Anti-gay 'vote Putin' video goes viral in Russia

[rda]

The current laws are discriminating against polygamy. I support the legalization of polygamy, as do a great number of those who support the legalization of gay marriage.

So you don't see it yet.

You in this thread were saying that there is a horrible, horrible issue in Russian laws because they discriminate against LGBT and this needs an immediate fix, while in fact the laws simply ignore modern nuances of that aspect of human life. You were unwilling to listen to reasoning that ignoring isn't discrimination per se and that you wanting some explicit verbiage included in all laws today (or preferably, yesterday) cannot be taken seriously. Things take time and they develop differently in different places, and that's *fine* unless we have terrible deviations. Now by your own argument and by you saying "yes" to polygamy, all countries discriminate against something important. You just erased your own argument.

And no, that's not whataboutism, that's lack of logic on your side. Your position of "rework your laws right now because I want this position covered" was stupid without the example with polygamy. The example just provided an excellent illustration of it being stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, you assume I'm trying to change his mind... I'm not.

I am not assuming that, I am talking about whoever will read your points, here and elsewhere, if you are talking about the subject in other places.

[Machismo]

So you don't see it yet.

You in this thread were saying that there is a horrible, horrible issue in Russian laws because they discriminate against LGBT and this needs an immediate fix, while in fact the laws simply ignore modern nuances of that aspect of human life. You were unwilling to listen to reasoning that ignoring isn't discrimination per se and that you wanting some explicit verbiage included in all laws today (or preferably, yesterday) cannot be taken seriously. Things take time and they develop differently in different places, and that's *fine* unless we have terrible deviations. Now by your own argument and by you saying "yes" to polygamy, all countries discriminate against something important. You just erased your own argument.

And no, that's not whataboutism, that's lack of logic on your side. Your position of "rework your laws right now because I want this position covered" was stupid without the example with polygamy. The example just provided an excellent illustration of it being stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



I am not assuming that, I am talking about whoever will read your points, here and elsewhere, if you are talking about the subject in other places.

The law in Russia is specifically designed to discriminate against gay people, it's not simply a matter of it being an issue of nuances in life. Legislation is created and designed to fulfill a specific purpose. It's not a loophole, it's a defined function of the law. The law first went into effect in 1995, and has been amended as recently as 2008.

Please show where I say to "rework their laws right now." Once again, I don't expect Russia to change, so that entire line of your argument is absurd. I'm simply pointing out that the law is discriminatory, based on homophobia, and I oppose it. I did the same thing when the religious right in the United States was pushing their laws. The issue with Russia, is that they are not simply working towards the same ends gradually, like the United States did. They are actually regressing, and moving away from being accepting of gay rights. Once again, that is what I'm condemning them for.

You seem to think I'm arguing something I am not. You built that straw man, not me. As for saying that such discrimination is "fine," I disagree. People tried to make that argument about ending slavery in my country, as well. Screw that. Should we do the same about the human rights abuses in many Muslim-dominated countries? Should we simply look the other way, because they just need more "time?"

[Lenonis]

Why exactly gay marriage went ahead of that though?

Because the legal framework for marriage is 1 + 1 = 2. Gender is irrelevant and was irrelevant even before gay marriage was legalized.

We don't have a framework for marriage being 2 + 3 = 5...which beyond the moral discussions is the primary reason why it hasn't been legalized.

[Shalcker]

Because the legal framework for marriage is 1 + 1 = 2. Gender is irrelevant and was irrelevant even before gay marriage was legalized.

Sorry, but legal framework for marriage in Russia is "man + woman", with gender being quite relevant.

Legal frameworks are not universal, you know.

We don't have a framework for marriage being 2 + 3 = 5...which beyond the moral discussions is the primary reason why it hasn't been legalized.

There are plenty of solutions that could be adopted.

Countries where legal framework covers polygamy exist, you could copy from them (just like you ask us to copy from you on gay marriage).

- - - Updated - - -

Because gay people exist across society, and most people that are polygamists are Mormon. So it’s rare, and they don’t really want “equality”, they favor men. At one point in our history polygamy was not banned, it became so after Mormon men got married to multiple child wives.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...mith%27s_wives
And it was one man many women.

