LGBTQ rights in Russia

[proud PETA member]

You deny the history of violence against LGBT people.

You deny the history of violence within BLM. Do all of their victims now have the right to parade naked on public streets?

 

[AProudLefty]

You deny the history of violence within BLM. Do all of their victims now have the right to parade naked on public streets?

Victims?

Anyway it depends on locations. Public nudity is not always about sex.

 

[Scott]

Nope. "Eternal Victim" simply means what it reads.

I -suspect- that, though you may not be aware of it, the term started being used due to Donnie McClurkin's book. As I said, I hadn't heard of the term before, but now I have. In any case, I hadn't heard of this "Eternal Victim" term before, nor of this "LGBT-supremacy" that you also mentioned.

He's angry. He just make up lies about LGBT for some reason.

I haven't seen any evidence that IBD has tried to deceive anyone. That doesn't mean he's always right, but the same can be said for anyone here.

 

[AProudLefty]

I haven't seen any evidence that IBD has tried to deceive anyone. That doesn't mean he's always right, but the same can be said for anyone here.

He claimed LGBT is a movement out to attack people, especially Christians. He also claimed that all LGBT folks claim to be "Eternal victim".

He isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Scott]

I -suspect- that, though you may not be aware of it, the term started being used due to Donnie McClurkin's book. As I said, I hadn't heard of the term before, but now I have. In any case, I hadn't heard of this "Eternal Victim" term before, nor of this "LGBT-supremacy" that you also mentioned.

Anyone advocating for inequality under the law, is advocating for some type of supremacy. LGBT has all the same rights as everyone else, and they are ardently fighting for more rights, which would give them preferential treatment under the law. This is undeniably a goal of supremacy, even if they are dishonestly using the wording "We are fighting for LGBT rights." They currently have equality; they are fighting for supremacy to which they believe they are entitled.

LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans. I think you need to add "people" at the end for it to be considered a group. In any case, you seem to be making the following claims:
1- LGBT people are advocating for supremacy/more rights than others.

To this claim, I would add my voice to APL by asking if you could provide examples of where you think this is happening.

2- LGBT people have equality.

How are you so sure about that?

 

[IBDaMann]

I haven't seen any evidence that IBD has tried to deceive anyone.

Correct. Honesty is the best policy.

That doesn't mean he's always right,

That is astute of you, and wise! I don't like to admit this, but just recently I made an error, stating that the "Epstein file" contained "hundreds" of kiddie porn videos when there are/were "tens of thousands" of such videos. And before that, I made an error back in the month of May. Both errors have been corrected, but the damage has been done.

but the same can be said for anyone here.

It becomes a question of expectations. Some on this forum just will never tell the truth, and others will never post correct information.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think you need to add "people" at the end for it to be considered a group.

Correct. LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ is a political movement. You need to add the word "people" in order to refer to the people of the movement.

1- LGBT people are advocating for supremacy/more rights than others.

Correct. They aren't simply advocating for supremacy; they already have it. They are advocating to maintain supremacy, using screams of VICTIMHOOD whenever supremacy is threatened. For starters, they can act indecently in public, and force raw, unwanted sexuality on our children, that we, who are not in the movement, are not allowed to do lest we land in prison as child predators. If I force unwanted sexuality on a woman in public, I am guilty of sexual assault. LGBT people get to do it all they want with impunity.

The LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ movement has supremacy and they are fighting like hell to preserve it. Russia has denied them supremacy, however, and the LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ movement is flooding the internet with cries of VICTIMHOOD, and as you've stated, you are totally buying it, yes?

 

[AProudLefty]

Correct. LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ is a political movement. You need to add the word "people" in order to refer to the people of the movement.


Correct. They aren't simply advocating for supremacy; they already have it. They are advocating to maintain supremacy, using screams of VICTIMHOOD whenever supremacy is threatened. For starters, they can act indecently in public, and force raw, unwanted sexuality on our children, that we, who are not in the movement, are not allowed to do lest we land in prison as child predators. If I force unwanted sexuality on a woman in public, I am guilty of sexual assault. LGBT people get to do it all they want with impunity.

The LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ movement has supremacy and they are fighting like hell to preserve it. Russia has denied them supremacy, however, and the LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ movement is flooding the internet with cries of VICTIMHOOD, and as you've stated, you are totally buying it, yes?

So now you're calling LGBT folks child predators?

 

[IBDaMann]

So now you're calling LGBT folks child predators?

Some are. I posted an image to that effect.

 

[AProudLefty]

Some are. I posted an image to that effect.

So not all.

 

[Scott]

I, too, care little what someone is wearing, or not wearing, in public ... presuming my family is not around.

