Russians hear Tim Cook is gay, pull dead Steve Jobs' enormous erection An iPhone-shaped monument in Russia has been torn down by homophobes after they learned Apple CEO Tim Cook is gay. Business leaders in the Putin-led nation took down the erection after claiming Cook had "called for sodomy." Citing "gay propaganda" law, Russia dismantles memorial to Steve Jobs after Tim Cook comes out http:// …
The article in general and the the Judo photograph in particular are cheap digs at Russians and Putin as well as at the thousands of Judo practitioners worldwide.
I think in a world where everyone should be allowed to express their sexual preferences; that not allowing Russians and Russian culture to express theirs makes you as bad as you think they are. Or is it live and let live as long as you live like me?
I have practiced martial arts since the early '70s (apparently often in pyjamas) I have also ridden my horses (when I had them) with no shirt on, I don't think that made me some kind of gay icon any more than it does Putin, which is what I assume you were trying to do.
How about trying to make an adult comment about what is wrong with the Russian attitude towards gays rather than just being bitchy?
"not allowing Russians and Russian culture to express theirs "
I think you'll find that's a problem for *Russians* not for this site. You write as though Russians are a monolithic people with a single sexual preference, rather than just being human beings like the rest of us on the planet who would rather all just prefer to be what they want to be, rather than having to live in the shadow of fear.
Putin != Russia, no matter what the propaganda suggests.
You write as though Russians are a monolithic people with a single sexual preference, rather than just being human beings like the rest of us on the planet who would rather all just prefer to be what they want to be, rather than having to live in the shadow of fear.
Russian laws on "gay propaganda", they have absolutely nothing to do with gay issues. It is political. 95% of the "revolutions" performed with external funding in the ex-Soviet block had a higher than average representation of people with "alternative sexuality", especially at the higher level.
There is a reason for that - for cultural and historical reasons gays were persecuted in most countries in the region (especially ones with Eastern Orthodox tradition). So they were already on the "right side" as far as the puppeteers were concerned. LGBT events were tied up to other democracy events, protests, etc. I have observed that first hand when running student protests myself in one of those countries (in the days when I still participated in politics).
What Putin & Co are doing with the anit-gay laws is part of their overall grand plan to ensure that there will be _NO_ means for any external power to leverage any internal political (or other) grouping to its advantage. LGBT are just one of the many groupings that are viewed as a potential cover story for external influence and _THIS_ is the reason why they are getting the persecution in modern Russia. It is nothing to do with tradition, public opinion or anything else. It is part of building the wall.
Smartypants wrote: "Putin != Russia, no matter what the propaganda suggests."
Indeed ... although you have it possibly the wrong way around here as homophobia is very much prevalent throughout the population of Russia and way less so with Putin (if at all). Your rather naive sounding opinion on what "Russians" (as nation or ethnicity?) desire and what not appears also to be in conflict with your belief that they are "not a monolithic" people. While in fact they are, at least compared to "European" or "Western" people.
"How about trying to make an adult comment about what is wrong with the Russian attitude towards gays rather than just being bitchy?"
It's as repellent to disapprove of someone because of their sexuality as it is because of the colour of their skin. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice or perversion.
Adult enough for you?
But being "gay" is a lifestyle choice. Comparing it with skin colour is really silly. A better comparison would be with wearing low-slung trousers and listening to gangsta rap.
I rather disapprove of these attempts to turn "gay" into a new form of "straight" ... presumably so that we can all stand united against bisexuals, polyamorists, non-church-goers, people who don't salute the flag with sufficient enthusiasm, ...
I know that the argument that homosexuality is (to some extent) genetically determined has been useful in some (US, conservative) contexts, but it's a very weak argument (lots of bad things are genetically determined, such as a tendency to antisocial violence) and in the long term we should learn to be tolerant of other people's lifestyle choices, not just their genes.
Personally, I don't really need to be tolerant of gays. For some reason I find that I naturally approve of them. I probably have some kind of gene for anti-orthodoxy ...
>But being "gay" is a lifestyle choice.
No, it isn't. Being gay is just how someone feels about who they fancy - they don't 'choose' it, any more than I choose to find some women attractive. You might be able to make a weak argument for calling gay sexual relations as a lifestyle choice, but only if you say that having heterosexual relations outside of marriage is a 'lifestyle choice' - the latter is also disapproved of by some parts of society. You don't choose how you feel; you choose what you do.
Generally speaking, I'm not always fond of people being overtly sexual in public - be them straight or gay, but I that is just my taste... just as I might not find a brash or loud person to my taste. But hey, that's just the way they are. I don't like people bragging. I also don't like people forgetting to indicate at roundabouts, or playing music on their mobile phones in pubs.
@dogged; "The barechested horse-riding [is] amusingly homoerotic, though."
To be fair, the horse *was* female.
Note Putin displaying his strongman dominance by being the one on top of the horse at all times. Though, to be fair, that may be understandable caution- the last time a Russian leader let the horse go on top, it didn't work out so well.
""I have practiced martial arts since the early '70s (apparently often in pyjamas)"
Take life a little less seriously."
An upvote for you kind gentlebeing.
A further clarification about the martial arts "pajamas".
According to my Akido instructor the "gi", the official costume of all modern martial arts costuming from Japan are actually underwear of the time.
Due to cloth shortages due to wartime, everyone practiced in their underwear as everyone had that by default and it was socially egalitarian as no one had to go out and purchase special cloths to join a Dojo.
In addition you really didn't have to change clothes as you do now. You just removed your street garments.
Meh I also have worn the pyjamas and done the hand wavy stuff, I thought they were funny.
Anyway there's plenty of sites who will have a proper discussion about homophobia, sometimes though you just have to take the piss out of these ludicrous attitudes about "sexual perversion" the photos worked perfectly well.
@Chris G
"Russia" doesn't have a sexual preference; Russia is a country, you see. It is bit of land (rather a lot) with somewhat elastic boundaries that contains about a hundred and fifty million people.
I firmly believe that each of those 150,000,000 people should be able to express their sexual preferences but that ability is exactly what the Russian government has legislated against them doing.
The point of human rights and freedoms is that they are not - or at least should not be - contingent on the preferences of the majority.
