Russia's gay community in fear as homophobic attacks increase

[Ulysses G.]

Russia has historically been a very homophobic country.

Pretty much all of them have been until recently. When I was young in America, homosexuality was an official mental disease and being gay was thought of in the same way as pedophilia is today. Gays were hated and thought of as freaks, pure and simple.

It is about time that it was accepted that its cause is mostly biological, although children's environment can have some effect too. It is normal for some people - about 2% of the population - and there is nothing they can do to change. They should be treated like everyone else.

Russia - and every other country - needs to get with the times and stop the bigotry and violence towards gays.

[Yann55]

How twisted the Russian culture has become under ex-KGB Putin. It now embraces its once archenemy Nazi Germany persecution of gays and lesbian. These people were treated as horrifically as were the Jews by the Nazis. As the free world's economic sanctions continue to choke the Russian economy, no doubt ego megamaniac Putin will sacrafice more people's human rights to protect his national unity. Might be a good time for expats in Russia to reconsider their long term stays.

Russia has historically been a very homophobic country. Partly because throughout its history there has never been an understanding of the value of an individual. It has always been some higher rationale that dictated them (and they happily agreed) to be serving the tzar, the communist idea, the Putin's idea of Russian world.... Sad.

I agree with what you say about Russia but frankly, is there a country that does not have a very homophobic history ?

Even when people mention ancient Greece and its supposedly open attitude towards homosexuality, it just shows that they don't know the half of it. In ancient Greece it was OK for older guys to be attracted to young men and vice versa (that in itself is totally mind-puzzling within our modern set of values) but two mature men living together and loving eachother was absolutely taboo.

Men were expected to have a wife in any case, and this 'paedophilia' (which means 'love of the young') was highly ritualised. It also served social and political purposes. Sex was only a part of it, and should not be imagined with a present day perspective. Comparing it with modern day sexuality is akin to comparing ancient wines to present day ones. Same name perhaps, but not at all the same thing.

So what you're pointing at, and quite accurately too in my opinion, is the specific Russian form of homophobia and how it is perversely entwined with their particular form of nationalism as well.

[peterb17]

Not sure it's just Putin- but he has not helped- Russians do seem to have a problem.

Some years ago stayed at a resort in Jomtien ( was brand new then and really a pleasant hotel on the beach) loads of Russians there- walked into the restaurant for breakfast with the boyfriend.

Most conversation stopped and everyone stared- mind you he was rather stunning!

In a way I thought what does it matter, but it did hurt at the time.

We checked out.

[lil fluffy clouds]

It's minority groups in general all around the world being targeted, not just just this one...

Clones are easier to program...

[Benmart]

How this subject even remotely associated with Thailand? and what is new about harassed

homosexuals? some time ThaiVisa just report on frivolous and mundane subjects for no reasons....

Thailand belongs to the world community and perhaps can learn what is going on elsewheres. This also goes for the readership.

[Benmart]

Russia has historically been a very homophobic country.

Pretty much all of them have been until recently. When I was young in America, homosexuality was an official mental disease and being gay was thought of in the same way as pedophilia is today. Gays were hated and thought of as freaks, pure and simple.

It is about time that it was accepted that its cause is mostly biological, although children's environment can have some effect too. It is normal for some people - about 2% of the population - and there is nothing they can do to change. They should be treated like everyone else.

Russia - and every other country - needs to get with the times and stop the bigotry and violence towards gays.

Don't know about gays being hated and thought of as freaks. I remember back in the late 50s when my parents had neighborhood friends that were gays. They baby sat for us kids and we played at their house and yard often. Then again, perhaps my parents weren't part of the general public.

Don't know about 2%. I've never seen a world poll taken on homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality or other "alities". Most data seems to reply on averages and somewhat limited data since a 100% survey seems unlikely, if not impossible.

[ggt]

Try immigrating to the US as a persecuted individual...there are communities in the US that have been overrun by gays...you will be protected there...

[cup-O-coffee]

I disagree with you on every point, hence proving my thesis; this subject cannot be discussed and regrettably will be decided on the streets.

I would dearly love to post exactly what I thought about it all, but then we know what that would result in.

As I said, this is as futile as multiculturalism, and will be decided on the streets.

You post hate speech and you will get the same response. If not from me then from others.

You claim history on your side. Post some evidence. I would respect that and I would debate that respectfully. Your thesis was that societies that accept gay people fail because of those people. I hold firm to the view that this is nonsense but that idea can be debated. The other stuff was and is hate speech and I and an increasing number of others will continue to object and fight against it.

Ball's in your court. To keep on topic, maybe provide evidence of the destruction of Russian society and culture because of the call to respect the diversity of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity? Give me something to respond to and debate.

