# Tchaikovsky was not gay, says Russian culture minister



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Well, there you have it. Make a historically correct biopic of Tchaikovsky, and in Russia it could land you in prison. 

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/18/tchaikovsky-not-gay-russian-minister


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I knew it! My god, now I can finally calm down.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The article's quote of the Russian culture minister is wrong in that Tchaikovsky didn't find a "suitable woman to marry." Tchaikovsky did marry, but it was a pathetic attempt to cover his homosexuality. Needless to say, the marriage was a failure and most likely not consumated. They lived separately and Tchaikovsky attempted suicide at this time, going into the freezing Volga in an attempt to catch pneumonia (but he didn't even get a cold!).

In any case, there was a very active gay subculture in St. Petersburg during Tchaikovsky's time there. Many musicians, writers, artists where part of it, so too aristocrats and people in politics, but it was underground. Tchaikovsky's brother Modest was also homosexual. The crime wasn't so much to be doing it, but to get caught doing it (as Oscar Wilde had the misfortune to find out in England).

I don't want to be lewd but Tchaikovsky would cruise the seedier parts of the city at night and have casual sex with guys, sometimes in unlit doorways of shops and so on. But then, this guy was treated like a saint by the orthodox church, an icon in his image hangs in the major cathedral in St. Petersburg. His funeral was paid for the Tsar himself.

I don't know why they are doing this whitewash. Well, not now. The whitewash has been going on with Tchaikovsky for ages though, but I thought this was well over. I don't think its a big deal, if we whitewashed all the gay and bisexual (or allegedly so) composers out of history, it would not give us the full picture of what went on in their lives. You've got a lot of great composers there, from Corelli, Handel, Lully, Schubert, Ravel, Barber, Bernstein, Copland, Cage, Britten, Tippett, and many others.

In some cases their private lives impact on their work. In terms of Tchaikovsky, his famous _Romeo and Juliet Fantasy Overture _was written at a time he was having a tempestuous affair with a music student of his called Eduard Zak, who ended up committing suicide. Whether that was a case of life informing art, or art imitating life, the emotion of that work speaks to love and passion which knows no bounds regarding sexual orientation. Its a force that exists and composers express it in their unique ways. So to whitewash this doesn't make sense in any way and I think people must think its a joke?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Point is, Russia's pretty screwed up at the moment.


----------



## Fermat (Jul 26, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I don't know why they are doing this whitewash. Well, not now. The whitewash has been going on with Tchaikovsky for ages though, but I thought this was well over.


 This 'whitewash' fits in perfectly with Putin's recent push to rid Russia of 'gay propaganda'. Explaining that Tchaikovsky was homosexual is not something you do in Russia these days if you don't want the government and/or an angry mob coming after you. Anti-gay feelings are more extreme there today than they were a decade or two ago. It's getting worse, so it's not going to be well over for a long time.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Tchaikovsky was gay. If that's a problem for the bigoted Putin, what an idio.t. I can't believe that these things are happening in the 21st century. Maybe in Stalin's time you could literaly erase someone from some picture (and in the real life too...), but now that's simply pathetic, and the only result is that it shows to the world what kind of ideology Putin really has. Even in a third world country like mine same-sex marriage was approved.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

More on Russian culture minister Vladimir Medinsky, who is apparently a historian:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/may/31/putins-propaganda-man/

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russias-new-propaganda-minister/459200.html


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Point is, Russia's pretty screwed up at the moment.


as compared to what other moments?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm glad, that Tchaikovskis reputation is maintained by Russia.

It seems like that people in western countrys want to abuse Tschaikovski for their support of homosexual special interests.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Gay and Lesbians all over the world are in a state of deep shock!

*What? Tchaikovsky was Russian?*


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aries said:


> homosexual special interests.


...like not being treated like **** by bigots?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Here's the really sinister part:



> The script was apparently revised to remove references that could have made it vulnerable under Russia's controversial new "gay propaganda" laws.


There's nothing much changed from the old days, eh?


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Aries said:


> I'm glad, that Tchaikovskis reputation is maintained by Russia.