So, if you want an 'adult comment', try that; the current state of Russia is a LEGALLY PROTECTED AND ENFORCED discrimination of the minority by the majority. Now get to the back of the bus!
I have to agree. Tim was not in the closet and that is fine. But then someone got the idea it might pay one way another whether in increase sales at able or in political points. So then Tim whipped it out and sausage slapped the world across the face.
I don't put you guys out with talk of my rampant heterosexuality. Why do I have to hear about Mr Gay and his sausage smoking habits? But NO. It's all well and good when the left forces gaybees on us. But NO NO NO....don't disagree! When the left pontificates from on high horse we are not to offend their moral vanity by any means!
Heck I bet you liberals can even see Russia from up on your high horses.
Ok so go be whatever you are. I don't care. Just leave me out of the loop. I don't care about you. Not a bit. I know your ego is so big that it offends. Tough luck. Life is tough. Wear a helmet.
@FreemonSandlewould
Putting aside much of what you have said to keep this response brief (something I am not known for), there is a crucial, fundamental difference here that you are not getting - possibly deliberately
That is that there is, in society at large, the assumption that people are heterosexual and when it is suspect that someone with a public profile is not heterosexual, there are whispers and rumours and innuendo - the word 'sausage', for instance.
Ignoring my own goal of keeping this brief, please explain how getting up and saying that yes, you are gay and you want to tell young people who are gay and might be having difficulties that they can accomplish anything they want1 can in anyway be described as slapping the world across the face with his 'sausage'?
You don't get up and put to rest your sexuality because there is no need - you are in the majority and no one is talking behind your back snickering at you and your 'straight' ways. No one asks you if you're bringing your husband along to the Christmas party or tells you that you need to find a nice boy to settle down with because they don't assume you're homosexual.
My partner is afraid of spiders. "I don't mind them as long as they don't come anywhere near me" is the common line. There is no room big enough for the two of them to share - if one is in our bedroom or lounge room or hall, it has to go. Not killed - nothing so cruel - but gone, otherwise who knows what they might do.
You, sir, are afraid of homosexuals. You don't want them hurt or killed, of course, and they are free to live as they please, but just make sure you don't have to see them or hear about them. You say you "don't care" but you are lying - to yourself.
It's indicative that you view this as having gay people 'force[d]' on you - as though a person standing up and saying that he is gay someone places any obligation on you, except to leave him to live his life. He's not asking for your permission; he's giving support to other gay people the same way a black sports star might go back to his community2 and talk to the kids, telling them to stay in school and believe in themselves and to not let other people tell them they're not good enough to pursue their dreams.
Your comments just show everyone how threatened you feel.
1 - Just the way women have been saying exactly the same to young girls.
2 - I use this not to say that white people are CEOs and black people are only good for physical activity, but simply because I am Australian and our heroes are, mostly, people good a kicking or hitting balls around and it's a big thing here for young Indigenous and Islander footballers to visit their communities as inspiration and support for the young kids there.
I think he just meant there aren't a lot of of tech CEO's discussing details of their sexual life at all.
That said, I'm sure it's nice affirmation from one of the top IT companies in the world that being gay doesn't have to mean a glass ceiling.
But like with Obama and race, once it's done, the actual details of job performance return to being the most important, and those with remaining curiosity can search out the asterisks in the Guinness Book of World Records, such as Roger Maris' home run record.
And what details of his sex life did he make public?
"I'm gay" is not a detail. No more than me saying "I have a wife or girlfriend" (I'm a guy with a wife who also likes chicks). Details would be:
"I unbuckle her pants, pushing them down to her ankles... gazing at her flat tummy and the prize behind her tiny panties. I am aroused by her aromas and see arousal and I grab the sides of her panties and pull..." Or insert her for "his amazing six pack and purple jockys" etc...
That and more would be DETAIL!
Saying "I'm gay" because people are gossiping about his personal life that HE NEVER brought up in public, no makes a difference on how he runs the company.... *sigh* stupid humans. We got much bigger problems in the world. You know, a raging closet homosexual with nukes who is invading countries.
>We got much bigger problems in the world. You know, a raging closet homosexual with nukes who is invading countries.
That reminds me of an old Stephen Fry column... after citing examples such as Alexander the Great and Lawrence of Arabia, he arrives at the tongue-cheek-conclusion that ' yes, gays should be kept out of the military - because they are too bloody good at warfare!". His point being that whilst he was pro-gay, he was anti-war.
Tim Cook coming out SHOULDN'T be news: in a perfect world who he loves and sleeps with would be his business and his business alone. But until we're rid of despicable bigotry against people because of such things then it's extremely helpful that famous successful people like Tim do.
This post has been deleted by its author
Chris G, when you went horseback riding with no shirt, did you ask your publicity office to take a snap and publish it? It reminds me of Chairman Mao swimming the River Yangtze; Putin is building his personality cult as his country's "Great Leader", so he deserves to be lampooned at every opportunity.
Huh? Adult comment? This is the Reg, where we come for biting crowd pile-on commentary, not for stolid unhumoured nuance.
Jokes about judo/martial arts & pajamas have existed forever - get over it - how do you think race jockeys feel?
And Putin's penchant for high-testosterone male mano-a-mano sports and double bare-back riding are just halon for the Universal Gaydar alert system. There is an Iron Closet that has fallen on Europe, from the steambaths of Kaliningrad on the Baltic in the north to nude strips of Crimean coastline in the south.
One of the typical ways to deflect "homosexuality" is to be a major homophobe. It happens a lot in US politics. Nobody is saying YOU are gay...
But Putin... he is TRYING very hard to look "manly"... which is what some gays look like.
Whatever the case, Putin with his dictatorship of Russia as a country in general are nothing but a bunch of dangerous assholes. With such power... he gets crazier by the year. hence, modern countries don't let people serve as leaders for life or so many years... 10+ years of power has rot his KGB brain.
"I have practiced martial arts since the early '70s (apparently often in pyjamas)"
You wouldn't have done Judo then sir. Judo is a sport, not a martial art. I've done some limited Judo training. Didn't like it. Having your head trapped in the groin of a heavily perspiring, overweight man isn't my bag. I was, however, uncomfortably close to his bag.