Otherwise I welcome your silence. That was my objective in my post and entirely drove the tone of my remarks.

I do not post hate speech and I get the same response, if not from you then from like minded people. True.

I did not claim history on my side, so you are wrong there.. What side are you referring to? You did not say, so you are being vague there. Which evidence do you want me to post? You did not specify, so you are vague there. Which point would you like that evidence to support? You did not specify that either, and thus are being vague again.

My thesis is that I can only imply the situation as I see it, but that which cannot be termed in the literal and strict sense of what it truly is. If you want a truthful debate or discussion, it is like writing up a contractual agreement, and before that can be undertaken, the terms and wordings have to be agreed upon equally by both. I cannot agree to debarte with you using your quaint terms and newly fashioned lexicon to mitigate what disgusts me.

This cannot be done, simply because you want to use words like "gay" and "homophobic" and "homosexual". These terms did not exist yet have been created specifically by like minded people such as yourself. They are not even words that make sense when literally broken down and their Latin meanings explained.

Your interpretation of hate speech is in err, and you and an increasing number of others may continue to fight and object to it all you want. It will get you nowhere but closer to the same kind of lash back that multiculturalism is causing.

You say all these things about me, and I represent the majority, yet I also say the same things about you and you represent a very small minority backed by Big Brother and Big Media. You have an agenda. I do not want that agenda forced upon my will, or the will of my children. In many respects, your agenda is very much like multiculturalism with regards to the way it overcomes a society; its traditions, values, culture, etc. It overcomes those valued things and pushes them aside with no regard or respect. Think about that.

The ball is not in my court because the only court made available to me is your carefully constructed court, which is made up of meaningless terminologies to mitigate the truths of what is said and done and what is intended upon achieving; ...this court, that you have constructed and rigged to make the ball go where you want it to go, and I'll be lucky to get out alive once I enter.

The point is, there is no nice way to say it, for those who oppose this issue, and even if there were (as I endeavored heavily to do originally) one is still met with defiance. Thus, the answer to your debate will be like the answer to multiculturalism and be made in the streets.

Basically, people do not want to argue with you, or even debate with you, because arguing is baseless, and no one wants to debate using your terminology and quaint little metaphors to mask the disgust that they feel in doing so... and you can't handle that...

I do not have to prove anything to you. Respect my traditions, my values and my beliefs. Do not infringe upon them. Do not force the will of my children. Do not make laws that criminalize my age old traditions, values, etc etc. Do not do those things and I could care less what you do in the mean time.

...So? Are you still intent upon "multiculturalizing" my views and force your will upon me and my progenitors, and willing to stoop to any means to do so, without any consideration for my traditions, my culture, my values, etc.? Are you still intent upon forcing your will upon me and to ridicule and insult and accuse and harass and seek incarceration of me and my progenitors for my traditions, my culture, my values, etc.?

I thought so.

The streets it will be then.

[cup-O-coffee]

Regrettably, I feel that the inability for both sides of this issue to openly discuss with each other their views has brought this on. There really is no place where this issue can be discussed on an open forum without voices from both sides being raised in anger and hatred.

Sadly, this issue has always been relegated to only being discussed on forums that are either for, or against. There is no "middle place" where this can be discussed. It is almost as if the mere desire to openly discuss all views is anathema to the solution, ...if there is a solution. I do not think there is a solution. I think it is as futile as multiculturalism.

There are some things in history that happen once and cause change, and that change sticks. There are other things in history which continue which to come back at intervals and cause more harm than good, and do not stick.

If we look at history, this issue has been going on for a very very long time, and keeps coming back, and keeps getting put down. Each subsequent endeavor to get this issue to the top of everyone's consciousness and to make it acceptable in people's minds has failed, yet each subsequent time the ones pushing this issue feel they can do it better and do it right. Each time it fails miserably or horribly.

I wonder why that is. The trouble with my curiosity is that no one is allowed to discuss it unless one submits to either one view or another view. There is no tolerance to having one's own view, or even expressing it in literal terms. One must simply submit to black or white, or be frustrated with being booted out the back door by both sides.

And there is the rub, simply because to accept this means to change the face of human history, and to not accept it is to hold the course of the majority and continue with the repetition.

But in lightly touching upon the facts of history, one notices that whenever this view has reached any appreciable level of acceptance in society, that that society underwent changes that other societies in those time periods emphatically rejected. What I am saying (not suggesting) is that when the idea formed into a behavior, and that behavior was adopted by an entire society, that that is as far as it ever got right at the moment ...just before it came crashing down, and history shows that it came crashing down from within; ...not from resistance to these views, not from bigotry, or from any opposition. It crashed down from what is a highly debated topic of indulgence and overindulgence. The facts speak for themselves.