The fact that he was gay doesn't actually damage his reputation in the mind of reasonable people.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> ...like not being treated like **** by bigots?


... like dancing naked through the streets.
... like marrying without the possibility of making children.
... like adopting children without a spouse of the other sex.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Aries said:


> ... like marrying without the possibility of making children.
> ... like adopting children without a spouse of the other sex.


The first one is none of your business and doesn't harm anyone.

The second is a demonstrably better outcome for the child than being left in foster care or as a ward of the state.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Aries said:


> ... like dancing naked through the streets.
> ... like marrying without the possibility of making children.
> ... like adopting children without a spouse of the other sex.


Dancing naked in the streets must be a Russian thing as I've not seen that happening in my neck of the woods. More's the pity.

As for the other two on the list, you have not thought this through methinks.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Aries said:


> I'm glad, that Tchaikovskis reputation is maintained by Russia.
> 
> It seems like that people in western countrys want to abuse Tschaikovski for their support of homosexual special interests.


Basic human rights are not "special interests". If you're not bothered by this then you're part of the problem.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> The first one is none of your business and doesn't harm anyone.


Married people enjoy tax benefits. Taxes are everyones business.



EricABQ said:


> The second is a demonstrably better outcome for the child than being left in foster care or as a ward of the state.


There are many heterosexual people, who want to adopt children.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Dancing naked in the streets must be a Russian thing as I've not seen that happening in my neck of the woods


I think it is forbidden in eastern europe. I know it from Germany. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Street_Day


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Aries said:


> Married people enjoy tax benefits. Taxes are everyones business.


Yes, taxes are everyone's business, which is why gay couples should be entitled to the same benefits as straight couples.



Aries said:


> There are many heterosexual people, who want to adopt children.


Not nearly enough. And, even if there were, since there is no demonstrable harm done to a child by being raised by a gay couple, it wouldn't really matter in the mind of a reasonable person.

But, "reasonable person" are the key words of that sentence.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

EricABQ said:


> The first one is none of your business and doesn't harm anyone.
> 
> The second is a demonstrably better outcome for the child than being left in foster care or as a ward of the state.
> 
> Perhaps you just hate gay people more than you care about the welfare of children.


Its far better to have one parent of each gender though, and that is because the sexes are fundamentally different.

I wouldn't want a child to grow up without a father, likewise a child without a mother, it seems unfair. In extreme cases you get upsetting stuff like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Aries said:


> ... like marrying without the possibility of making children.


There are already way too many people on this earth so when can use a few more homosexuals in that regard.

I hope you are aware how many great conductors/composers/musicians in the classical world are gay?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Maybe some people just don't want other people's sexual preferences shoved down theirt throat in the form of gay pride parades: "Hey! I am a man who screws other men and you gotta admire me for that!" Most people would rather prefer these things to stay in the bedroom, you know.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Jobis said:


> In extreme cases you get upsetting stuff like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html


Yes, and we all know that "extreme" cases are the best ones to base an opinion on.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Jobis said:


> Its far better to have one parent of each gender though, and that is because the sexes are fundamentally different.


The similarities are much much greater than the differences.



> I wouldn't want a child to grow up without a father, likewise a child without a mother, it seems unfair. In extreme cases you get upsetting stuff like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html


I really don't see how this is any different from other transgender children.



SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe some people just don't want other people's sexual preferences shoved down theirt throat in the form of gay pride parades: "Hey! I am a man who screws other men and you gotta admire me for that!" Most people would rather prefer these things to stay in the bedroom, you know.


Nobody is forcing you to go to a gay pride parade


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe some people just don't want other people's sexual preferences shoved down theirt throat in the form of gay pride parades.


Yes, we call those people "bigots."


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> The similarities are much much greater than the differences.
> 
> I really don't see how this is any different from other transgender children.
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to go to a gay pride parade


Children are too young to fully understand the consequences of having a sex change in my opinion.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

So this has turned into a pro-gay,anti-gay argument.
Who cares whether he was gay ,not me I like his music though---leave it out !