"Judo is a martial art, whether you like it or not"
Hi there, I very respectfully disagree. Judoka are known as 'judo players' in english, cos it's basically a game. Martial artists do tend to be tribal, and point and laugh at others. It's a failing, I'm sure a judoka would do the same if watching my efforts in a different dicipline that I've done for many years. For me personally, the very close physical contact with randoms is not for me. The first time I tried Judo, the instructor's armpits were literally mouldering green, soaking wet. Wouln't want that 3 times a week thanks.
Have fun defining which countries aren't "overshadowed by hatred". While Russian may not enjoy the same freedoms as some Western countries, I definitely would not suggest that the US, UK, France, etc. are so much more filled with love and acceptance (which frankly seems pretty gay to me, but I digress). Even a place like Canada, where people apologize for almost everything, has it's moments.
Hi. Individuals of all persuasions have the same rights as any other, from marriage to health care, from freedom of speech to the right to a fair trial. At least, here in Canada. It's in our constitution.
You can even be as much of a conservative fuckbag as you want...you just can't use you personal belief in a sky fairy, fear of things going into your arse or general douchebaggery to infringe upon the rights of others. Your rights end where they infringe upon the rights of others.
Also in our constitution.
Canada has it's problems, eh? But treading gays like unpeople isn't one of them.
@Preston Munchensonton
While you are correct, in that Russia is hardly alone in showing intolerance, there is a big and rather fundamental difference, which is the direction the country is moving in.
At least in principal, 'western' countries like the ones you mention, believe that humans are equal and should have equal rights. The actual extent of that, in practice, is less-than-perfect and often ends up with people arguing over what should be considered a 'right'. (Marriage being the current big one.)
The point is that those countries you have mentioned have, broadly, accepted that things like sexuality, gender, race, etc... can't and shouldn't be used to assign rights.
The difference is that Russia has enacted laws that actually move the OTHER WAY - taking rights (to free speech and association) away from a section of the population.
"At least in principal, 'western' countries like the ones you mention, believe that humans are equal and should have equal rights."
I disagree with that. I don't think anyone among the ruling classes in the West actually believe in equality and freedom. However, they know very well that letting hoi polloi have an illusion of equality and freedom makes them work better and be less of a threat to the powers that be.
And much of the "tolerance" apparently existing in the Western societies is unfortunately based on the enforcement of social rules and laws rather than on intrinsic natural virtue. If you one day declare all anti-discrimination laws null and void - the pogroms and lynchings will start within hours.
On the other hand, while I don't think our system is stable and sustainable in the long term it still is arguably much preferable to the paroxysms of medieval bigotry gripping Russia at the moment.
Russia is plunging into a period of darkness, no doubt.
Much if not most of the blame for it lies with the West and that is a subject of another discussion.
"Much if not most of the blame for it lies with the West and that is a subject of another discussion."
Bullshit. Blame lies with Putin and his band of crooks who have stolen Russia from its people. The Russian people don't realise that the root of their problems is not gays or Ukranians, and that Russia was already a great nation, is actually respected as such abroad, and doesn't need a circus strongman running the show to "prove" it. Putin is the abusive husband who convinces his victim that only he really loves them, and that they're worthless without him. The electorate really think that he's defending Russia.. but from whom? The only people oppressing Russians are their own leaders.
"The West" would rather see Russia run as a stable, democratic nation with a functioning economy. For the security and happiness of its people, and also "ours".
"The West" would rather see Russia run as a stable, democratic nation with a functioning economy. For the security and happiness of its people, and also "ours".
As I said - it's for another discussion. But you are being very naive, anyway. "The West" is comprised of multitude of powerful groups but so it happened that the oligarchy which currently runs the US wants to see Russia as anything but what you say.
"Of course it's Someone Else's Fault."
This is not unique to Russia. Just listen to a PMQ session or watch an episode of Apprentice.
"Ne uvazhayut, blya!"
There is that, of course. Especially among the incompetents who suddenly found themselves in positions of power through no achievements of their own but purely because they are close to the "Tsar". Yet, they then expect to be respected and not just feared and become angry when it doesn't happen.
But the problem of double standards in Western relationships with Russia is real and it is that what fuels the nationalism and pushes the Russian population to support Putin. And it has always been there since the end of the Cold War, even before Putin appeared anywhere near to the top political position.
As for double standards - nope, cannot see it. Lots of conflicting interests, lots of dealings both benign and shady, in other words the usual Brownian motion. In 2014 it's even hard to see the West as such. If it ever existed.
While antagonization and blameshifting are quite universal, as you rightly point out, and have been with mankind since the dawn of ages, it's still sad to see these "qualities" being nurtured in the psyche of millions. Nothing good has ever came out of that. Once we start to look for Enemies of the People, we'll find them everywhere - but mostly hallucinations are they, ordinary people caught in the grinder of our Holy War, demonized beyond recognition and mercilessly slaughtered. But justifications will be plenty. They had to be guilty of something, or we wouldn't have slaughtered them, right? Like that Krylov's fable about the wolf and the lamb. There's always a justification if you need one.
I'd hazard to claim that Russian psyche is a bit more sensitive to such agitations, because collectivist 'us and them' relations are still more prevalent than individualist 'me and you' relations. Not that individualism would be a magical cure to everything, mind you. Just that one aspect. Strong personal identity and normal self-esteem seem to work well against collective madness.
That "respect me, or else" attitude might be closely related. Or maybe not. Yes, demanding respect is somewhat pathetic, and hints at problems with one's self-esteem, but it also emphasizes the importance of respect in the culture. Which would be trivial to exploit by playing on someone's pride (you see, they don't respect us, they bastards), but also has lots of good sides. Anecdotally, in Russia it's still possible to move millions with just one handshake - if two respected businessmen agree to something, then it shall be so. Secretary can draft the contracts later.
Well we have things like Manchester village area, pretty sure you wouldn't find that in Russia, and plenty of us straight people used to go clubbing round there when I was a student.
There were still the odd homophobe I remember at uni, for some reason they were often worried that they would be jumped upon and raped by the gays, but generally speaking as a country we are moving forward and see those people as a bit silly, and likewise making sure our laws are more equal. Russia seems to be working backwards.
