4 ms·

> The Soviets were militant atheists and oppressed homosexuals. It's not clear what Putin's religious beliefs are, but he didn't start the oppression anyway. h

> The Soviets were militant atheists and oppressed homosexuals. It's not clear what Putin's religious beliefs are, but he didn't start the oppression anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Russia Do you see any major errors in that article? And if not, can you honestly say that you see no significant connection between religion and the oppression of homosexuals in Russia, neither historically nor today? > But sometimes I'm able to defend beliefs I don't agree with. So, you don't agree that religion is the primary factor behind oppression of homosexuals in Russia? Why are you defending the position, then, and so badly at that?

leereeves 7y ago
As one of the debaters you don't get to decide whose argument is more persuasive. Putting that aside, that article doesn't say the oppression of homosexuals was for religious reasons, in fact, it says the opposite: > Government attempts at preventing homosexual practices began in the 18th century, with Tsar Peter the Great banning homosexual relations in the armed forces in 1716 as a part of his attempt to modernise the country. "as a part of his attempt to modernise", not for religious reasons. The article repeats the same point later: "The prohibition on sodomy was part of a larger reform movement designed to modernize Russia" > [Under the atheist communists] gay people were still persecuted and sacked from their jobs for being 'homosexuals'. In 1933, the Soviet government under the leadership of Joseph Stalin recriminalised homosexual activity with punishments of up to five years' hard labour. A 1934 article in the new Criminal Code outlawed 'homosexuality'.[5] Following Stalin's death, there was a liberalisation of attitudes toward sexual issues in the Soviet Union, but homosexual acts remained illegal. ...and that was under an atheist regime.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > As one of the debaters you don't get to decide whose argument is more persuasive. I sure do. > "as a part of his attempt to modernise", not for religious reasons. The article repeats the same point later: "The prohibition on sodomy was part of a larger reform movement designed to modernize Russia" And where did the idea that that should be a part of "modernization" come from? > ...and that was under an atheist regime. And how did Stalin get the idea?
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > And how did Stalin get the idea? Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. As that's a belief not based on reason or facts, I won't try to argue you out of it. Been nice talking to you.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      > Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. No, I was simply asking you for justification for your position. Because, you know, there is not exactly an obvious connection from "let's modernize this country" to "let's oppress homosexuals". Or from "I want to have someone to blame and a method to be able to discredit and punish who I consider my enemy" to "let's persecute homosexuals". That is just a complete non-sequitur, in either case--unless there is some pre-existing reason why you would connect the two. A reason why less homosexuality would be considered "more modern", or a reason why the general public would be expected to agree that homosexuals are a group of people that deserved punishment. I would be interested in what you think those reasons were.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Sorry about the delayed response; I'm on the road. I can't explain why the article says that. I didn't write it, or even cite it. It's your source. I'm just pointing out what the article says.

leereeves 7y ago

As one of the debaters you don't get to decide whose argument is more persuasive. Putting that aside, that article doesn't say the oppression of homosexuals was for religious reasons, in fact, it says the opposite: > Government attempts at preventing homosexual practices began in the 18th century, with Tsar Peter the Great banning homosexual relations in the armed forces in 1716 as a part of his attempt to modernise the country. "as a part of his attempt to modernise", not for religious reasons. The article repeats the same point later: "The prohibition on sodomy was part of a larger reform movement designed to modernize Russia" > [Under the atheist communists] gay people were still persecuted and sacked from their jobs for being 'homosexuals'. In 1933, the Soviet government under the leadership of Joseph Stalin recriminalised homosexual activity with punishments of up to five years' hard labour. A 1934 article in the new Criminal Code outlawed 'homosexuality'.[5] Following Stalin's death, there was a liberalisation of attitudes toward sexual issues in the Soviet Union, but homosexual acts remained illegal. ...and that was under an atheist regime.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> As one of the debaters you don't get to decide whose argument is more persuasive. I sure do. > "as a part of his attempt to modernise", not for religious reasons. The article repeats the same point later: "The prohibition on sodomy was part of a larger reform movement designed to modernize Russia" And where did the idea that that should be a part of "modernization" come from? > ...and that was under an atheist regime. And how did Stalin get the idea?
- leereeves 7y ago
  > And how did Stalin get the idea? Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. As that's a belief not based on reason or facts, I won't try to argue you out of it. Been nice talking to you.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > Clearly you think that the only reason anyone, even a militant atheist, is ever against homosexuality is because they are religious or got the idea from religion. No, I was simply asking you for justification for your position. Because, you know, there is not exactly an obvious connection from "let's modernize this country" to "let's oppress homosexuals". Or from "I want to have someone to blame and a method to be able to discredit and punish who I consider my enemy" to "let's persecute homosexuals". That is just a complete non-sequitur, in either case--unless there is some pre-existing reason why you would connect the two. A reason why less homosexuality would be considered "more modern", or a reason why the general public would be expected to agree that homosexuals are a group of people that deserved punishment. I would be interested in what you think those reasons were.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Sorry about the delayed response; I'm on the road. I can't explain why the article says that. I didn't write it, or even cite it. It's your source. I'm just pointing out what the article says.