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe some people just don't want other people's sexual preferences shoved down theirt throat in the form of gay pride parades: "Hey! I am a man who screws other men and you gotta admire me for that!" Most people would rather prefer these things to stay in the bedroom, you know.


We get people shoving their heterosexuality down our throats 364/5 days a year.

No one's forcing you to go to gay pride parades, if you don't like it don't go to them.

Being gay is not just about sex.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Jobis said:


> Children are too young to fully understand the consequences of having a sex change in my opinion.


Well he is using drugs to stop him going into puberty, his not undergoing a sex change yet. Maybe they do it so he can make the decision when he is is actually old enough to understand the consequences.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

moody said:


> So this has turned into a pro-gay,anti-gay argument.


I don't have it in me to let things like what Aries and SiegendesLicht said go unchallenged. If it gets me in trouble, I accept that.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> Yes, taxes are everyone's business, which is why gay couples should be entitled to the same benefits as straight couples.


The sence of marriage is to produce a safe enviroment for the children of the couple. Gays do not make children. They do not make this benefit for the society, so they should not get tax benefits.



Piwikiwi said:


> I hope you are aware how many great conductors/composers/musicians in the classical world are gay?


Conductors/Composers/Musicians as Conductors/Composers/Musicians should produce music, not children.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> Yes, we call those people "bigots."


Someone who does not enjoy an agressive, in-your-face, demostration of sexuality in public places where it can be encountered not only by people who purposely came to that event, but by pretty much everybody who just happens to walk by, is not a bigot, he is a decent person.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

If this offends you, you're sick.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Someone who does not enjoy an agressive, in-your-face, demostration of sexuality in public places where it can be encountered not only by people who purposely came to that event, but by pretty much everybody who just happens to walk by, is not a bigot, he is a decent person.


I think this is not an unreasonable argument even though I don't completely agree with it. I think they should be able to do it, I just don't get why they should.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> There are already way too many people on this earth so when can use a few more homosexuals in that regard.
> 
> I hope you are aware how many great conductors/composers/musicians in the classical world are gay?


About your point about way too many people, that is a complete lie, I don't blame you for thinking it though because for some reason a lot of people seem to share that idea.

The population of earth could all occupy the state of texas with the density of new york city.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Garlic said:


> If this offends you, you're sick.
> 
> View attachment 25147


<3 !


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Jobis said:


> About your point about way too many people, that is a complete lie, I don't blame you for thinking it though because for some reason a lot of people seem to share that idea.
> 
> The population of earth could all occupy the state of texas with the density of new york city.


space is not the problem, the problem is that these people also need to eat and own a car. The world is not over populated yet but population growth is exponential not linear


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> space is not the problem, the problem is that these people also need to eat and own a car. The world is not over populated yet but population growth is exponential not linear


true.

I think we should all abandon this thread its really going nowhere.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Piwikiwi said:


> space is not the problem, the problem is that these people also need to eat and own a car.


Not all people need a car. They only want them. This will be no problem with electrical propulsion.



Piwikiwi said:


> The world is not over populated yet but population growth is exponential not linear


So you say: Some Africans and Asians produce too much children, so we in Europe and North America need more homosexuals, in the hope that at least we are extinguished from the earth for balancing?

I say: Care for yourself and sell electrical cars for Asians.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Homophobes should look at it this way: every gay guy, mathmatically speaking, increases your own chances of scoring with a lady.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe some people just don't want other people's sexual preferences shoved down theirt throat in the form of gay pride parades: "Hey! I am a man who screws other men and you gotta admire me for that!" Most people would rather prefer these things to stay in the bedroom, you know.


You mean this sort of thing, yes?









:lol:


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

So you have two people pulling the rope. On one side you got Russian man in power who wants to manipulate the truth in order to support his vision. On the other side you got gay activist who's wants to claim as many great figures of art/history to be gay, also in order to support his vision and use these people as arguments. Tchaikovsky is the rope. Both sides couldn't care less about it. Both sides are doing propaganda of their own and are equally to be condemned for using memory of important person for their own goals (to none of which that person actively adhered when alive). I'd very much like to see both of them letting the rope go and falling back onto their nasty heads.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The bigots and homophobes have got it all wrong as usual.