"You can speak up, as long as you are gay for gays. "
I don't really understand. Why can't you just be tolerant? Given we're no longer into forcibly converting people to Christianity, or jailing them for homosexuality, or forcing chemical castration, or blue-hat-wearing, etc, or interfering in any way whatever with people's harmless and self-regarding consensual actions, why do you feel the need to hold up as if it were some placard, "I DON'T LIKE GAYS"? What's the point of it? I can only assume you feel deeply status-deprived and inadequate, and wish to drag someone down to your level so you can feel some sense of power.
@Tapeador
>I can only assume you feel deeply status-deprived and inadequate, and wish to drag someone down to your level so you can feel some sense of power.
Some of the high profile anti-gays are/were gay, Haider, Putin ... I take this further and believe the gay-haters are in fact gay themselves, however, they do not accept it for some odd reason and that is why they are afraid of gays, it reminds them of their true feelings and they are panicking ... gays around them might find out ...
That is the only rational reason I can think of why people are anti-gay.
There are so many closet gay republicans in the USA. They were public about anti-gay laws and rights... then they were caught with their pants down... Ted haggard, Rush Limbaugh, Republican North Carolina Senate candidate Steve Wiles, George Rekers, a man who helped start one of the most powerful anti-gay lobbying groups in the U.S. during the 80s = gay.
Ted Haggard was outed by prostitute and professional masseur, Mike Jones.. married, a father.
Ed Schrock vehemently opposed gay-rights issues during his two terms in Congress. From same-sex marriage to allowing gays in the military, he was 100% against anything gay happening anywhere on, or near, the grid. Meanwhile, off the grid: August 30, 2004, Ed Schrock dropped out of the race for his third term in Congress after being caught on tape soliciting sex from a gay prostitute.
Former republican chairman of the Cumberland County commissioner, Bruce Barclay, believed homosexuality to be a sin of nature. Was found with hundreds of tapes of himself having sex with men. The list goes on and on...
Putin... is so flaming, he setting off fire alarms.
@MyBackDoor
The medium makes it a little difficult to be 100% clear on your point but I am taking it to mean that you believe that those who are for gay rights are exactly the same as the Russian government and any criticism they make of these actions are just as one-sided and dogmatic.
If that's not really what you are saying then I apologise.
The point here is that homosexuals are humans. People standing up for them and criticising the Russian position on them are not promoting gays. They are not saying gays are good because they are gay and that their orientation/lifestyle/preference is, inherently, a good and positive thing; they are not "gay for gays".
What that are saying is that gays are good because they are HUMAN and thus deserve the same rights and respect as other humans.
By contrast, the Russian regime is saying, very clearly, that homosexual people should not have the same rights as heterosexual people. Further, they, and groups like ZEFS, are saying that gays are bad purely because they are gay. A monument and interactive display dedicated to Steve Jobs and his creations is now, suddenly considered to be bad simply because the person currently running the company is gay.
His contributions, management style and personal qualities are exactly the same as what they were a few days ago and the company and their products are similarly exactly as they were. The only thing that has changed is that Tim Cook has publicly acknowledged his sexuality and this, alone, is enough to (apparently) change an inanimate object from something that is good into something that is bad and must be removed, despite that object not changing one bit.
@ dan1980
My response wasn't about homosexuality at all, it was just a quip at what the moderator is doing. I honestly have nothing to attack or defend homosexuality with, it just struck me odd that only peace going speech is tolerated in an article related to Russian politics. Of course, "peace" is the keyword, and many implementations of many definitions have been applied over the years. Apparently Russia and TheRegister are similar with "peace". Of course in defense of [DELETE], it is very nice :-)
Oh, and Unicorns are REALLY fucking awesome!
@MyBackDoor
I must admit that I didn't see the posts that were deleted (not even the one that might have been in response to one of my posts) so I can't confirm or reject what you say.
I can only tell you that I don't believe that the good folks at the Register are censoring pro-Russia comments as they tend to give us pretty free rein to spout whatever we feel, be it well-informed and well-considered or the regurgitated ravings of some public mouth-piece. I see very, very few posts deleted so perhaps the high number being deleted here is due to a single user posting the same sentiment multiple times.
But, again, I haven't seen the nixed comments so I won't disagree with you about it but neither will I condemn the mod for acting over-zealously in an effort to clamp down on any sentiments that he (it is 'he' now, right?) disapproves of.
It is the way of the modern pro-perversion world to protect the rights of deviant minorities to promote their points of view, whilst oppressing the rights of the moral majority to express their points of view.
In Australia things have been taken a step further, in that you cannot deny acsexual deviant employment, regardless of your personal objections to their lifestyle.
@Abacus
Moral majority? Who declares what's moral, you I presume? Do you not feel that you can say that you're straight without being oppressed? Do you not feel that you can practise straight sex without feeling oppressed? Do you still feel oppressed? You poor thing! I feel so sorry for you.
As for a pro perversion world you're talking rubbish. Only the other day me and my girlfriend were talking about ropes and we got the most horrible looks from the checkout lady. There is still much work to be done.
Deviant?
What do you mean by this loaded word? In its most bland and straight-faced definition, one can say that a "deviant" is anyone that does not fit in with the norm.
Now, in that driest definition, homosexuals are indeed "deviants" due to the simple fact that heterosexuals are in the majority. But then that use of the word "deviant" has next to no useful meaning. Anyone who smokes is a "deviant"; anyone who has red hair is a "deviant"; anyone who wears bright yellow socks is a "deviant". In Australia, anyone who was born in Iceland is a "deviant", as is anyone born in, say, Chad.
Jews are "deviants", as are Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals.
That's rather a long way of saying that, clearly, using "deviant" to mean those whose behaviour is not shared by the majority is fairly pointless because everyone is then a "deviant" in some way or another.
So, I must assume that you are using the word in its fuller sense to describe behaviour that is quite markedly outside of the norms of the society they inhabit - especially in reference to sexual behaviour.