Thus, there are indeed examples of societies throughout history where this view dominated a society, and there was no resistance from within going on at the time that that society failed, and failed miserably, ...from within This has happened time and time again.

So, I guess, until such a time as a new view can be expressed in such a fashion to demonstrate why it is not anathema to an old idea, and until such a new view can be demonstrated as to why it is beneficial and conducive to an old idea, and moreover in a fashion that is respectful to old ideas and not a threat or attack on those ideas, well ...then that new idea (or old idea rehashed and painted with a different coat of paint) will continue to fail miserably time and time again.

I am not saying it is wrong to try... even again and again. What I am suggesting is that the burden of responsibility should fall on those who want to change the natural course of history with a behavior that never seems to be accepted, and whenever it is accepted, it comes crashing down from within, and within a very short time period.

Just my take on the situation.

What a load of bunkum your diatribe is! You obviously have unresolved issues about your own sexuality........you certainly dislike gay people but recognise it in your own persona and attempt to deny and cover it with this very long fulmination just like so many gay bashers do their with their violence. Your violence is verbal, probably because you are such a pathetic weakling that you cannot raise a clenched fist.

Exactly. The streets it will be then.

[cup-O-coffee]

Regrettably, I feel that the inability for both sides of this issue to openly discuss with each other their views has brought this on. There really is no place where this issue can be discussed on an open forum without voices from both sides being raised in anger and hatred.

Sadly, this issue has always been relegated to only being discussed on forums that are either for, or against. There is no "middle place" where this can be discussed. It is almost as if the mere desire to openly discuss all views is anathema to the solution, ...if there is a solution. I do not think there is a solution. I think it is as futile as multiculturalism.

There are some things in history that happen once and cause change, and that change sticks. There are other things in history which continue which to come back at intervals and cause more harm than good, and do not stick.

If we look at history, this issue has been going on for a very very long time, and keeps coming back, and keeps getting put down. Each subsequent endeavor to get this issue to the top of everyone's consciousness and to make it acceptable in people's minds has failed, yet each subsequent time the ones pushing this issue feel they can do it better and do it right. Each time it fails miserably or horribly.

I wonder why that is. The trouble with my curiosity is that no one is allowed to discuss it unless one submits to either one view or another view. There is no tolerance to having one's own view, or even expressing it in literal terms. One must simply submit to black or white, or be frustrated with being booted out the back door by both sides.

And there is the rub, simply because to accept this means to change the face of human history, and to not accept it is to hold the course of the majority and continue with the repetition.

But in lightly touching upon the facts of history, one notices that whenever this view has reached any appreciable level of acceptance in society, that that society underwent changes that other societies in those time periods emphatically rejected. What I am saying (not suggesting) is that when the idea formed into a behavior, and that behavior was adopted by an entire society, that that is as far as it ever got right at the moment ...just before it came crashing down, and history shows that it came crashing down from within; ...not from resistance to these views, not from bigotry, or from any opposition. It crashed down from what is a highly debated topic of indulgence and overindulgence. The facts speak for themselves.

Thus, there are indeed examples of societies throughout history where this view dominated a society, and there was no resistance from within going on at the time that that society failed, and failed miserably, ...from within This has happened time and time again.

So, I guess, until such a time as a new view can be expressed in such a fashion to demonstrate why it is not anathema to an old idea, and until such a new view can be demonstrated as to why it is beneficial and conducive to an old idea, and moreover in a fashion that is respectful to old ideas and not a threat or attack on those ideas, well ...then that new idea (or old idea rehashed and painted with a different coat of paint) will continue to fail miserably time and time again.

I am not saying it is wrong to try... even again and again. What I am suggesting is that the burden of responsibility should fall on those who want to change the natural course of history with a behavior that never seems to be accepted, and whenever it is accepted, it comes crashing down from within, and within a very short time period.

Just my take on the situation.

This is a really long and confusing post. Are you for or against violent discriminatory acts against minorities?

That is a very very good question. You stumped me there. As I look into my heart, it tells me that violence occurs for a reason or reasons.

Changing the rules and labeling people and things makes it difficult to make an honest and legitimate assessment of the issue.

Is it really discriminating, and if it is, then is that really bad or good? You cannot make the rules on another persons assessment of it. Everyone has a right to choose, yes?

But when wills are forced upon other wills, then it does not matter what I think is right or wrong, because violence is nothing more than the consequences of going too far. One side provoked it and the other side reacted to it.

I would prefer that violence not be the outcome, but when there is no room for discussion, and the system is rigged, then intelligent people are not going to simply lie down and roll over.

Edited December 16, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[FritsSikkink]

I disagree with you on every point, hence proving my thesis; this subject cannot be discussed and regrettably will be decided on the streets.