If we have laws on the books that impose fines, penalties and/or jail time to heterosexuals for acting indecently in public, then there is no valid argument for allowing homosexuals to break those laws just because they are crying "We are always being VICTIMIZED!" They are not somehow being victimized by being denied supremacy. They should be subject to the exact same laws in the exact same way, i.e. equal under the law.

That sounds reasonable. The points I mentioned against various Russian laws and norms does not in my view.

Then explain why denying LGBT supremacy is somehow unreasonable. Why should anyone in the LGBT movement be allowed to act indecently in public whereas everyone else is not?

I suspect there is no law saying that LGBT people can act indecently in public areas whereas everyone else can't, but if you can point me to a law somewhere that says just that, by all means, link to it.

 

[Scott]

Didn't think I'd do a thread on this, but in order to try to avoid talking too much about the subject in another thread I made, I've decided to give it a go. I'll start with Wikipedia's article on the subject, which can be seen here:

LGBTQ rights in Russia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll now quote the first paragraph of said article:
**
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in Russia face significant legal and social challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people. Although sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is legal, homosexuality is disapproved of by much of the population and pro-LGBTQ advocacy groups are deemed "extremist" and banned. It is illegal for individuals to "promote homosexuality" and same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples are ineligible for the legal protections available to opposite-sex couples. Russia provides no anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people and does not have a designation for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Transgender people are not allowed to change their legal gender and all gender-affirming care is banned. There are currently no laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and recent laws could be used to discriminate against transgender residents. Russian sexologists are legally required to conduct "conversion therapies".

Russia has long held strongly negative views regarding homosexuality, with recent polls indicating that a majority of Russians are against the acceptance of homosexuality and have shown support for laws discriminating against homosexuals. Despite receiving international criticism for the recent increase in social discrimination, crimes, and violence against homosexuals, larger cities such as Moscow and Saint Petersburg have been said to have a thriving LGBTQ community. However, there has been a historic resistance to gay pride parades by local governments; despite being fined by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 for interpreting it as discrimination, the city of Moscow denied 100 individual requests for permission to hold Moscow Pride through 2012, citing a risk of violence against participants. In 2016, Russia was rated the second least LGBT-friendly nation in Europe by ILGA-Europe. In 2024, the status of LGBTQ rights in Russia was ranked the worst out of the 49 countries surveyed within Europe.
**

So, here are the things that I don't agree with in regards to Russia here:
1- That much of the population disapproves of homosexuality.
2- That pro-LGBTQ advocacy groups are deemed "extremist" and banned.
3- I think some clarity needs to be provided as to what, exactly, is deemed as promoting homsexuality, so I'll leave that one for now, but I definitely think that same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples should be able to get the legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.
4- I think that Russia should have anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people.
5- I think Russia should have a designation for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
6- I think that transgender people should be able to change their gender and be able to get gender-affirming care, though only if they are adults and perhaps also after they've passed a test determining that they aren't just going through a phase of some sort.
7- Sexologists shouldn't be legally required to conduct conversion therapies. I know that the U.S. has generally gone the other way. From Wikipedia's page on the history of conversion therapy:
**

21st century​

United States Surgeon General David Satcher in 2001 issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed". The same year, a study by Robert Spitzer concluded that some highly motivated individuals whose orientation is predominantly homosexual can become predominantly heterosexual with some form of reparative therapy. Spitzer based his findings on structured interviews with 200 self-selected individuals (143 men, 57 women). He told The Washington Post that the study "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that". Spitzer's study caused controversy and attracted media attention. Spitzer recanted his study in 2012, and apologized to the gay community for making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy, calling it his only professional regret.

The American Psychoanalytic Association spoke against NARTH in 2004, stating "that organization does not adhere to our policy of nondiscrimination and [...] their activities are demeaning to our members who are gay and lesbian". The same year, a survey of members of the American Psychological Association rated reparative therapy as "certainly discredited", though the authors warn that the results should be interpreted carefully as an initial step, not as a final deliberation.

The American Psychological Association in 2007 convened a task force to evaluate its policies regarding reparative therapy.

In 2008, the organizers of an APA panel on the relationship between religion and homosexuality canceled the event after gay activists objected that "conversion therapists and their supporters on the religious right use these appearances as a public relations event to try and legitimize what they do".

In 2009, American Psychological Association stated that it "encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others' sexual orientation and concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation".

The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United States vary from cautionary statements to recommendations that conversion therapy be prohibited (American Psychiatric Association) to recommendations against referring patients to those who practice it (American Counseling Association). In a letter dated 23 February 2011 to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Attorney General of the United States stated "while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable".