That sense of the word is employed in a perjorative manner to say that the person in question engages in behaviour that is not only different to what the majority enagages in but so different that the behaviour is utterly at odds with normal, right-thinking folk and should be condemned and discouraged and the person should at the least be ashamed but preferably also punished or persuaded/forced to change their ways until they conform with 'normal' behaviour.
In that sense, what behaviours are 'normal' and what behaviours are 'deviant' is a very subjective judgement, as it is to define what is "perversion".
The "modern" (presumably western) world is not "pro-perversion" and it is not anti-morality. What it is - or is trying to be - is pro-rights and anti-prejudice. It's not perfect but we're getting there one step at a time (and they're not all forward steps).
You, like so many others who hold this position, don't seem to view the ability to live a life free of discrimination as a human right. You seem to believe that only those who are part of the majority need be considered. If the majority are heterosexual, then why shouldn't they be able to fire someone for being gay? Or a black. Or Chinese. Or a Muslim. Why must these good, wholesome, normal people have to consider and respect the rights of those others?
Remember that saying that the majority should not have to cater to the minority was a core argument of many who fought against the civil rights movement in the US, as it has been anywhere that minorities are repressed by majorities.
Frankly, I am glad that is not the case (anymore) and it is, I believe, the most important moral advancement that we, as a species, have ever achieved. That advancement is tied to the ethical innovation that is the concept of 'human rights', which is to say that you, just for being human, deserve rights. You shouldn't have to fight for them or win them or convince people you deserve them. They are yours and they can't be taken away just because the majority says so.
I am sad that you do not see that but the rest of us will get on fine without your approval.
@Abacus
There is also another belief that you and many people who share your views hold, which is that being gay is a choice.
This is also the position of religious anti-gay activists because to believe otherwise is to believe that their God created someone who was guilty of mortal sin by design. In your words, they would be BORN as deviants.
I must assume you believe that homosexuality is a choice because your whole argument falls down if you don't. Fortunately for us all, there is no evidence that this is the case.
What is known is that sexuality is not neat and humans occupy points on a scale between opposite-sex and same-sex attraction. Men do tend to be more polarised than women, in that they are more likely to be exclusively or strongly hetero- or homosexual but there are still many people to be found at all points.
It is my belief that so far as society plays a role, it is in either forcing people to occupy a point on that spectrum that does not actually represent them or accepting them and thereby allowing them to occupy and express that place on the spectrum where they naturally sit.
In that way, the 'choice' is not whether you are or are not homosexual (or bi-sexual) but whether you accept yourself and your nature or you repress who you are and force yourself to conform to the labels and behaviour that are dictated for you.
It is in this way that people like you contribute to the unhappiness in this world and, whether you believe it or not, contribute to the high incidence of depression and suicide in LGBT teens and young adults.
Dude... you got issues. You are worried that some GUY wants to look at you the same way you look at woman and fantasies?! Guess what, you maybe right. Even when shopping with my wife, I'll still notice hotties and my man brain goes "oh yeah! Giggity"... and does it means I get to touch her, talk to her, rape her or anything else? no. Do you have sex with every female you see?
Gay men are men. If you are NOT gay... its a none issue. I have gotten compliments from gays, asked out a few times... which were scary awkward for me when I was teenager (I was asked by other boys). But I've grown up. I have friends who are gay... both men and women.
And to make you blow a fuse. I helped a shy lesbian who is in love with a "straight woman" to be open about her feelings to that woman, and now they are a happy couple. The other woman has NEVER been with a woman before, but she was not doing well with guys and sending out mixed signals. She wasn't CONVERTED... she simply didn't know her self and it took years.
Hell, I've run into men who are gay and father of children, who came to realize they were gay after many years of adulthood.
Dude, if YOU THINK gay people are deviant because of their choice... your logic is flawed. You have a choice to believe in the bearded guy in the sky. But NOBODY chooses to be gay!
If that was true... then someday, maybe next year - you'll have a few drinks too many and decide to try out gay sex... right?
"Not to be crass, but am I the only person here who sees an odd contrast between MyBackDoor's attitude toward homosexuality and their username?"
I gave you a upvote, but I find myself let down again, because your statement of my attitude towards homosexuality is baseless. More and more here are so hung up on jumping to the moral high ground to just look down.The illustration of original thought is losing to the parallel mind set, but at least the high ground is safe!
On a side note, or ramble if you will, has anyone ever pondered over the word "Homosexuality"? Straight from wikipedia....
Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex")
Appears it took 2 different types to come up with the word. Not unusual at all, but ironic. And right about here is where some will jump to read into that....
And why *DO YOU* care about what goes on in other people's pants? Why are you so concerned about some other guys penis or anything else? I've actually met a gay couple who don't even do backdoor sex. And guess what, a lot of women also *DO* backdoor sex... and you can easily see that in porn. And there are guys out there (who are not gay) who have their wives perform back-door sex on them.
Here is truth: There is NOTHING that gay people do, that hetrosexual people do that is different in the bedroom.
Mind your own business.
@Belardi
>And there are guys out there (who are not gay) who have their wives perform back-door sex on them.
They ARE gay and just don't have the balls to admit it, and, that's ok as well. That IS their choice, their life ... as long as you are not forced to assist, I guess you (not you Belardi, but all the anti-gays on here) can shut the f up.
If your implication is that Russia can get past this, I hope you're right. Nothing in their past history, sadly, suggests that they will.
I lived in Russia. They have an exceptional fondness for the 'strong' leader. They love it when their country feels 'strong'. They associate periods without a 'strong' leader with periods of chaos and weakness. My own take on this is that the actions of the 'strong' leader are the cause of the chaos by stunting the development of anything more stable. You can't have the rule of law, for example, when the leader can't afford to have impartial judges around.
The behaviour of the Russian political system has basically been the behaviour of an addict - they get by, but they never find the strength to go through cold turkey to a better life.
@Bullseyed
"Homophobe" is about right for the context. Most hatred is based on fear - fear of the new or the different. In Russia, as with some of the religiously-motivated in the US, the fear is actually pretty openly stated - they are afraid that homosexual people want to 'recruit' the young people; turn them homosexual.
The motives are never really explained - perhaps they think they are building a big gay army - but it is professed as true and used to scare parents who might otherwise be more moderate and have never really worried about homosexuals. It's invoking the 'protect the children' to scare people into repressing their fellow humans.
