Countries with discrimination laws could be banned from hosting the Olympics Games.

[mr.bernham]

I'm not denying that. But pointing out your date errors.

Well I recently saw a documentary that said the law was fully dropped right before the 2000 bid. I guess it was wrong. Anyways is Australia truthfully a good place to live for a minor conservative? It just seems like such a beautiful and laid back country.

[Sir Rols]

. Anyways is Australia truthfully a good place to live for a minor conservative? It just seems like such a beautiful and laid back country.

I'd restrict their immigration if it was up to me.

[TheOtherRob]

Well you know...from history Australia did it. So did many other nations. Love how the world just adores noting how the US once had slaves...Australia used to only allow whites to immigrate until the 90's. And at least when we had slaves their were apart of families and treated as such, minus the crazy fools who did not. On top of that the South led the way in rights for mixed people, in fact they were free to live and work as the rest of society and some of them had slaves.

Bottom line you Europeans need to get over it, the US is not is terrible and racist as you all believe; must I remind you of the terrible conditions Caribbean immigrants were treated in the 70's when they arrived in the UK? Next thing to get over is this silly notion that one day the entire world will allow gay marriage. I sadly see the opposite I believe that Europe will go backwards if the economic crisis gets any worse.

I wasn't picking on the US when I made that comment about no blacks and I don't think the US is racist so most of that post is irrelevent. Let me phrase my post better - "How about a games in a country where there are race laws? Would you like to see that in the future?"

I have no problem with gay rights (especially in the US), I have a problem with people forcing beliefs on others and diminishing the very thing that makes the games so special, the thing everyone thinks is a deciding fact about who hosts the games. CULTURE, many religions and cultures do not believe in certain gay rights, and going by international policy that's perfectly just and right. What is not right is forcing beliefs, that's when you get civil wars and revolutions that result in radical and tyrannical nations.

Couldn't disagree more. Making sure equality is a cornerstone of our society isn't forcing your beliefs on others. But anti-gay laws certainly are!! And anti-gay laws aren't part of any nation's "culture", or if they are then it's a culture than I hope is quickly consigned to the rubbish bin of history. I see nothing "special" about such cultures.

And the only people who have "diminished what makes the Games so special" are Putin and his cohorts. It's a self-inflicted and what's more entirely unecessary wound that they've caused themselves and the Olympic movement. It's one reason why for me Sochi won't be remembered as amongst the best Games of my lifetime.

I know for a fact that Lee (and I hope he he doesn't mind me bringing him up in this discussion), who used to be a regular poster on this board, has said he is actively avoiding watching Sochi because he doesn't think he's welcome and doesn't feel a part of it. That's the starting point Russia gave us - a significant minority being shut out - and no amount of organisational slickness will erase that.

If you want to excuse that aspect of Russia's "culture" because it's different or whatever, fine. I won't.

[mr.bernham]

I wasn't picking on the US when I made that comment about no blacks and I don't think the US is racist so most of that post is irrelevent. Let me phrase my post better - "How about a games in a country where there are race laws? Would you like to see that in the future?"

Couldn't disagree more. Making sure equality is a cornerstone of our society isn't forcing your beliefs on others. But anti-gay laws certainly are!! And anti-gay laws aren't part of any nation's "culture", or if they are then it's a culture than I hope is quickly consigned to the rubbish bin of history. I see nothing "special" about such cultures.

And the only people who have "diminished what makes the Games so special" are Putin and his cohorts. It's a self-inflicted and what's more entirely unecessary wound that they've caused themselves and the Olympic movement. It's one reason why for me Sochi won't be remembered as amongst the best Games of my lifetime.

I know for a fact that Lee (and I hope he he doesn't mind me bringing him up in this discussion), who used to be a regular poster on this board, has said he is actively avoiding watching Sochi because he doesn't think he's welcome and doesn't feel a part of it. That's the starting point Russia gave us - a significant minority being shut out - and no amount of organisational slickness will erase that.

If you want to excuse that aspect of Russia's "culture" because it's different or whatever, fine. I won't.

