Russia says it will arrest openly gay tourists

[Bad Writer]

So a woman and a man are able to kiss in public and be openly hetero, while a woman and a woman cannot do the same? That's what you're saying. How is that casting off decency and public harmony? If he were to ban all PDA (public displays of affection) then that would at least be equitable.

[Doubting Thomas]

That's what you're saying. How is that casting off decency and public harmony?

Because gays is icky.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So a woman and a man are able to kiss in public and be openly hetero, while a woman and a woman cannot do the same? That's what you're saying. How is that casting off decency and public harmony? If he were to ban all PDA (public displays of affection) then that would at least be equitable.

I don't ban nothing, I am in no power to do so, I simply state what I think is good for the public, and "PDA", as you said, should be ideally at a certain level that does not include making out in public places, for anyone.
However, I don't think that you can actually consider heterosexual "PDA" and homosexual "PDA" to be under the same context. Heterosexuals and homosexuals do not have the same acceptance in public, neither in front of the law, as their relations are not considered to be in favour of society at all. They cannot breed, so their relationships do not contribute to the future of society at all, so why would anyone consider their "PDA" to be somewhat in the range of heterosexual "PDA"?

And well, there is also the case of Russia, and indeed, much of the surrounding countries, having defined aspects of what is considered normal and what is not.
Just as taking a crap in the public is considered to be abnormal and vile, so are the "PDA" amongst homosexuals. As I said, people are entitled to their own in their own choices in their own environment, but in public places, you need to take into account the majority of the population. I certainly do, friend. If you be so vain, perhaps you should form your own society where you make the laws and you hold sway over what is normal and what is not as you clearly failed to take hold in our part of the world where western cultural imperialism is not looked well upon.

[Bad Writer]

I think what I take offense at is saying that any outward display of being openly gay is dependent of Western Society. Even certain aspects of Western Society is still taken aback by it. I'm talking about human equality, plain and simple, and if other cultures want to ignore that, then I simply believe they have some growing up to do.

[DeistPaladin]

I kind of start to like this Putin guy. His speech about minorities was quite inspiring, and the fact that he also puts value on traditional moral values in contrast to, "western liberalism", which I also stress when speaking about the recent moral decay in my country is a problem in many nations that refuse to be dominated by western cultural imperialism.

You know, in my post on "why secular morality is superior", my first point to support this thesis is that secular morals focus on what's really important (how we treat our fellow sentient beings) while religious-based morality gets distracted by a lot of crap that has nothing to do with morality, be it matters specific to the agenda of religion (prohibitions against blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy), the upholding of traditions specific to a given religion (prohibitions against homosexuality, dietary requirements, not working on the Sabbath, etc.) or exalting useless activities like prayer, church attendance or ritual performance.

Worse still, religion frequently places a priority on the said crap over how we treat one another as fellow sentients. Flip through the Bible or Koran and you'll often see references to "evil" that pertain more to the crap than to the real moral issues. For those who don't have time to read through either book, simply peruse the 10 Commandments and you'll see the first four speak about the jealous god and condemn blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. 2 others are prohibitions against disrespect of one's parents (some parents are abusive and earn no automatic respect) and against "coveting" (a harmless activity that drives the economy). Only four out of ten deal with real moral issues.

Your post blathering about "moral decay" is a great case in point of how religion poisons our discussions of morality and ability to understand it. By persecuting homosexuals and inflicting misery upon them, Russia is actually acting immorally. In fact, very often "legislated morality" is an infringement on the rights of others, demonizes certain groups and jails and/or punishes people for victimless crimes.

At best, religion simply confuses our understanding of morality, dumping a bunch of pointless crap into the moral landscape, making it needlessly complex. At worst, religion inspires otherwise good people to do evil things.

Thank you for underscoring my point on the problem with religious-based morality and why non-believers and free-thinkers hold the moral high ground.

EDIT: To provide link to post on why secular morals are superior.

[Psykhronic]

Values that are also fucking stupid

Indeed, to philosophize about depravity is generally easier than to defend decency and morality. And so you, cast off decency and public harmony in order to flaunt your every desire in public. No thanks friend. Whatever you do in your home, is your business. But what you do in public, is everyone's business.

Who is flaunting every desire? Wat.

[Minimalist]

I kind of start to like this Putin guy. His speech about minorities was quite inspiring, and the fact that he also puts value on traditional moral values in contrast to, "western liberalism", which I also stress when speaking about the recent moral decay in my country is a problem in many nations that refuse to be dominated by western cultural imperialism.