That said, English, as a living, evolving language sometimes makes it hard to define the meaning of a word by its etymology. The generally accepted definition of homophobia is not just the fear of homosexuals but an opposition to and discrimination of them.
So yes, homophobia really is the correct term here whichever way you interpret it.
"Someday we will no longer have hateful bigots using slurs like "homophobe" but today is not that day."
Personally, I prefer to call homophobes "self-hating twatdangles who waste their lives dreaming sweet dreams of gargling an unlimited line of enormous sweaty cocks but who are too cowardly to unbridle their lust". Sadly, it's just that little bit too long for casual conversation.
Tervor, I know you can't restrain yourself BUT, Many are sick and tired of the "in your face" attitudes of the pro gay or gay people that can't seem to keep their PERSONAL proclivities to themselves. It's being arrogant, pushy, obnoxious, boasting, prideful (the sin) etc to constantly push your argument even when no one is really objecting except you can't see they aren't. People like you see a "skeleton in every closet" when all many of us conservatives have said is we don't want to be a part of it.
If you can only look for a fight, all you'll ever get is a black eye.
I don't wave my heterosexuality in your face, don't wave your homosexuality in mine.
Leave the "flag" at home and out of the workplace.
Tervor, I know you can't restrain yourself BUT, Many are sick and tired of the "in your face" attitudes of the pro bigotry or bigot people that can't seem to keep their PERSONAL proclivities to themselves. It's being arrogant, pushy, obnoxious, boasting, prideful (the sin) etc to constantly push your argument even when no one is really objecting except you can't see they aren't. People like you see a "skeleton in every closet" when all many of us conservatives have said is we don't want to be a part of it.
I believe the above statement has been modified to reflect the beliefs and values of the majority.
My name is Trevor, not Tervor.
Also, for the record: "prideful (the sin)" would seem to indicate you believe in a sky fairy. Probably the christian one. Your sky fairy doesn't exist. Your religion offends me. I request and require that you not only not practice it in front of me but that you refrain from pushing your religion on myself, or anyone else in my presence.
Your rights at the point where they interfere with the rights of others. It is my firm belief that attempts to "convert" others to your belief system is an infringement upon the rights of others. It is coercion to believe a lie that teaches hate.
Gayness isn't a choice. You are born gay. It is genetic. Your belief doesn't change the facts. Reality doesn't give a fuck what you believe. Someone being gay isn't a choice. They should not be restrained from discussing who and what they are. They should not be required to defend, hide or conceal who or what they are because it offends bigots who believe something other than reality.
Your religion is a choice. A highly offensive, hateful choice that leads to nothing other that bigotry and - dare I say it - evil. If you want to practice it behind closed doors, that's fine, but keep it the fuck away from good people, you monster.
You do not have the "religious right" to be a bigoted fuckbag. You have the right to believe whatever you want in private. If you want to have a parade about your religion, go right a head. Stand up a nightclub dedicated to people from your religion, cool. But you don't get to use it as an excuse for hate, or brainwashing, or attempting to restrict and restrain others.
Your religion is evil. Being gay is not. We have to put up with you by law, but make no mistake, bigots and their beliefs are not welcome in civilized society.
@AC
Dude, naw.
"I don't wave my heterosexuality in your face, don't wave your homosexuality in mine."
This is the common line spurted out by anti-gay (generally Christian, but not exclusively so) folks. It's just so misguided and speaks volumes about those who trot it out as though it's some kind of reasonable argument.
It's just not.
A gay pride parade (like our own Mardi Gras in Sydney) very literally waves the flag. But in this way it is no different to any public religious display. Or the local football team being feted down the main street of your town. Or the local unions holding a rally.
All these things are public events where people of a certain stripe display that which brings them together, but none of them are overly frequent and all of them can be pretty much avoided or ignored.
To say that people 'wave their homosexuality' in your face'. What does that even mean? If Tim Cook simply saying that he is gay qualifies as an overt, flag-waving invasion of your sensibilities then your problem is you and not him.
If you want to see one group waved in the face of everyone then, as Tervor has pointed out, just look to religion.
In the US, the word 'God' (specifically referring to the Christian god) is present in almost all aspects of everyday life. The pledge of allegiance that all children hear (and most recite) daily has it - foisted in as it was in 1954. Even the bloody money has the word "God" on it and the same phrase ("In God we Trust") was made the motto of the country in 1956. People swear on bibles and thank god in acceptance speeches and congress is saturated with it. It's in oaths and speeches and in sports and everyday language. God bless you.
In Australia we are a bit more shielded but the language and pomp of Christianity is still far more widespread and "out" than homosexuality. Our Parliament opens with prayers and the pre-amble of the constitution bangs on too. Both of this was due to lobbying from churches. Talk about waving your flag in everyone's face!
But let's put religion aside (I only bring it up because you use the word 'sin' in you post) and go to something more directly comparable - heterosexuality.
Look at everything around you. There is much more acknowledgment of homosexuality these days but it is still far outweighed by heterosexuality. Look, say, television ads. You see always and ever the man + woman couple, be they arguing about the tools the husband has bought or talking about their new diet plan or being happy about their new home or purchasing a funeral plan or choosing a car or enjoying a holiday on a beach somewhere. It is always a heterosexual couple. I don't know what it's like where you live, but in Australia, I have not seen one single dating website advertisement on television that shows anything other than man + woman.
Not an overly robust argument, I know, but it's just a sampling of the way we are all bombarded every day by images promoting (whether deliberately or not) the heterosexual image. You only see your own discomfort, as a heterosexual, when confronted with even the most basic acknowledgement of homosexuality and you seem not to be able to consider it from the other perspective.
Running through the argument you use is the assertion that a person's sexual-orientation is a choice. That comes, almost exclusively, from religion because no science has ever found that to be the case and most evidence points to that assertion being incorrect.
If you can rid yourself of this misguided and unsupported notion then perhaps you might be able to come at this with more compassion and less religiously-prompted (it's a sin!) judegement.
"I don't wave my heterosexuality in your face, don't wave your homosexuality in mine."