I would dearly love to post exactly what I thought about it all, but then we know what that would result in.

As I said, this is as futile as multiculturalism, and will be decided on the streets.

You post hate speech and you will get the same response. If not from me then from others.

You claim history on your side. Post some evidence. I would respect that and I would debate that respectfully. Your thesis was that societies that accept gay people fail because of those people. I hold firm to the view that this is nonsense but that idea can be debated. The other stuff was and is hate speech and I and an increasing number of others will continue to object and fight against it.

Ball's in your court. To keep on topic, maybe provide evidence of the destruction of Russian society and culture because of the call to respect the diversity of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity? Give me something to respond to and debate.

Otherwise I welcome your silence. That was my objective in my post and entirely drove the tone of my remarks.

I do not post hate speech and I get the same response, if not from you then from like minded people. True.

I did not claim history on my side, so you are wrong there.. What side are you referring to? You did not say, so you are being vague there. Which evidence do you want me to post? You did not specify, so you are vague there. Which point would you like that evidence to support? You did not specify that either, and thus are being vague again.

My thesis is that I can only imply the situation as I see it, but that which cannot be termed in the literal and strict sense of what it truly is. If you want a truthful debate or discussion, it is like writing up a contractual agreement, and before that can be undertaken, the terms and wordings have to be agreed upon equally by both. I cannot agree to debarte with you using your quaint terms and newly fashioned lexicon to mitigate what disgusts me.

This cannot be done, simply because you want to use words like "gay" and "homophobic" and "homosexual". These terms did not exist yet have been created specifically by like minded people such as yourself. They are not even words that make sense when literally broken down and their Latin meanings explained.

Your interpretation of hate speech is in err, and you and an increasing number of others may continue to fight and object to it all you want. It will get you nowhere but closer to the same kind of lash back that multiculturalism is causing.

You say all these things about me, and I represent the majority, yet I also say the same things about you and you represent a very small minority backed by Big Brother and Big Media. You have an agenda. I do not want that agenda forced upon my will, or the will of my children. In many respects, your agenda is very much like multiculturalism with regards to the way it overcomes a society; its traditions, values, culture, etc. It overcomes those valued things and pushes them aside with no regard or respect. Think about that.

The ball is not in my court because the only court made available to me is your carefully constructed court, which is made up of meaningless terminologies to mitigate the truths of what is said and done and what is intended upon achieving; ...this court, that you have constructed and rigged to make the ball go where you want it to go, and I'll be lucky to get out alive once I enter.

The point is, there is no nice way to say it, for those who oppose this issue, and even if there were (as I endeavored heavily to do originally) one is still met with defiance. Thus, the answer to your debate will be like the answer to multiculturalism and be made in the streets.

Basically, people do not want to argue with you, or even debate with you, because arguing is baseless, and no one wants to debate using your terminology and quaint little metaphors to mask the disgust that they feel in doing so... and you can't handle that...

I do not have to prove anything to you. Respect my traditions, my values and my beliefs. Do not infringe upon them. Do not force the will of my children. Do not make laws that criminalize my age old traditions, values, etc etc. Do not do those things and I could care less what you do in the mean time.

...So? Are you still intent upon "multiculturalizing" my views and force your will upon me and my progenitors, and willing to stoop to any means to do so, without any consideration for my traditions, my culture, my values, etc.? Are you still intent upon forcing your will upon me and to ridicule and insult and accuse and harass and seek incarceration of me and my progenitors for my traditions, my culture, my values, etc.?

I thought so.

The streets it will be then.

It is good to see that there are children that use their brains better than yours:

https://twitter.com/pinknews/status/544580787828715520/photo/1

[FritsSikkink]

Regrettably, I feel that the inability for both sides of this issue to openly discuss with each other their views has brought this on. There really is no place where this issue can be discussed on an open forum without voices from both sides being raised in anger and hatred.

Sadly, this issue has always been relegated to only being discussed on forums that are either for, or against. There is no "middle place" where this can be discussed. It is almost as if the mere desire to openly discuss all views is anathema to the solution, ...if there is a solution. I do not think there is a solution. I think it is as futile as multiculturalism.

There are some things in history that happen once and cause change, and that change sticks. There are other things in history which continue which to come back at intervals and cause more harm than good, and do not stick.

If we look at history, this issue has been going on for a very very long time, and keeps coming back, and keeps getting put down. Each subsequent endeavor to get this issue to the top of everyone's consciousness and to make it acceptable in people's minds has failed, yet each subsequent time the ones pushing this issue feel they can do it better and do it right. Each time it fails miserably or horribly.