Why demonize perfectly normal varieties of human sexual expression? Who is next, left handed people?

You can't trust them, either!



Anyway....I guess this is off.

http://www.gay-tour.ru/

[kılıç_mehmet]

I kind of start to like this Putin guy. His speech about minorities was quite inspiring, and the fact that he also puts value on traditional moral values in contrast to, "western liberalism", which I also stress when speaking about the recent moral decay in my country is a problem in many nations that refuse to be dominated by western cultural imperialism.

You know, in my post on "why secular morality is superior", my first point to support this thesis is that secular morals focus on what's really important (how we treat our fellow sentient beings) while religious-based morality gets distracted by a lot of crap that has nothing to do with morality, be it matters specific to the agenda of religion (prohibitions against blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy), the upholding of traditions specific to a given religion (prohibitions against homosexuality, dietary requirements, not working on the Sabbath, etc.) or exalting useless activities like prayer, church attendance or ritual performance.

Worse still, religion frequently places a priority on the said crap over how we treat one another as fellow sentients. Flip through the Bible or Koran and you'll often see references to "evil" that pertain more to the crap than to the real moral issues. For those who don't have time to read through either book, simply peruse the 10 Commandments and you'll see the first four speak about the jealous god and condemn blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. 2 others are prohibitions against disrespect of one's parents (some parents are abusive and earn no automatic respect) and against "coveting" (a harmless activity that drives the economy). Only four out of ten deal with real moral issues.

Your post blathering about "moral decay" is a great case in point of how religion poisons our discussions of morality and ability to understand it. By persecuting homosexuals and inflicting misery upon them, Russia is actually acting immorally. In fact, very often "legislated morality" is an infringement on the rights of others, demonizes certain groups and jails and/or punishes people for victimless crimes.

At best, religion simply confuses our understanding of morality, dumping a bunch of pointless crap into the moral landscape, making it needlessly complex. At worst, religion inspires otherwise good people to do evil things.

Thank you for underscoring my point on the problem with religious-based morality and why non-believers and free-thinkers hold the moral high ground.

EDIT: To provide link to post on why secular morals are superior.

For a moral standard to be superior, it only needs to gain acceptance from a large number of people. For example, is it moral to implement a policy that would distrupt social peace, but perhaps grant a single individual the right to do that?
In my opinion, morality is not defined by singularity, it is defined by multitudes, and what they have agreed upon as being moral, and indeed beneficial to society.
In many ways, this is yet still secular, meaning, worldly, and as you believe that all religions and gods are false, you also assert that any morals that stem from religion are also worldly. On the other hand, those who believe in them, state that these morals come rom God, and indeed, who would prefer the moral standpoint of a human to that of a God?
In any case, what you deem to be secular is a matter of how you look at it.

As to come to what you define in your so-called secular moral viewpoints, I can say this that your morals actually do describe the bare minimum moral standards for a person to get through the day without killing maiming, or otherwise raping or robbing someone. Live and let live, and as long as you can manage that, you're good to go. However, as with everything that your secular morals, in actuality, a way of feeling better when you do things that you know that normal society detests. Many of those who speak to me of such morals deem it perhaps quite moral to commit adultery, two legit people who agree on sexual intercourse, in spite of being legally married. However, in my viewpoint it is morally wrong to claim that such things are morally okay.
So is for example, lying to someone. In most cases, lying really hurts no one. One side is certainly nothing more than ignorant about the issue that concerns the lie, and the other is aware.
So from your so-called secular viewpoint, committing adultery, and then lying about it to your spouse is morally okay. Your spouse knows nothing, and you've gotten away with what you've done. But no one got harmed, and you also have pleased yourself, something which ought to be moral, as you feel good while you're doing it.

In truth, this is what it's all about.
A drug user too, only hurts himself in a physical sense, but he also allows for the production, sell, and widespread usage of such vile substances that also promote social and moral decay, with his contribution to it. Is his use of drugs moral? No. But since you view morality on a very individual basis, you simply regard the very basic concepts as the only moral guidelines in your life. You do not value anything beyond the ego, the self, as a standpoint for your morals.

Traditional morals on the other hand, provide people with a purpose of serving a greater whole, and therefore, serving oneself, and ones who he holds dear to him/her. Traditional morals are those who actually promote the well treatment of your fellow man. Obviously sexually immoral acts, such as public indecency of all sorts, harm society as a whole, as they perpetrate the notion that a person only exists to sample the pleasures of life, while having no greater purpose beyond that of serving one's carnal desires, and also drive "the economy" as you said, a nice way to put it, considering today's economy is ruled by your lax moral standards, in which people only serve themselves.