My issue is harm; to children, women and men, due to religious pressures. Remove that, and I am 100% fine with polygamy.

Child marriage is still legal in several US states (and was legal in several more quite recently - and in times of Joseph Smith it was probably legal everywhere), it is pretty weird to hold something that is legal and doesn't always gets practised in polygamy as reasoning against it.

That would be like being against gay marriage because theoretically nothing stops gays from getting child brides where it is allowed either.

[Shalcker]

why would they need propaganda lik that anyway?
Putin will rig the election and win, and or have his opposition assassinated.

They are afraid, obviously.
That if apathy about them becomes apparent, they could easily get replaced (violently or through "palace coup") with nobody batting an eye.

[Lenonis]

Sorry, but legal framework for marriage in Russia is "man + woman", with gender being quite relevant.

Legal frameworks are not universal, you know.

sorry. You are going to have to do more than just declare that to be true. You need more than just the law saying "man + woman" for the legal frameworks for a legal contact unifying assets and granting rights to fundamental require one party to have a penis and one to have a vagina. I can guarantee you Russian marriage is not set up like that.

[Shalcker]

sorry. You are going to have to do more than just declare that to be true. You need more than just the law saying "man + woman" for the legal frameworks for a legal contact unifying assets and granting rights to fundamental require one party to have a penis and one to have a vagina. I can guarantee you Russian marriage is not set up like that.

It is writen quite specifically:

I.1.3 of Family Codex:
3. Регулирование семейных отношений осуществляется в соответствии с принципами добровольности брачного союза мужчины и женщины, равенства прав супругов в семье, разрешения внутрисемейных вопросов по взаимному согласию, приоритета семейного воспитания детей, заботы об их благосостоянии и развитии, обеспечения приоритетной защиты прав и интересов несовершеннолетних и нетрудоспособных членов семьи.

The regulation of family relations is carried out in accordance with the principles of the voluntary nature of the marriage of a man and a woman, the equality of the rights of spouses in the family, the resolution of family issues by mutual consent, the priority of family upbringing of children, care for their welfare and development, ensuring priority protection of the rights and interests of minors and disabled family members.

[Warning]

Let's think about this...

Do you support throwing gay people off of roofs, or killing apostates? That's a cultural (society) driven behaviour.

I do not believe in moral/cultural relativism. The left does, the right seems to when its stuff they agree with. To me, things are either "better" in a society, in how much wellbeing they bring, or "worse" in a society, in how much suffering they bring.

Sam Harris had a good explanation of this:

I think Harris' explanation is not a successful refutation of cultural/moral relativism and I'll explain why. When people talk about moral and cultural relativism they often confuse two things: the objective good and the subjective good. His examples begin by noting the difference between a failed state in which people starve, and the one in which people live well fed and in peace. This then leads him to consider the factors that contribute to a well fed and peaceful life and, since those factors can be determined by science he concludes that morality can also be found through science. The flaw in this argument is that the presupposition that a wel fed and peaceful life is an objective good, which it is not. Its a subjective good that, granted, most of the human population on the earth shares, but there is no fundamental objective reason why it is "better".

Similarly there is no objective reason that our culture is better than a completely theocratic one. That doesn't mean you can't state reasons why you would prefer one over the other. For example you might note that democratic societies have a tendency to do better economically, to have fewer murders and other crimes. But the only reason that those facts may lead you to the conclusion that our system is better is a subjective one: you value economic performance and reduced crime rates over the strict adherence to the law of some perceived divine being.

For this reason I think cultural/moral relativism stands, however, that fact should not lead the wrong conclusion that one cannot have subjective preferences or that those preferences are any less valuable because they are subjective rather than objective. It also doesn't deny that ways to successfully implement subjective preferences can be scientifically analyzed and established.

[Machismo]

It is writen quite specifically:

I.1.3 of Family Codex:
3. Регулирование семейных отношений осуществляется в соответствии с принципами добровольности брачного союза мужчины и женщины, равенства прав супругов в семье, разрешения внутрисемейных вопросов по взаимному согласию, приоритета семейного воспитания детей, заботы об их благосостоянии и развитии, обеспечения приоритетной защиты прав и интересов несовершеннолетних и нетрудоспособных членов семьи.