Really? All I have to do is open a magazine, turn on a TV, play a computer game, or go to a movie to see heterosexuality being openingly waved in my face..
..Though happily things are finally starting to become slightly more balanced nowadays.
I've listened to much propaganda from that part of the world in the last <mumble-mumble> years and much of what I heard in the old Soviet Union days had me shaking my head but this one truly boggles the mind.
I'm dumbfounded by this. But I don't recall Cook's coming out a call for sodomy. I'm even more astonished that the memorial was taken down since it was for Jobs not Cook. Or is it that Cook = Apple in their eyes and thus the whole company is promoting sodomy?
Which raises another question... a former FBI head was violently against gays but was one himself... I wonder if we're seeing some sort of backlash/misdirection from here? Yeah, I'm going to get clobbered with downvotes but over the years, in politics and even religion, those that were most opposed to something have been revealed as practitioners of it.
@Mark
"I'm dumbfounded by this. But I don't recall Cook's coming out a call for sodomy."
Naive. I bet you're one of those people who think that legalising gay marriage won't end in bestiality.
Oh you innocent fool . . .
So we're clear (not for Mark - I'm sure he gets it) I am being ironic.
I hope you don't use that astounding logic on anything important.
As pointed out earlier on in the discussion by someone else, since homosexuality often doesn't include sodomy the link from homosexuality to sodomy doesn't stand up. One does not mean the other.
Since sodomy is very popular in straight relationships too, the link from sodomy to homosexuality doesn't stand up either.
Normalising homosexuality = normalising sodomy.
Its the same thing. The Russians are 100% correct on this one.
Abacus, which particular planet do you live on? Cos it certainly isn't the one that I live on, where a vast, vast percentage of the "straight" porn that exists on the interwank is sodomy.
As there are way more straight people than gay people in the world, it's totally safe to assume the straight people are by far and away responsible for the great majority of the sodomy in the world. Take your silly crusade up with them where you might manage to make bigger inroads into what you clearly see as an almighty problem.
"Normalising homosexuality = normalising sodomy.
Its the same thing. The Russians are 100% correct on this one."
Har. Type mismatch. You were performing boolean operations, and just like that, squeezed a numeric value into a boolean equation.
But it wouldn't have compiled anyway. This subject just can't be handled on 1-bit processors.
"Think of the children!", is the stand, whist their gay children hide themselves in fear of a world that they feel they do not belong to.
The world lives in denial; their leader Putin is doing an excellent job in that regard. Reminded people previously:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/10/30/tim_cook_writes_open_letter_gay/#c_2344150
@AC
Exactly. Our governments seem to be more concerned with protecting young people from what they deem to be immorality than they are with the truly alarming number of them who cut themselves and burn themselves and starve themselves and kill themselves due to the depression that comes from intolerance.
It might not be directly relevant to this article but, in Australia, LGBT adolescents are (numbers vary) some 4-6 times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts and yet our politicians keep talking about marriage being this exclusive club that only "a man and a woman" can join.
Many heterosexual people (and likely some LGBT people) just don't see why it's a big deal - so you can't get married; who cares? The reality is, however, that the way it is defended is to exclude - by definition - non-heterosexual couples.
Your hang-up is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, is it? Then the solution is easy: change the f%$king definition. How could you object to that Mr Abbott? Don't like changing a word to mean something else? We could always get rid of it and use a new or different word that doesn't discriminate.
You seem to think that 'civil partnership' is perfectly fine and fair so let's abolish the restrictive term 'marriage' and replace it with that. Done.
That was a tangent, if only because I have written so many words already in comment and ran out of strictly relevant things to say. Nevertheless, it is relatively on-topic as it addresses - as the poster above did - the essential hypocrisy or at least wrong-headed priorities in justifying the marginalising of a segment of the community in order to protect children.
@chivo243
As I have said above, religion does indeed enter into this discussion because it is the contention of those religious anti-gay people that being gay is a choice and a perversion of the natural order and of their God's laws.
Everything such people say about homosexuality must be understood in that context if it is to be understood at all. Indeed I can think of no reason why any non-religious person would believe that homosexuality is a choice that one makes.
From a Christian world view (which is where Putin is coming from), God made people in his image and we are of the divine and our true natures are to be god-like. That God also defined an order of male + female and proscribed homosexuality as a sin. What does it mean, inside that framework, to then say that homosexuality is not a choice or a perversion but a natural occurence?
If we are of the divine and the divine abhors homosexuality then it simply must be a choice because if it is natural then either God made these people deliberately perverted and irredeemable or the believers are just plain wrong - one way or another.
Now, there are plenty of Christian (and Muslim) believers who have made exactly that move - they have decided that they (and/or their pastors and perhaps friends and families) have been wrong and that homosexuality is not a sin. By his words, it appears that Tim Cook is Christian and he does not believe his homosexuality is sinful and many, many Christians agree with him.
Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin is not one of them and neither, it seems, are many of the members of the Russian Federal Assembly.
The point is that many of the arguments against homosexuality and especially any that result in repression of homosexuals or denial of their rights can only be sustained when they are coupled with the belief that homosexuality is not natural but a choice. And that belief can only be justified from a religious world-view because all we have learned about human (and animal) sexuality leads us to the conclusion that that just isn't the case.
So yes, religion is relevant to many discussions on how non-heterosexual people are treated and is doubly-relevant when the discussion centres on a country where the President is widely credited for a revival of the Church and frequently flanked by Russian Orthodox priests.
If we are of the divine and the divine abhors homosexuality then it simply must be a choice because if it is natural then either God made these people deliberately perverted and irredeemable or the believers are just plain wrong - one way or another.
That's the nub of most of the religious arguments that homosexuality is wrong, as far as I see it. It seems to me, as a non-religious person, that they have to trot out this line that it's a choice rather than being something genetically programmed because if it was the latter then it would logically mean that God made them that way. That simply isn't something they can countenance, any more than the idea that any of the other monotheistic (or polytheistic, for that matter) religions could (also?) be right.