And I believe that gays deserve every damn right in the world. Yet in a nation such as the US many people want to force some religions to start having gay marriages. To be that is ridiculous, believe what you want. At the end of the day there will always be nations and games that some-how exclude someone and there will always be nations that offend the West, we need to realize things will always be that way and move on.

I'd restrict their immigration if it was up to me.

Well then I guess no Melbourne for me . My plan is to study in Australia for Urban design.

[FYI]

If you have zero tolerance of discrimination in every judiciary the grounds for Russia style laws do not exisit. I don't care how many 'good' states there are, as long as there are homophobic and discriminatory laws - and I mean laws, legal statutes, not views or opinions held by individuals, I will continue to make that comparison.

Such laws legimitise homophobic bullying and violence, they create a culture that condones homophobia. Where the law leads, social attitudes very often follow.

Anyway, I'm not saying anything else on the subject as i will just be repeating myself.

We'll, you're jumping the gun here. I'm well aware that we're talking about legal laws & not individuals views. But those bills that are seeking approval haven't been signed into law. And in the event that they were, the U.S. government & the ACLU would then get involved. Suing that particular state & citing the "law" unconstitutional. That's the major difference between here & Russia.

And as was mentioned earlier, it's not like France, a "progressive" Western European nation, doesn't still have political issues against gay rights. And like it's been "repeated" already, when the U.S. hosts the next Games, it'll be in one of our most progressive & desirable states, & not some backwoods one. You may "not care" about how many 'good' states there are here, but the gay citizens of those good states sure do care.

Every nation has some sort of political, religious, or somekind of other discrimination. If we're gonna stick to the strict rules of "equality for all", then no nation really deserves to host the Olympic Games. If you wanna still make that comparison, that's certainly your liberty to do so. But it's also mine to disagree with it. IMHO, it's a travesty of a "comparison".

[StefanMUC]

And I believe that gays deserve every damn right in the world. Yet in a nation such as the US many people want to force some religions to start having gay marriages. To be that is ridiculous, believe what you want. At the end of the day there will always be nations and games that some-how exclude someone and there will always be nations that offend the West, we need to realize things will always be that way and move on.

Are there people who want to force religions to have gay marriages?

Well, hello, in a secular country that's beyond ridiculous. If a state passes a law allowing gay marriages, it's the law. If someone for religious reasons is unhappy with that - fine, well, not fine as I think religion is used too much as a pretext, but anyway. However, these people are neither forced to marry gay themselves nor, if they are priests (or equivalent depending on the religion), forced to carry out gay marriages.

If the state doesn't strictly distance itself from religious groups, or even allows it to hold weddings on its behalf, then it has opened a whole can of worms for no reason.

[mr.bernham]

Are there people who want to force religions to have gay marriages?

Well, hello, in a secular country that's beyond ridiculous. If a state passes a law allowing gay marriages, it's the law. If someone for religious reasons is unhappy with that - fine, well, not fine as I think religion is used too much as a pretext, but anyway. However, these people are neither forced to marry gay themselves nor, if they are priests (or equivalent depending on the religion), forced to carry out gay marriages.

If the state doesn't strictly distance itself from religious groups, or even allows it to hold weddings on its behalf, then it has opened a whole can of worms for no reason.

I'm not stupid, I know the law does not do that, but many activist want to go beyond establishing the right and instead force religions to marry gays. They got their way with contraception and abortion with Obamacare, and I have no doubt they would try the same with gay marriage. That's sad, because they are turning a basic human right into a form of forcing conformality. I feel I'm living in the modern version of the Red scare here in the US.

[zekekelso]

I'm not stupid, I know the law does not do that, but many activist want to go beyond establishing the right and instead force religions to marry gays.

While I can't say you are stupid, you do believe something that blatantly isn't true. We have anti-discrimiation laws protections people on the basis of race, religion, etc. Nobody has forced a church to marry someone they don't want to marry.

Many of us beleive that people should not be discriminated against. Period.