I wonder why that is. The trouble with my curiosity is that no one is allowed to discuss it unless one submits to either one view or another view. There is no tolerance to having one's own view, or even expressing it in literal terms. One must simply submit to black or white, or be frustrated with being booted out the back door by both sides.

And there is the rub, simply because to accept this means to change the face of human history, and to not accept it is to hold the course of the majority and continue with the repetition.

But in lightly touching upon the facts of history, one notices that whenever this view has reached any appreciable level of acceptance in society, that that society underwent changes that other societies in those time periods emphatically rejected. What I am saying (not suggesting) is that when the idea formed into a behavior, and that behavior was adopted by an entire society, that that is as far as it ever got right at the moment ...just before it came crashing down, and history shows that it came crashing down from within; ...not from resistance to these views, not from bigotry, or from any opposition. It crashed down from what is a highly debated topic of indulgence and overindulgence. The facts speak for themselves.

Thus, there are indeed examples of societies throughout history where this view dominated a society, and there was no resistance from within going on at the time that that society failed, and failed miserably, ...from within This has happened time and time again.

So, I guess, until such a time as a new view can be expressed in such a fashion to demonstrate why it is not anathema to an old idea, and until such a new view can be demonstrated as to why it is beneficial and conducive to an old idea, and moreover in a fashion that is respectful to old ideas and not a threat or attack on those ideas, well ...then that new idea (or old idea rehashed and painted with a different coat of paint) will continue to fail miserably time and time again.

I am not saying it is wrong to try... even again and again. What I am suggesting is that the burden of responsibility should fall on those who want to change the natural course of history with a behavior that never seems to be accepted, and whenever it is accepted, it comes crashing down from within, and within a very short time period.

Just my take on the situation.

This is a really long and confusing post. Are you for or against violent discriminatory acts against minorities?

That is a very very good question. You stumped me there. As I look into my heart, it tells me that violence occurs for a reason or reasons.

Changing the rules and labeling people and things makes it difficult to make an honest and legitimate assessment of the issue.

Is it really discriminating, and if it is, then is that really bad or good? You cannot make the rules on another persons assessment of it. Everyone has a right to choose, yes?

But when wills are forced upon other wills, then it does not matter what I think is right or wrong, because violence is nothing more than the consequences of going too far. One side provoked it and the other side reacted to it.

I would prefer that violence not be the outcome, but when there is no room for discussion, and the system is rigged, then intelligent people are not going to simply lie down and roll over.

Intelligent people don't react with violence.

[Tep]

I disagree with you on every point, hence proving my thesis; this subject cannot be discussed and regrettably will be decided on the streets.

I would dearly love to post exactly what I thought about it all, but then we know what that would result in.

As I said, this is as futile as multiculturalism, and will be decided on the streets.

You post hate speech and you will get the same response. If not from me then from others.

You claim history on your side. Post some evidence. I would respect that and I would debate that respectfully. Your thesis was that societies that accept gay people fail because of those people. I hold firm to the view that this is nonsense but that idea can be debated. The other stuff was and is hate speech and I and an increasing number of others will continue to object and fight against it.

Ball's in your court. To keep on topic, maybe provide evidence of the destruction of Russian society and culture because of the call to respect the diversity of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity? Give me something to respond to and debate.

Otherwise I welcome your silence. That was my objective in my post and entirely drove the tone of my remarks.

I do not post hate speech and I get the same response, if not from you then from like minded people. True.

I did not claim history on my side, so you are wrong there.. What side are you referring to? You did not say, so you are being vague there. Which evidence do you want me to post? You did not specify, so you are vague there. Which point would you like that evidence to support? You did not specify that either, and thus are being vague again.

My thesis is that I can only imply the situation as I see it, but that which cannot be termed in the literal and strict sense of what it truly is. If you want a truthful debate or discussion, it is like writing up a contractual agreement, and before that can be undertaken, the terms and wordings have to be agreed upon equally by both. I cannot agree to debarte with you using your quaint terms and newly fashioned lexicon to mitigate what disgusts me.

This cannot be done, simply because you want to use words like "gay" and "homophobic" and "homosexual". These terms did not exist yet have been created specifically by like minded people such as yourself. They are not even words that make sense when literally broken down and their Latin meanings explained.

Your interpretation of hate speech is in err, and you and an increasing number of others may continue to fight and object to it all you want. It will get you nowhere but closer to the same kind of lash back that multiculturalism is causing.

You say all these things about me, and I represent the majority, yet I also say the same things about you and you represent a very small minority backed by Big Brother and Big Media. You have an agenda. I do not want that agenda forced upon my will, or the will of my children. In many respects, your agenda is very much like multiculturalism with regards to the way it overcomes a society; its traditions, values, culture, etc. It overcomes those valued things and pushes them aside with no regard or respect. Think about that.