I'd like to add one thing, religion for the most part, does not drive the traditional morals of any society. Its use is to reinforce it by giving it a celestial origin, while you obviously reject the notion of that aswell, I'm not really sure why you oppose people who would rather claim a divine source for their otherwise very worldly morals.

[Bad Writer]

For a moral standard to be superior, it only needs to gain acceptance from a large number of people.

I think you need to step away from calling a moral superior in the first place. Morals are unquestionably subjective in the first place, so calling something superior due to majority rule is a logical fallacy. A .45 caliber can be deemed superior in firepower to a 9mm, even if there are less of the former than the latter.

...is it moral to implement a policy that would distrupt social peace, but perhaps grant a single individual the right to do that?

Handicapped parking can be very disruptive, depending on how you look at it, but we give few individuals this right anyway.

In my opinion, morality is not defined by singularity, it is defined by multitudes, and what they have agreed upon as being moral, and indeed beneficial to society.

It's actually both. Are you saying that people can't have a personal moral code? You would be completely wrong. And just because majority rules on a moral structure, this does not mean that it's beneficial or detrimental to a society. It just is what it is.

In many ways, this is yet still secular, meaning, worldly, and as you believe that all religions and gods are false, you also assert that any morals that stem from religion are also worldly. On the other hand, those who believe in them, state that these morals come rom God, and indeed, who would prefer the moral standpoint of a human to that of a God?
In any case, what you deem to be secular is a matter of how you look at it.

Re-labeling does not become us. What if atheists just started calling the unknown cause of the Big Bang god? That would be, in your above definition, a secular reasoning, yet we are attributing the name of a deity to this seemingly fantastic, yet most likely logical cause. The word god carries so much baggage with it, that atheists would then be dishonest in their reasoning, would cease to be atheists because even if they still say, "I don't know what caused it, but let's call it god anyway", then that claim negates their atheism.

The fact is that secular will always mean anything not attributed to religion. You can't mix the two. Your reasoning is interesting, but still flawed.

As to come to what you define in your so-called secular moral viewpoints...

So-called, my right ass cheek. They are called thus because they ARE secular, you twat!

...I can say this that your morals actually do describe the bare minimum moral standards for a person to get through the day without killing maiming, or otherwise raping or robbing someone. Live and let live, and as long as you can manage that, you're good to go.

And now you've just put Atheists into a box. Congratulations on being wrong again. Why don't you try ASKING us what we believe to be moral instead of making baseless assumptions that make you look like a bigot?

However, as with everything that your secular morals, in actuality, a way of feeling better when you do things that you know that normal society detests. Many of those who speak to me of such morals deem it perhaps quite moral to commit adultery, two legit people who agree on sexual intercourse, in spite of being legally married. However, in my viewpoint it is morally wrong to claim that such things are morally okay.
So is for example, lying to someone. In most cases, lying really hurts no one. One side is certainly nothing more than ignorant about the issue that concerns the lie, and the other is aware.
So from your so-called secular viewpoint, committing adultery, and then lying about it to your spouse is morally okay. Your spouse knows nothing, and you've gotten away with what you've done. But no one got harmed, and you also have pleased yourself, something which ought to be moral, as you feel good while you're doing it.

I'm tracking on this one...you're admitting the fact of individual morality, which is contradictory to your earlier statements, so this is either good progress on your part, or you are confusing yourself.

In truth, this is what it's all about.
A drug user too, only hurts himself in a physical sense, but he also allows for the production, sell, and widespread usage of such vile substances that also promote social and moral decay, with his contribution to it. Is his use of drugs moral? No. But since you view morality on a very individual basis, you simply regard the very basic concepts as the only moral guidelines in your life. You do not value anything beyond the ego, the self, as a standpoint for your morals.

And you lost it. You're equating white lies to drug use. Even if morality is subjective, there are still hard facts about choices and consequences. Maybe no one ever helped you compartmentalize certain aspects of the human existence?

Traditional morals on the other hand, provide people with a purpose of serving a greater whole, and therefore, serving oneself, and ones who he holds dear to him/her.

Like honor killings!!!

Traditional morals are those who actually promote the well treatment of your fellow man.

Like "Smear the Queer"!!!