Gay rights groups and other groups concerned with mental health fear that reparative therapy can increase the chances of depression and suicide. President Barack Obama expressed opposition to the practice in 2015.
**

Source:

History of conversion therapy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suspect Russia doesn't give a shit what your opinion is.

I didn't make this thread for Russia, I made it to redirect the conversation on LGBTQ rights in Russia from another thread whose primary focus was Trump's meeting with European leaders.

 

[Scott]

I am reminded that the best WNBA player takes tons of shit for being white.....the best player in the WNBA can not be white.....this is not allowed.

I don't follow the WNBA at all, but assuming what you say is true, I certainly agree that what some call reverse racism is a bad thing.

 

[Scott]

I haven't seen any evidence that IBD has tried to deceive anyone. That doesn't mean he's always right, but the same can be said for anyone here.

He claimed LGBT is a movement out to attack people, especially Christians. He also claimed that all LGBT folks claim to be "Eternal victim".

If he actually claimed these things, then I would disagree with him. But even if he did claim these things, it wouldn't mean that he was trying to deceive anyone. He could honestly believe that these assertions are true.

 

[AProudLefty]

If he actually claimed these things, then I would disagree with him. But even if he did claim these things, it wouldn't mean that he was trying to deceive anyone. He could honestly believe that these assertions are true.

True. He could have a strong delusion.

 

[proud PETA member]

I suspect there is no law saying that LGBT people can act indecently in public areas whereas everyone else can't, but if you can point me to a law somewhere that says just that, by all means, link to it.

One of the pics IBdaMann posted up was an event in Seattle. Tell me what happens to a straight dude that does the same thing in front of children in the same city on the same street. And it make no difference if the guy cut off his fuck stick. He's still a male and it's just wrong.

 

[Scott]

I haven't seen any evidence that IBD has tried to deceive anyone.

Correct. Honesty is the best policy.

Agreed

That doesn't mean he's always right,

That is astute of you, and wise! I don't like to admit this, but just recently I made an error, stating that the "Epstein file" contained "hundreds" of kiddie porn videos when there are/were "tens of thousands" of such videos. And before that, I made an error back in the month of May. Both errors have been corrected, but the damage has been done.

Always good to correct the errors when we realize they're errors. The problem, ofcourse, is with the errors we don't know we're making . I think talking to ideological opponents can help in this regard when the discussion is civil, as they tend to see flaws in our logic more easily. It's why I like civil discussions with people I disagree with on a given subject.

I haven't seen any evidence that IBD has tried to deceive anyone. That doesn't mean he's always right, but the same can be said for anyone here.

It becomes a question of expectations. Some on this forum just will never tell the truth, and others will never post correct information.

I don't know if there's a single person in this forum who hasn't posted some truth somewhere. As to the avoidance of making corrections, I think that's probably fairly common, but for me, it's generally sufficient that those who make mistakes in logic that they later recognize just stop making those mistakes.

 

[Scott]

I think you need to add "people" at the end for it to be considered a group.

Correct. LGBT(QIAPPIPSTUVMRNBMCR)+ is a political movement. You need to add the word "people" in order to refer to the people of the movement.

Great, so we're on the same page here.

In any case, you seem to be making the following claims:
1- LGBT people are advocating for supremacy/more rights than others.

Correct. They aren't simply advocating for supremacy; they already have it.

I think the only evidence you're presented for this is that some LGBTQ people wear little if any clothing in parades and your contention seems to be that if it were anyone but LGBTQ people, they'd be arrested. Would you agree with this?

 

[AProudLefty]

Agreed



Always good to correct the errors when we realize they're errors. The problem, ofcourse, is with the errors we don't know we're making . I think talking to ideological opponents can help in this regard when the discussion is civil, as they tend to see flaws in our logic more easily. It's why I like civil discussions with people I disagree with on a given subject.



I don't know if there's a single person in this forum who hasn't posted some truth somewhere. As to the avoidance of making corrections, I think that's probably fairly common, but for me, it's generally sufficient that those who make mistakes in logic that they later recognize just stop making those mistakes.

@IBDaMann claimed that

1. LGBT is a movement.
2. LGBT folks claim Eternal Victimhood.
3. LGBT attacks Christians.
4. LGBT is a supremacy.

And more.

Is he lying, suffering from delusion or a victim?

 

[IBDaMann]

I suspect there is no law saying that LGBT people can act indecently in public areas whereas everyone else can't, but if you can point me to a law somewhere that says just that, by all means, link to it.

Wrong wording. Laws are for those who are not supreme. You saw the images. Public indecency is against the law ... for straight people, not for LGBTXXXXXXXXXXXXX+. When the police won't enforce the law for a certain group, they have achieved supremacy.