The regulation of family relations is carried out in accordance with the principles of the voluntary nature of the marriage of a man and a woman, the equality of the rights of spouses in the family, the resolution of family issues by mutual consent, the priority of family upbringing of children, care for their welfare and development, ensuring priority protection of the rights and interests of minors and disabled family members.

Once again, you are proving everyone's case for them. This shows that they are choosing to discriminate.

[Lenonis]

The regulation of family relations is carried out in accordance with the principles of the voluntary nature of the marriage of a man and a woman, the equality of the rights of spouses in the family, the resolution of family issues by mutual consent, the priority of family upbringing of children, care for their welfare and development, ensuring priority protection of the rights and interests of minors and disabled family members.

You clearly didn't read what I posted. Since you posted exactly what I said didn't count.

Can we please just cut through the shit you'll post for 10 pages and just agree that the law itself is built up as a 1+1=2 framework and the man + woman part, just like the US, is in place not because of legal necessity because of the functioning of a penis or a vagina but because of the cultural attitude that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Because I'm right about this -- the Russian framework is just like the US. And all it will take is a cultural shift to drive a court ruling or legislative act to just open that up to gay people. There is nothing different about the russian framework of marriage than the US one except Russia is about 20-40 years ago in US attitudes towards the concept.

[Shalcker]

Once again, you are proving everyone's case for them. This shows that they are choosing to discriminate.

Your non-contribution is noted.

[Warning]

If you read his other books he actually makes this more clear.

Heroin feels "good" and if you measure someone's brain while they are on it, you can see that they are experiencing pleasure. But Heroin is not "good" for you.

The "good" can be measured in other ways... like action, and cause and effect.

So asking "In a society, do all actions precipitated by thoughts/ideas, have the same outcome?" The logical answer is no... the person is going to have a "worse" or "better" outcome depending on the action they took, but, how they react to that is subjective.

In theory morality/culture is subjective... in practice, in a society, they are not. People usually respond to oppression and cruelty in a predictable way when taken in aggregate.

This is missing the point of my post unfortunately. What I'm saying is that when you say "heroin is not good for you" that statement has a presupposed notion of what "good" is, and that that notion is not an objective one: it is a subjective one. Its not "good" in your eyes (and mine) because you value a life without the physiological responses to drugs, and the results those responses tend to have on society as a whole. But those are human, and subjective presuppositions and values. The universe is neutral towards our drug habits and survival as a whole, and there is no way to objectively quantify that "good". Therefore the "good" cannot be considered an objective moral standard, it is a subjective one from a human point of view.

This may seem like a semantic exercise but it's to understand the proper interpretation of what cultural/moral relativism is: the rejection of cultural/moral supremacy at the objective level. What Sam Harris is debating is not cultural relativism at the objective level, but at the realization of subjective goals level. I will definitely say that discussion on that level is far more productive, but it is not an adequate refutation of cultural relativism.

[Shalcker]

Can we please just cut through the shit you'll post for 10 pages and just agree that the law itself is built up as a 1+1=2 framework and the man + woman part, just like the US, is in place not because of legal necessity because of the functioning of a penis or a vagina but because of the cultural attitude that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

No, it is because primary goal of family in Russia is children (note them being quite visible in that definition); and at current scientific advancement level that necessitates man and woman (and penis + vagina).

And that's not "cultural" - that is basic "human survival" thing, as primal as it gets.

And extending those particular benefits over gay couples specifically rather then, for example, muslim polygamous traditions, make no sense - in fact it is easier to justify polygamy (as children do happen there).

Because I'm right about this -- the Russian framework is just like the US. And all it will take is a cultural shift to drive a court ruling or legislative act to just open that up to gay people.

And i see people unwilling to do the work required to make it a reality - certainly not a work that could overwhelm existing opposition.

And if no such work happens, no change is going to happen either.

There is nothing different about the russian framework of marriage than the US one except Russia is about 20-40 years ago in US attitudes towards the concept.

In fact Russia decriminalized homosexualism ahead of US in 1993; US only decriminalized it nation-wide in 2003. So you were the backward ones.