It also seems to weird to me that religious types have so much revulsion around "non-standard" sexual identities and relationships, but not so much vitriol is afforded to people who eat lobsters or shellfish. Bear with me on that: the bit in Leviticus that religious types use to justify their homophobic views also includes an injunction against shellfish (and ungulates, I think; talk about arbitrary), calling them "abominations" (well why did He make them, and make them so tasty, at that?). Personally, I agree with the idea touched on by several posters already that rather than sex and gender being black and white or either/or, they are both very much on a continuum. IMO, the discomfort that many people (especially religious, it seems) feel about LBGT is that if they examined themselves they might find their own sexuality not quite black and white and the anger they're expressing is mostly sublimated fear about themselves and what they might be.
There was a documentary on C4 (I think) a while back showing the way that people suspected of being gay in modern Russia are being hounded and bullied by what are effectively vigilante groups. It goes without saying that it made me feel very sad for the victims, but I couldn't help but feel that the people doing the hounding/bullying are themselves victims. They're being duped by Putin's mob into attacking these convenient scapegoats. I feel really sorry for these "useful idiots", too. The whole thing is quite sickening and a sad reflection on what constitutes Russian culture these days:(
And now for something completely flippant (to dispel some of the gloom): "I'm on a horse!"
"Any memorials there to Tchaikovsky, then?"
Yes, a very beautiful one outside Moscow's Tchaikovsky Conservatorium.
You people don't get that Russia has a very masculine culture. It believes very strongly in love between men as a powerful force, but it is like the kind of love that might develop on the battlefield or in times of trouble. Being openly "gay" is seen as a mockery of this heroic love. If you're "gay" and keep a low profile, you can live just fine (on a side note, the denizens of the gay clubs in Sochi during the Olympics really didn't like the attention that western journalists insisted on very loudly drawing to them.)
Can anyone get their head around the idea that attacking Russia for not implementing the standard western ideas about male love is actually a nasty and counterproductive productive form of intolerance itself? It even becomes a circus – like when the US gays protested against Russia by pouring Russian vodka down the drains. If that doesn't illustrate the unhealthiness of some "gay" values, what does?
I mean, "I'm so angry at you that I'm going to pour away these dangerous drugs that so much add to the bad health of my poor oppressed people." Isn't that childish?
Can the west see anything meaningful in these observations? Or is any disagreement at all a sign that I am a bigoted homophobe? ;)
@AC
The question that is asked is: why must gay people "keep a low profile" if they want to live "just fine"?
Its got nothing to do with "male love". For one, the laws apply equally to lesbian "propaganda" (correct me if I am wrong, there) but more importantly, it's a battle between two opposing views of human beings. On one side, is the view that human beings share the same rights to self-expression regardless of their gender or sexuality and on the other side is the view that the rights of humans to express themselves is contingent on how closely those humans accord with beliefs of the state.
It's the difference between the view that homosexuality is acceptable and natural and does not carry with it a value judgement and the view that homosexuality is somehow a perversion of a more noble state - a "mockery" of it.
There is much in your observations, but they show clearly the marginalisation of homosexuals, if they are indeed accurate observations.
"You can get along just fine if you keep your head down" is "don't ask; don't tell", it's "I don't care what they call it, just don't call it 'marriage'", it's "I don't understand what the problem is; they have their dance halls and we have ours", it's "they've got their reservations, why do they need to come here and take our land as well?".
It's: I don't mind as long as they're over there and don't start trying to mix with us.
but it is like the kind of love that might develop on the battlefield or in times of trouble
You mean like Spartans or Roman legionnaires?
It's not about promoting or stopping gay people anyway, its about suppression of peoples rights to live as they choose, I'd be just as disgusted if they suppressed people for wanting to practice religion, or building Airfix modelling kits.
I am neither gay or religious and the last Airfix model I built was years ago but people should be able to live their life as long as it isn't causing harm (outraged morality is not harm).
From the Russian media sources it appears that the whole thing happened something like this:
- the "monument" (a large touch-screen monitor in the shape of an oversized iPhone 4) was initially installed by some sort of private PR agency a few month ago.
- a few days ago (before Tim Cook has made his announcement) they have notified the authorities that they will remove the object for repairs.
- yesterday they dismantled the thing but claimed Tim Cook's announcement was the reason (plus that Apple is a tool of the NSA anyway).
- promptly, a well known local right-wing religious nutcase Milonov - the official author of the anti-gay propaganda law - attached himself to the event.
"Will you now give up the use of iPhone, Mr Milonov", - asked him the journalist. "Don't be a fetishist - iPhone is just a phone for me", - was the answer.
So, a broken electronic ad display in need of repairs, commandeered not once but twice for odious-PR-opportunity-du-jour self-promotion stunts - that's what it all is.
Ok, this has been bugging me for a week now. Could someone please explain to me what Tim Cooks sexuality has to do with Steve Jobs? So the guy who took over for Jobs when he died is gay. Even if he was hand picked what leap of (dis)logic makes people associate Jobs with homosexuality from that?
Seriously, I can't see the connection the homophobes are making here.
...if gays didn't shout their sexual preference from a high place at every god given opportunity they could get on with being gay in peace and nobody would give them a second look. I couldn't give a toss if you're gay but why oh why do so many feel the need to tell everybody.
Why don't you substitute "straight" for "gay" in your post and see how it reads?
I think you'd be hard pushed to prove that gays are more likely than straights to make public displays of their sexuality. They start younger, too. The average secondary school probably sees boy-girl snogs on a daily basis but hardly ever a same-sex kiss.
I don't recalll saying anything about public displays of affection. I said shouting about it at every opportunity. As in, when you are introduced, they'll say "Hi, I'm Ken, I'm gay", well good for you but I don't care. I don't go around saying "Hi, I'm Chris, I'm straight". No doubt if you were gay and I did you'd take it as an insult. You want an example, look at the thing Bear Grylls introduced about leaving a number of men on an island, if I recall the gay chap lasted about 5ms before outing himself. Virtually any Come Dine With Me has a gay man or drag artist who can't stop going on about themselves.
It is most unfortunate that the issue of Gay acceptance has over shadowed the real issue here:
That Russians have the right to remove an IPhone, symbol of useless Hipsters representing non work, questionable productivity, and other hipster naff-ness.
All of it bad for a country.
Unless your countries economy is built on taking #selfies and posting them on Facebook.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