The ball is not in my court because the only court made available to me is your carefully constructed court, which is made up of meaningless terminologies to mitigate the truths of what is said and done and what is intended upon achieving; ...this court, that you have constructed and rigged to make the ball go where you want it to go, and I'll be lucky to get out alive once I enter.

The point is, there is no nice way to say it, for those who oppose this issue, and even if there were (as I endeavored heavily to do originally) one is still met with defiance. Thus, the answer to your debate will be like the answer to multiculturalism and be made in the streets.

Basically, people do not want to argue with you, or even debate with you, because arguing is baseless, and no one wants to debate using your terminology and quaint little metaphors to mask the disgust that they feel in doing so... and you can't handle that...

I do not have to prove anything to you. Respect my traditions, my values and my beliefs. Do not infringe upon them. Do not force the will of my children. Do not make laws that criminalize my age old traditions, values, etc etc. Do not do those things and I could care less what you do in the mean time.

...So? Are you still intent upon "multiculturalizing" my views and force your will upon me and my progenitors, and willing to stoop to any means to do so, without any consideration for my traditions, my culture, my values, etc.? Are you still intent upon forcing your will upon me and to ridicule and insult and accuse and harass and seek incarceration of me and my progenitors for my traditions, my culture, my values, etc.?

I thought so.

The streets it will be then.

I love it. Who knew there were people like you in the world? This is jaw-droopingly insane. It is fantastic. So fantastic that there can be no hope of adequately responding. Almost.

Ok, to summarise for those who don't have the time to waste wading through your turgid, reams and acres of verbiage, some words of which are surprisingly, accurate. You hate gays. You won't debate me. You insist I not tell you what to do. Then we are going out on some street together. Right?

My responses:

I challenged you to cite an incident in history where a culture's acceptance of gay people resulted in that culture's destruction. Simple task. You made this claim albeit in a far wordier manner. But that is what you said. I asked and ask you to cite an example. This is called debate. It is what mature, intelligent people do. This is clearly a problem for you and your post indicates. So forget about it. Don't bother. I know, you know and the entire world knows that your statement is nonsense and you would never be able to cite any instance of this ever happening in history.

My 2nd response is that nowhere in your entire mess of jumbled ideas and expressions did you link to the topic. So again, we should not keep this up. The moderator has already indicated that posts should relate to the topic. So we won't continue this exchange.

My 3rd response is that you go to great pains to say that you won't debate me but you create this entire fantasy exchange between us and conclude it with some statement about how you would resist to the death my attempts to force my views on your genitals. Sorry! Cheap pun. You said progenitors. The ultimate conclusion of which would be some epic battle on the streets. Thank you for the moment of stunned amusement you have given me.

My 4th response is with regard to your comment on words. You are so mistaken and off the mark with this one. The LGBT community has learned from the African American experience. They knew about the power of words. They engineered the concept of 'Black is Beautiful' and they took back the most horrendous, insulting word of power from the former 'overlords'. You try and say the 'n' word anywhere and you will be made dead. The LGBT community now control words and control their meaning and definition. You have no power over this. You can shake your bony fists at the sky all you want but LGBT people will not allow people to define them any more and more power to them. Welcome to the era of identify politics. The levers of power are changing and the old ways that you are holding so dear are going fast and you are being left behind.

My last response is identical to my former response to you when you posted your hate speech against gays on the thread of the gay UK man arrested in some country for being gay. I told you then and I tell you know that you are officially in the minority. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

An April 2014 Public Religion Research Institute poll sponsored by the Ford Foundation found that 55% of all Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 39% were opposed

Your claim to be in the majority is false. The figures for support for marriage equality and by inference gay and lesbian rights will increase globally. it is a phenomenon. It is called the new generation. I pointed this out to you months ago. Time has passed you by. You are now the minority. I further said that I look forward to the time when legislation is passed that punishes speech such as yours. Hate speech legislation is already passed in the UK. Hate crime legislation is already passed in many states in the US. Society it telling you to pull your head in. Follow its advice or face the consequences.

i would love to see what you create next. I am sorry that I can no longer look to any serious discussion with you given the posts you have made and that anyway, all this would soon be ruled off topic. I originally thought I was trying to defend equality and human rights against hate speech but seeing what you write shows me that very few people would ever take you seriously. There is no need to recognise your existence any further.

[StasD]

there were found some 15 yo girls. it is illegal in Russia. dura lex, sed lex

[Jingthing]

there were found some 15 yo girls. it is illegal in Russia. dura lex, sed lex

Whatever that was, um, thanks for sharing ...

[sustento]

Try immigrating to the US as a persecuted individual...there are communities in the US that have been overrun by gays...you will be protected there...