If a gay couple want to adopt a child they would be subject to the most stringent examination by the authorities. Their personalities, their finances, their history, their education, their opinions and everything else that would aid the authorities in deciding if they would provide a caring and loving environment in which to bring up a child. A child who may otherwise never know parental love. You know, to have someone watching their school plays, taking them to the movies, making birthday parties, watching out for them. In short all the things that the bigots, racists and homophobes took for granted.

Contrast that to a heterosexual couple who might be uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, lazy drunkards but who are able because they have one single different chromosome in their cells, to make a baby. A baby who may grow to be another version of their loathsome selves.

Which child would you rather be?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> I think this is not an unreasonable argument even though I don't completely agree with it. I think they should be able to do it, I just don't get why they should.


Maybe a gay person will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always assumed that the purpose of a gay pride event is to forcefully remind those who find gay people icky that gay people will not simply shut up and disappear, and that when they're universally treated as normal human beings they won't feel any need for such events and will just get on with their everyday, unrepressed, undespised lives.

So basically by whining about gay pride events you're prolonging your own misery.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Contrast that to a heterosexual couple who might be uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, lazy drunkards but who are able because they have one single different chromosome in their cells, to make a baby. A baby who may grow to be another version of their loathsome selves.
> 
> Which child would you rather be?


So, heterosexual parents are uncaring, unfeeling, selfish and loathsome? Wow, that is some rhetoric.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

> I'm glad, that Tchaikovskis reputation is maintained by Russia.
> It seems like that people in western countrys want to abuse Tschaikovski for their support of homosexual special interests.


I first thought this bloke was joking, but it now appears he's actually serious...


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Aramis said:


> So you have two people pulling the rope. On one side you got Russian man in power who wants to manipulate the truth in order to support his vision. On the other side you got gay activist who's wants to claim as many great figures of art/history to be gay, also in order to support his vision and use these people as arguments. Tchaikovsky is the rope. Both sides couldn't care less about it. Both sides are doing propaganda of their own and are equally to be condemned for using memory of important person for their own goals (to none of which that person actively adhered when alive). I'd very much like to see both of them letting the rope go and falling back onto their nasty heads.


No. On the one hand, you have a film maker trying to make a historically accurate film. On the other, you have a politician who wants to manipulate the truth in order to support his vision.

It is not gay propaganda that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual. It is simply a fact of history, whether we like it or not, and provides some key insights into his personality and indeed even some of his music.

Of course, the honourable minister is right in this one sense: strictly speaking, Tchaikovsky wasn't gay. He was a pederast.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aries said:


> I'm glad, that Tchaikovskis reputation is maintained by Russia.
> 
> It seems like that people in western countrys want to abuse Tschaikovski for their support of homosexual special interests.


As the Dutch goes, "Is _______ homosexual?" 
"He invented it." (that means it is a blazing flash of the obvious.)

Yeah, Tchaikovsky was. He happened to be a very interesting and talented one... maybe some think that even more offensive?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aramis said:


> So you have two people pulling the rope. On one side you got Russian man in power who wants to manipulate the truth in order to support his vision. On the other side you got gay activist who's wants to claim as many great figures of art/history to be gay, also in order to support his vision and use these people as arguments. Tchaikovsky is the rope. Both sides couldn't care less about it. Both sides are doing propaganda of their own and are equally to be condemned for using memory of important person for their own goals (to none of which that person actively adhered when alive). I'd very much like to see both of them letting the rope go and falling back onto their nasty heads.


