "same gender or same sex sexual acts". As long as you stay away from associating yourself with "homosexual acts" your sexuality is not being banned under that law.

I don't think I need to say more about the futility of semantic arguments.

---

Fortunately in Russia you can have sexual relations with your partner if you are a man and not be sent to jail for it. Unfortunately, I can be a straight man but fly a rainbow flag and be sent to jail because "homosexuality is criminalized". I don't see how you can equivocate banning publicly-directed expressions of support for homosexuality as banning homosexuality. What would you say of self-hating homosexuals who would never speak publicly about their own sexuality? What would you say of closeted folks? I don't see how their sexuality is banned.

This is what the law actually says (translated in English, I can't speak Russian but I'm going with what the author says):




Not exactly used for anything, however, we generally assume the worst whenever we speak of Russia.

source for uganda bill: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7pFotabJnTmYzFiMWJmY2UtYWYxMi00MDY2LWI4NWYtYTVlOWU1OTEzMzk0/edit?hl=en&pli=1
source for contents of russia law: http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english

While I don't particularly agree with what they're doing, they're not obstructing human rights. They're just trying to avoid bad things to be made normal. Again, I don't agree that homosexuality is wrong (or anything, for that matter, but that's a religosophical debate that I don't want to dip my toes in) but I see where one would come from if they saw it as wrong.

It's like saying "don't make lying seem awesome" should be a law. Not exactly evil and violating-human-rights horrible, but at the same time not a very appropriate secular law. Then again, what are we to say about that? We have laws that effectively prohibit recovery from poverty, healthcare is wacky…not to say we should ignore all these issues, but rather work on them all and not judge one to be worse than the other.