No, it isnt. key point from the text:
Under the statute it is effectively illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in presence of minors.[5][57][60][64][65]
It is legal to "hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"
It is illegal "illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships _in presence of minors_."
The law in question is pandering to the extreme levels of homophobia prevalent in modern Russian culture, and its justification and theme is loosely based on an actually much more explicitly anti-gay law that existed on the UK statute book not so long ago; our current PM opposed its repeal in 2003 and yet ended up backing gay marriage a decade later. Legislators sometime reflect popular sentiment more as they shape it.
Which doesn't mean it isn't a terrible law, and much more likely to be used to persecute people in Russia than the UK (or indeed Singapore where homosexuality is technically illegal). But some perspective is useful here. From the waves of condemnation emitted from certain sources earlier this year you'd never guess that last Olympic venue where homosexual activity was actually illegal was Atlanta in 1996.
I'd appreciate the campaign to support Russian gay rights much more if I believed much of the media behind it wasn't - for better or worse - really far more interested in Russia's foreign policy. Or that it wouldn't backfire...
> _in presence of minors_
so, anywhere in public? where would one find space to hold a public event where children are guaranteed to not be present?
Also the whole line of reasoning is that mentioning homosexuality to children makes them gay which is... bad? thats a value judgment on homosexuality that was put in place by the government, yet you are trying to constantly say that this law holds no prejudice? what a shill.
Oh, before you try to come back with 'thats not a value judgement!' hold your breath. the law literally states that you cant say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships to children, that leaves only two possible positions: either homosexual relationships are better or they are worse
I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle. In fact, I don't event want my kids to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
There is zero prejudice in this value statement. And most parents agree with my position.
When my kids are adults they can decide about sexual relationships for themselves. Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
you're point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. this is about discrimination against homosexuality.
But I'll address it anyways:
>I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle.
Good for you, luckily as a parent you have the ability to make those decisions for your kids.
This does not extend to you forcing your views on others.
>And most parents agree with my position.
and the rights of the majority are the only rights that matter, correct?
>Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
This is not how it works. Say you were an anti-vaccine advocate, you would want the legal system to outlaw vaccines, but many other parents would disagree. see how this conflicts with the rights of others?
With respect to your anti-vaccine example. There is always a conflict between something that a minority may consider a right and the rule of the majority. There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal. Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict? Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
Is it me, or is that the word 'say'?
>You may see here a discrimination against homosexuality but I see a legal framework for protection of a traditional family.
This is a direct contradiction. You cannot use law to legally protect one class of people without necessarily discriminating against those not in that class.
> There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal.
Weak example. Pedophilia has a direct victim (a child is unable to give consent)
>Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict?
No, but it wouldnt be to ignore it as you would. This is so far from what the discussion is about I wonder why you are trying to sidetrack this
>Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
? this is pretty much nonsense? yeah, rights are won through societal change as you say - Many societies are changing to accept homosexuality, not sure what you're trying to get at here? Why would i be proposing a novel solution to gay rights?
Thanks for the discussion
Would you have a problem with a Disney movie where a princess marries another princess?
I.e. is your problem really just with exposing children to sex, or do you actually have a problem with gay characters?
For example, in a public square.