[Lenonis]

No, it is because primary goal of family in Russia is children (note them being quite visible in that definition); and at current scientific advancement level that necessitates man and woman (and penis + vagina).

And that's not "cultural" - that is basic "human survival" thing, as primal as it gets.

you are literally posting the exact same arguments from 20 years ago in the US. And yes -- viewing marriage as it relates to children is cultural.

And also a load of crap. Infertile couples can get married. Couples who don't want to have children can get married. Couples past childbearing age can get married.

And legal contracts between two people have nothing to do with basic human survival. That's nonsense.

In fact Russia decriminalized homosexualism ahead of US in 1993; US only decriminalized it nation-wide in 2003. So you were the backward ones.

Oh come on. Seriously? Seriously?

No wonder no one takes you seriously on here. Your arguments are backwards and nonsensical...and seem to really hinge on some semantic technicality that completely ignores the functioning reality. No sane person would look at the day to day life of gay people in Russia and the US and come the to conclusion that US is the backwards one of the two.

[Warning]

There is an objective "Truth" to "heroin" is not "good"... in how it destroys your body... to the agent it is not "objectively" good, because too much of that destroys a society. And if society dies, not to long after so does the species, in relative terms of time. Than this debate is moot...

No, there is an objective truth that heroin destroys your body, but whether that is good or not is a subjective matter. Similarly the survival of society or the existence of this debate are not objective "good things". They are subjective good things from specific viewpoints. You cannot quantify good in any objective sense.

The problem that most people have with cultural relativism is that they believe it leads to "anything goes" or that you can have no preference: a sense of nihilism.
To me that is not necessarily the conclusion at all: values, subjective as they may be MATTER. The only difference is that when I pose and defend my values I do not inject them with a false sense of superiority based on assumed generality or the idea that they hold a truth that exists beyond myself. I will fight for them on a more honest basis: that I simply prefer them over others based on how I think they'll affect my life and happiness.

[Shalcker]

you are literally posting the exact same arguments from 20 years ago in the US. And yes -- viewing marriage as it relates to children is cultural.

A few arguments why it is more important for Russia then US:
1. We sustained significant losses in WW2 that still reverberate to this day (to the tune of 30-50 millions people "not being born"), limiting our economic growth
2. We got ~1.4 trillion China right across the border
3. We are not as attractive as target for immigration as US - we're world second, just behind US, but only due to how seasonal/temporal workers from Central Asia (think of them as US Mexico) count as immigrants, not for permanent residential status.
4. We actually have significantly have more women then men (echo of man dying significantly earlier on average)

Oh come on. Seriously? Seriously?

Just shows that cultures and laws develop at different speeds in different areas.

The fact that you're ahead right now might be temporal; or your might reverse it yourself at some point as reactionary politics set in.

[Elegiac]

A few arguments why it is more important for Russia then US:
1. We sustained significant losses in WW2 that still reverberate to this day (to the tune of 30-50 millions people "not being born"), limiting our economic growth
2. We got ~1.4 trillion China right across the border
3. We are not as attractive as target for immigration as US - we're world second, just behind US, but only due to how seasonal/temporal workers from Central Asia (think of them as US Mexico) count as immigrants, not for permanent residential status.
4. We actually have significantly have more women then men (echo of man dying significantly earlier on average)

Because allowing gay marriage means that straight people would stop having children, apparently.

What sort of hetero nonsense is this?

[Shalcker]

Because allowing gay marriage means that straight people would stop having children, apparently.

It dilutes benefit pool, spreading it across higher number of recipients.

[Elegiac]

It dilutes benefit pool, spreading it across higher number of recipients.

Gay people don't have children, apparently. Lol.

Unless you're restricting marriage to couple that have children then this 'benefits' nonsense is just that, nonsense.

[Felya]

It dilutes benefit pool, spreading it across higher number of recipients.

What benefit is diluted?

- - - Updated - - -

Gay people don't have children, apparently. Lol.

Unless you're restricting marriage to couple that have children then this 'benefits' nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Actually, at least in US, a lot of the benefits you get from a marriage license, you can get by doing a lot of individual paperwork. Create a will, next of kin records, shared custody agreements and all that sort of stuff. A marriage license is largely just cutting a lot of bureaucracy.