Obviously sexually immoral acts, such as public indecency of all sorts, harm society as a whole, as they perpetrate the notion that a person only exists to sample the pleasures of life, while having no greater purpose beyond that of serving one's carnal desires, and also drive "the economy" as you said, a nice way to put it, considering today's economy is ruled by your lax moral standards, in which people only serve themselves.

Sex in the streets!!! I mean, we all do it in the west, right, guys? I'm sorry, your soapbox preachy tone is making me laugh out loud at you. It sounds like brainwashing got to you. I wish there was something I could do to help.

I'd like to add one thing, religion for the most part, does not drive the traditional morals of any society. Its use is to reinforce it by giving it a celestial origin, while you obviously reject the notion of that aswell, I'm not really sure why you oppose people who would rather claim a divine source for their otherwise very worldly morals.

And this is why religion is superfluous fluffy nonsense in some cases and horrible bigot-creating hate-filled awfulness in others. To even claim that you need to give a claim a celestial origin is unnecessary in the first place, and it leads the masses to presuppose that certain moral acts, such as stoning unruly children, is more desirable than the common decency humans ought to dictate to themselves in the first place. Telling the masses that God told them to hate gays doesn't give the people a choice in the matter, for they believe that if they do otherwise then they will be disobeying a power that decides the fate of their eternal soul. This is why I'm opposed to people who claim a divine source for their backwards-ass morals, even if it is secular to begin with.

[DeistPaladin]

For a moral standard to be superior, it only needs to gain acceptance from a large number of people. For example, is it moral to implement a policy that would distrupt social peace, but perhaps grant a single individual the right to do that?

The rights of individuals vs. the needs of society are sometimes hard to weigh out but even with the most complex of moral dilemmas, secular reason provides a superior framework to religious edicts. We can rationally try to weigh both out instead of relying upon ancient (often outdated, sometimes based on old ignorance) admonishments from holy scripture.

In an extreme example, one can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and claim the individual right to free speech.

To address each problem of needs of the one vs. needs of the many, we need to weigh out the cost of the public disruptions and calculate to the best of our ability the harm that is done by the taboo actions, weighing that against the individual cost of freedom of choice. In the cast of the false alarm example above, the cost is the stampede, panic and ultimate injury and death that may result. These costs can then be used to justify restriction on individual freedom of choice and expression.

In my opinion, morality is not defined by singularity, it is defined by multitudes, and what they have agreed upon as being moral, and indeed beneficial to society.

But morality can't be simply a matter of popular vote and mob rule. This is the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity".

With mob rule, an unpopular minority may be oppressed or made into second class citizens. Even a majority can be cowed by tradition into submission, as has been the case with women, who technically comprise a slight majority in the world's population.

In many ways, this is yet still secular, meaning, worldly, and as you believe that all religions and gods are false, you also assert that any morals that stem from religion are also worldly.

Religion and culture are intertwined with one another but this does not make religious-based taboos "secular" unless said taboos can be logically justified without any appeal to religious tradition or scripture.

On the other hand, those who believe in them, state that these morals come rom God, and indeed, who would prefer the moral standpoint of a human to that of a God?

If only God would appear and tell us Itself what is right and wrong rather than rely upon human beings who claim to speak for God.

Until you can present your god to me, or at least an angel, all I hear is some guy waving a Bible/Koran and claiming to speak for God. Thus, we have human rules either way.

So is for example, lying to someone. In most cases, lying really hurts no one. One side is certainly nothing more than ignorant about the issue that concerns the lie, and the other is aware.

A slave is still a slave even if he/she is unaware of the enslavement. A lie is still a lie whether or not the deceived ever discover the truth. Morality is not simply a matter of getting caught.

So from your so-called secular viewpoint, committing adultery, and then lying about it to your spouse is morally okay.

No. Unless you have a prior agreement to have an "open marriage". Not to my taste but to promise fidelity and then cheat is to enjoy the benefit of a contract but not fulfill your end of the bargain. One who is cheated in a contract is still cheated, whether they discover it or not.

In truth, this is what it's all about.
A drug user too, only hurts himself in a physical sense

Depends on the cost to society. See my example of the false alarm of "fire" and discussion of weighing it out.

Angel Dust, for example, causes people to act out psychotically and violently, thus endangering the peace. Pot, by contrast, seems to have little effect except to inhibit the energy of the smoker. Outlawing one can be justified but the other is a different matter.

You do not value anything beyond the ego, the self, as a standpoint for your morals.

Just the opposite. In fact, secular morality focuses on our obligations toward one another.