Can you name one of these communities that have been 'overrun by gays' in the US please?

[ggt]

Try immigrating to the US as a persecuted individual...there are communities in the US that have been overrun by gays...you will be protected there...

Can you name one of these communities that have been 'overrun by gays' in the US please?

If you will send me a personal message I will try to help you contact the gay community there...

[sustento]

Try immigrating to the US as a persecuted individual...there are communities in the US that have been overrun by gays...you will be protected there...

Can you name one of these communities that have been 'overrun by gays' in the US please?

If you will send me a personal message I will try to help you contact the gay community there...

You misunderstand me. I don't want to contact anyone. I just wondered if you could provide an example of a community in the US that has been 'overrun by gays' to back up your post.

[alex8912]

Okay

1 manhatten

2 San francisco

3 most of boston

4 West Hollywood

5 Boystown Chicago

Oh you like the beach?

1 Provincetowm Massachusetts

2 Rehoboth Beach Delaware

3 Miami South Beach

[Jingthing]

Okay

1 manhatten

2 San francisco

3 most of boston

4 West Hollywood

5 Boystown Chicago

Oh you like the beach?

1 Provincetowm Massachusetts

2 Rehoboth Beach Delaware

3 Miami South Beach

Your list is massively misleading.

Of large cities, San Francisco has the highest percentage of gays.

About FIFTEEN percent.

Those other big cities you mention, Boston, Manhattan MUCH LESS.

Does that sound overrun to anybody rational?

Now if you're talking about small "gay ghetto" type enclaves, then some small areas are higher than that.

There does not exist even one large U.S. city that is in any way imaginable "overrun" with gays.

[sustento]

Okay

1 manhatten

2 San francisco

3 most of boston

4 West Hollywood

5 Boystown Chicago

Oh you like the beach?

1 Provincetowm Massachusetts

2 Rehoboth Beach Delaware

3 Miami South Beach

According to wiki the following are the demographics of the homosexual population of the USA. The area with the highest gay population seems to be the District of Columbia where the gay population is estimated to be around 10%. The area with the lowest gay population is North Dakota with around 1.7%

When I was at school 'overrrun by xxx' implied that xxx had completely swamped the local population. 10% at a maximum hardly fits that criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

[alex8912]

Overrun to me means a lot. When you hear about stats on gay people as a percentage of the overall population 5 to 10% comes up constantly but I think it's a bit high. I know google is your friend but San Fran has waaaay more than 15.4%. How does one take this poll anyways? My post is also a bit in fun and with the number of your posts you have you should have recognized this. But really have you been to Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen or Boston's south end even semi recently? Provincetown is over 50% and in mid summer way over that. If you read anything negative in my list you are wrong. These are beautiful areas where I would love to live. The ggt guys mentioned places a gay would be protected. Gays in Boston or manhatten do not have to live in a gay ghetto. There are welcomed everywhere and in some neighborhoods they buy the run down house fix it up have a neighborhood barbecue all the straight neighbors love them and have them baby sit their children then the children call them uncle or auntie etc. it's awesome and it happened in my neighborhood. My point is that in my list are places that have tons of gay people and are places where anyone can feel safe to live. I have other suggestions as well. Come on JT. don't read into this so seriously!!!

[Choctastic]

I love it. Who knew there were people like you in the world? This is jaw-droopingly insane. It is fantastic. So fantastic that there can be no hope of adequately responding.

So fantastic most of Russia, who haven't been subjected to decades of conditioning, agree with him.

You hate gays.

Your post is littered with the word 'hate'. Such language undermines your cause and marks you out as an extremist. Try not to judge everyone so harshly. I don't believe he hates gays, nor do most reasonable people. I do object to those who force their lifestyle on others, target the vulnerable or are overly 'camp'. Such behaviour is not 'natural' but contrived. By all means seek acceptance. But militant homosexuals and political subversives won't let up until every youngster is converted. Then their troubled souls can rest. Yes, there is hatred. From 'heterophobic' agitators reeking of intolerance.

quote] You try and say the 'n' word anywhere and you will be made dead. I hear it all the time in music videos. Do you have an example of someone who has been made 'dead'?

The LGBT community now control words and control their meaning and definition. You have no power over this.

Power and control. Well done for confirming his point. Force is used to achieve conformity. If a cause was righteous, force would not be necessary.

quote]Your claim to be in the majority is false. The figures for support for marriage equality and by inference gay and lesbian rights will increase globally. Tell that to the Russians. When you smear dissent as 'hate speech', polls are meaningless.

I was trying to defend equality and human rights against hate speech but seeing what you write shows me that very few people would ever take you seriously. There is no need to recognise your existence any further.

You are a troubled man.