[Nacre]

We'll, you're jumping the gun here. I'm well aware that we're talking about legal laws & not individuals views. But those bills that are seeking approval haven't been signed into law. And in the event that they were, the U.S. government & the ACLU would then get involved. Suing that particular state & citing the "law" unconstitutional. That's the major difference between here & Russia.

For example, Texas' ban on gay marriage has just been ruled unconstitutional.

[Quaker2001]

I'm not stupid, I know the law does not do that, but many activist want to go beyond establishing the right and instead force religions to marry gays. They got their way with contraception and abortion with Obamacare, and I have no doubt they would try the same with gay marriage. That's sad, because they are turning a basic human right into a form of forcing conformality. I feel I'm living in the modern version of the Red scare here in the US.

Force religions to marry gays? When 2 straight people get married, is that forced upon them by their religion? I realize we're straying a little further from the topic here, but that's a really ignorant comment. Religions could be made to be ALLOWED to marry gays. They are not forced to do so against their will if they don't want to. If a particular church wants to discriminate against a same-sex couple, that's their business, but that's a world of difference between the LAW not allowing them to do so. And it's conformity is that's allowed to happen? Think we know which political party you're voting with.

[Nacre]

In fairness Denmark has forced churches to marry gays.

Legally there isn't really a separation of church and state in the USA, but rather religion and state. Members of the clergy don't have any special religious rights beyond what anyone else has, so if you can force a caterer or florist to serve a gay wedding I don't see why a pastor or priest would be exempt. The common law system isn't based on logic, though, so the courts could easily go the other way.

[ChrisValentine]

I must ask, as I don't know too much about how American Politics work, I only know British politics and SOME foreign politics, are non-liberal parties homophobic? Would they kill gay citizens, or is it just, they don't agree with gay marriage?

I didn't notice anyone answer this question. Presuming it was asked in earnest, allow me to answer it in earnest as well:

Short version:

Nobody who is taken seriously in the United States advocates killing homosexuals. Even among people who aren't taken seriously, they are few and far between.

Long version:

There are no major political parties in the United States that advocate any violence or action against homosexuals in any fashion (nor are there any minor political parties that do, to the best of my knowledge, but its a large country, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some fringe group somewhat registered as a political party). Generally speaking, both major parties did, until recently, have the official position of opposing same-sex marriage, and the Republican party still mostly opposes that, while the Democrat party now mostly does not, but that is the focus of such issues in the United States (almost all other issues regarding homosexuality and politics relate directly to the issue of same sex marriage).

You may have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group thoroughly hated by likely 99% of Americans of any political stripe, who believe that everything bad that happens to the United States is due to the US *not* persecuting gays (this is the abridged version) and will protest the funerals of soldiers and make a nuisance of themselves whenever possible (its becoming a national pastime to counter-protest them). Even Americans who believe that all homosexual acts are innately sinful and should be actively discouraged by law will tend to loudly denounce the WBC; you might consider this the classic "Even *I* think these guys are terrible" mindset that many have over any group that is more extreme than them on a given issue.

Despite the fact that the Republican party does not generally support state-recognized same sex marriage, I can assure you that even among hard-core Republican political blogs, I never saw anything but unconditional condemnation of the policies of Putin's regime towards homosexuals (and a similar attitude towards nations with similar - or worse - policies). Further, despite the fact that both parties have a national platform that does, in fact, stake out contrary positions on the matter, the federal nature of US politics is such that local branches of the parties have their own positions that may differ from the national platform, and there are plenty of homosexual Republicans that are political active (such as the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud) and many who are elected to office.

The federal nature of American politics also results in differing ideas on the same position. For example, there are members of both parties that think that the matter should be decided on a state-by-state basis, and those that think it should be decided on the federal level (this is true for almost every political issue in the United States, not just same-sex marriage).

For example, Texas' ban on gay marriage has just been ruled unconstitutional.

Which will be appealed. Texas is one state that will no go down without a fight on anything. A court could rule their state bird to be unconstitutional, and they'd fight it to the Supreme Court of the United States (which deliberately avoided making any such ruling on state marriage laws just a year ago; they don't want to tell the states what they can or cannot do in this matter). Its what they do.