how should US respond to anti LBGT laws enacted in Russia

So? The danger of policy hypocrisy is a lazy and lame excuse for inaction in foreign affairs and should never be used as a litmus test.

We had many allies who were worse than the the Soviets/Eastern bloc during the cold war, it doesn't mean the US wasn't ultimately correct to oppose them.

The US had (and continues to have) a problem with both casual and institutional racism when it went after the Apartheid system in the 80's, and was allied with other racist regimes - once again, hypocrisy as an excuse for inaction would have been idiotic in that instance.

The litmus test for a given policy should be focused on its efficacy and the consequences thereof. Not a lame hypocrisy argument that can be ginned up in any/every case.

I think/thought we've reached a point in this country where most folks under age 50 (with the exception of the clutchfans bros havign meltdowns over hypothetical transgender bathroom raiders over in another thread...) agree that harassment, especially institutional, of LGBT community is undoubtedly a scourge that should be eliminated.

If the US can shame and embarrass Russia (which craves the respect of the international community...) for its lame attitudes and it has a net positive effect, I don't see why not.

Seriously, if you want to talk about hypocrisy - why is country that has historically dominated one of the signature events, male figure skating, simultaneously staking out a hardcore pro-f@g bashing policy?

THat's hypocrisy, my friend.

 

What action do you propose taking?

Making a public proclamation that the USA does not support harassment of the LGBT community is one thing..... trade sanctions, etc. are another thing.

It is easy to say it isn't right, not as easy to decide what is the proper course of action.

 

Not really sure what's going on in Russia. How are they being discriminated against, besides the law? If they aren't committing massacres, I don't see what the US could/would do other than to condemn their actions, as if that means anything.

I doubt the LGBT community's happiness is enough to cut off diplomatic ties with Russia.

Could someone detail exactly what the Russian law says, what the consequences are, and what has been done under the law thus far?

 

Stay out of there business there country they can do what they want .

 

No it's not - it's even easier to say that we shouldn't do anything because it would be hypocritical.

A boycott? Maybe, I'd be fine with it, though I'm sure others wouldn't. There's all kinds of actions thought that the US can take to embarrass Putin (remember, for a dictator like Putin, image is everythign) and trolll the Russain ***-bashing machine. Prominently featuring gay athletes in th events (if they're willing), Patches on uniforms, etc.

Trade sanctions? Maybe, the US doesn't really do that much trade with Russia in the grand scheme - it's not among the largest trading partners and Russia's primary trade muscle is heating Europe during the winter, which doesn't really bother us too much.

 

Partners, perhaps...but ally seems like a stretch to me. I suppose it's just semantics.

 

U.S. racial policy and social customs were nothing like South Africa's by the '80s, well past the point of risking being labeled as hypocrites. South Africa was also a far less important trade or diplomatic partner than Russia.

 

Why is it liberals whine about the republican war machine, its imperialism, and meddling in world affairs. When it comes to social issues, it is then acceptable to provoke nations if they do not agree with our social issues. All in the same breath whining about Christians forcing their beliefs on others.

We shouldn't elect officials on social issues alone (regardless of party) and we certainly shouldn't propose boycotting another nation. Keep social and political issues separate. Our media and our politicians are too busy fighting about social issues in the limelight while our politicians are screwing every American in the backrooms with the real issues.

 

Yes because the Iraq invasion and skipping snowboarding in Sochi are pretty much the exact same thing. Did they have analogies on the SAT when you took them? I hope not dude.

Every time somebody comes close to being the least-logical, most idiotic poster here, you swoop in with a barely readable wordfart that re-establishes your hard-fought position.

Bravo, my brother.

Is this real or Picasso, Baby?

 

Not at first, then the Senate overrode Reagan's veto and passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

 

And can you quantify the possible harms that flow from the risk of being labeled as a hypocrite that you are so concerned about in this instance?

The US goes after ***-bashing in Russia rather than Senegal. Why is it a net bad that the US does one and not the other?

 

Russia: Home to the world's only all-straight figure skating team.

 

Russia's size and influence, the resulting negative impacts of alienating them diplomatically. There's also the unfortunate fact that the electorate or Congress might not be as uniformly in support of LGBT rights as the current Administration.

 

Putin is only protecting the sanctity of traditional mail-order marraige.

 

What negative impacts?

That's what I'm asking you.

Nuclear war?

Openly and covertly undermining the us abroad?

Putin is already a bad international actor and Russia is a lousy global citizen. What precisely are you afraid of?

 

Any one of those things, which could eventually result from alienation and brinkmanship stemming from an accumulation of incremental slights such as this. Putin's bad acts do not overshadow the significantly more dangerous risks and suppression that the USSR imposed on our national security and the security and sovereignty of Europe and Central Asia. The ideological incentive is gone, but the strategic and diplomatic impetus could return as quickly.

 

What can you possibly mean by having "utterly no opinion on homosexuality as a whole." I don't see how this could be true, unless you have had no exposure to homosexuals personally or through some form of media. Are you saying you don't know if it is a disease, an inherent trait or a learned behavior?

You are right that 85% of Russians support the ban, but 35% of Russians believe it is a disease that can be contracted through gay propaganda. This whole controversy is not about knowing what's best for the 85%, it's about having empathy for the way that the ~5% of homosexuals that face discrimination in Russia.

 

Sorry but that's laughable. The US bashes China for its crappy human rights record all the time without risking Armageddon. There is no danger if it here either.

Putin and his gang are bullies who take the more you give. Nobody is saying to send in Seal team six.