[Ulysses G.]

Overrun to me means a lot. When you hear about stats on gay people as a percentage of the overall population 5 to 10% comes up constantly but I think it's a bit high.

It is VERY high. The gay community used to exaggerate their numbers for political power - which is why so many people are confused - but most now admit that it is actually around 2%.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

[ggt]

Try immigrating to the US as a persecuted individual...there are communities in the US that have been overrun by gays...you will be protected there...

Can you name one of these communities that have been 'overrun by gays' in the US please?

If you will send me a personal message I will try to help you contact the gay community there...

You misunderstand me. I don't want to contact anyone. I just wondered if you could provide an example of a community in the US that has been 'overrun by gays' to back up your post.

This list was put together by the gay community...

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=which+US+cities+have+the+hightest+gay+population

[Tep]

The LGBT community now control words and control their meaning and definition. You have no power over this.

Power and control. Well done for confirming his point. Force is used to achieve conformity. If a cause was righteous, force would not be necessary.

quote]Your claim to be in the majority is false. The figures for support for marriage equality and by inference gay and lesbian rights will increase globally.

Tell that to the Russians. When you smear dissent as 'hate speech', polls are meaningless.

I was trying to defend equality and human rights against hate speech but seeing what you write shows me that very few people would ever take you seriously. There is no need to recognise your existence any further.

You are a troubled man.

I had started to take your commentary seriously until I came across the trigger words that demonstrate this is just more hate speech bound up in claims of reasonableness and concern. It is called hate speech for a reason. Using that term undermines nothing. It exposes people like the poster and yourself for what you are. That is my cause. Nothing more. Others may want to debate and change minds. I just want to call out homophobes and bigots for what you are. You don't know the trigger words? Understandable. Ask a reasonable person to explain them to you. Then stop using them. Then I might consider debating you.

You do not dissent. You perpetuate ignorance and intolerance. Throw all the passive aggressive insults you want. Until people like you learn to keep your unacceptable learned behaviours to yourselves, I will continue to call you out. More and more people do what I do. There will come a point where you and your lot will no longer be able to spread your hate in public. I look forward to that day.

[Choctastic]

Until people like you learn to keep your unacceptable learned behaviours to yourselves, I will continue to call you out. More and more people do what I do. There will come a point where you and your lot will no longer be able to spread your hate in public. I look forward to that day.

Stop being a drama queen. It's hard to take you seriously.

[Tep]

Overrun to me means a lot. When you hear about stats on gay people as a percentage of the overall population 5 to 10% comes up constantly but I think it's a bit high.

It is VERY high. The gay community used to exaggerate their numbers for political power - which is why so many people are confused - but most now admit that it is actually around 2%.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

Identity Politics is an interest of mine. I did some work on this as part of some post grad stuff I did recently. I was welded to the traditional left/right view of politics and quite unprepared for new generational thinking. I started work on policy issues for the Thai government around the time of the emergence of the anti-globalisation movement in the late 90's. I also have to support LGBT issues as a condition of my license as a liberal. it is expected.

I agree with your assessment about the political use of the numbers game but I think it may be premature to try and put numbers on things at this stage. With the LGBT community clearly active in identity politics to great success in things like marriage equality and the ongoing public coming out of older generation people, I think the numbers are very fluid. Also literature on LGBT issues seems to be still grappling with definition issues. There is a lot of talking about self-identification because I think that existing categories and boxes are not adequate. Didn't Facebook provide 50 options for gender self identification? By the time the definitions are sorted out and mutually agreed, I hope that the numbers issue becomes irrelevant to society.

[Vagabond1]

Okay

1 manhatten

2 San francisco

3 most of boston

4 West Hollywood

5 Boystown Chicago

Oh you like the beach?

1 Provincetowm Massachusetts

2 Rehoboth Beach Delaware

3 Miami South Beach

You mean these are places in the US where gay people can feel comfortable?

Not that many......

[Jingthing]

Okay

1 manhatten

2 San francisco

3 most of boston

4 West Hollywood

5 Boystown Chicago

Oh you like the beach?

1 Provincetowm Massachusetts

2 Rehoboth Beach Delaware

3 Miami South Beach

You mean these are places in the US where gay people can feel comfortable?

Not that many......

Not really. He's talking about some places with more than average concentrations.

There are many others of those but there are also gay people living most everywhere in the U.S.

This thread isn't about the U.S. anyway.

The U.S. has made amazing (and quick) progress on gay civil rights issues.

Russia has gone badly backwards.

Of course the U.S. is a good place for gay Russian refugees escaping the political scapegoating and persecution to go to and I suppose how easy (or hard) it is for them to be allowed to flee to the U.S. and other western countries is a side issue.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Jingthing