Oh, those naughty gay activists! This reminds me of Stephen Fry's letter to his 16-year-old self (which also addresses the "gay pride" issue):

_You would little believe that I can say to you now across the gap of 35 years that we are the blessed ones. The people of Britain are happy (or not) because of Tolpuddle Martyrs, Chartists, infantry regiments, any number of ancestors who made the world more comfortable for them. And we, gay people, are happy now (or not) in large part thanks to Stonewall rioters, Harvey Milk, Dennis Lemon, Gay News, Ian McKellen, Edwina Currie (true) et al, and the battered bodies of bullied, beaten and abused gay men and women who stood up to be counted and refused to apologise for the way they were. It has given us something we never thought to have: pride. For a thousand years, shame was our lot and now, turning on a sixpence, we have arrived at pride - without even, it seems, an intervening period of well-it's-OK-I-suppose-wouldn't-have-chosen-it-but-there-you-go. Who'da thought it?

I know what you are doing now, young Stephen. It's early 1973. You are in the library, cross-referencing bibliographies so that you can find more and more examples of queer people in history, art and literature against whom you can hope to validate yourself. Leonardo, Tchaikovsky, Wilde, Barons Corvo and von Gloeden, Robin Maugham, Worsley, "an Englishman", Jean Genet, Cavafy, Montherlant, Roger Peyrefitte, Mary Renault, Michael Campbell, Michael Davies, Angus Stewart, Gore Vidal, John Rechy, William Burroughs.

So many great spirits really do confirm that hope! It emboldens you to know that such a number of brilliant (if often doomed) souls shared the same impulse and desires as you. _


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Its far better to have one parent of each gender though, and that is because the sexes are fundamentally different.
> 
> I wouldn't want a child to grow up without a father, likewise a child without a mother, it seems unfair. In extreme cases you get upsetting stuff like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html


Well, my grandmother was widowed just before my father was born, and he turned out very well. My meaningless anecdote cancels your meaningless anecdote.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> So, heterosexual parents are uncaring, unfeeling, selfish and loathsome? Wow, that is some rhetoric.


Some are, as you well know! You will note that I used the word 'might'.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> So, heterosexual parents are uncaring, unfeeling, selfish and loathsome? Wow, that is some rhetoric.


If you think that was the point he was making you should read his post again.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Oh, those naughty gay activists! This reminds me of Stephen Fry's letter to his 16-year-old self (which also addresses the "gay pride" issue):
> 
> _You would little believe that I can say to you now across the gap of 35 years that we are the blessed ones. The people of Britain are happy (or not) because of Tolpuddle Martyrs, Chartists, infantry regiments, any number of ancestors who made the world more comfortable for them. And we, gay people, are happy now (or not) in large part thanks to Stonewall rioters, Harvey Milk, Dennis Lemon, Gay News, Ian McKellen, Edwina Currie (true) et al, and the battered bodies of bullied, beaten and abused gay men and women who stood up to be counted and refused to apologise for the way they were. It has given us something we never thought to have: pride. For a thousand years, shame was our lot and now, turning on a sixpence, we have arrived at pride - without even, it seems, an intervening period of well-it's-OK-I-suppose-wouldn't-have-chosen-it-but-there-you-go. Who'da thought it?
> 
> ...


I love Mr Fry (not in a gay way, tee-hee !)


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> The bigots and homophobes have got it all wrong as usual.
> 
> If a gay couple want to adopt a child they would be subject to the most stringent examination by the authorities. Their personalities, their finances, their history, their education, their opinions and everything else that would aid the authorities in deciding if they would provide a caring and loving environment in which to bring up a child. A child who may otherwise never know parental love. You know, to have someone watching their school plays, taking them to the movies, making birthday parties, watching out for them. In short all the things that the bigots, racists and homophobes took for granted.
> 
> ...


Some very divisive language being used, just because someone might not be for the adoption of children by homosexual couples doesn't make them a bigot or a homophobe. Its not homophobic to believe that men and women are complementary and when you see an exemplary straight couple, it is not hard to therefore think they would make an ideal family. I'm not anti-gay, sure a good gay couple have more of a right to raise a child than a bad straight couple, but that is not the ideal upbringing in my opinion.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

A few decades ago some Russian hob-nob his nibs said "there is no homosexuality in Russia."

Right. Of Course.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> A few decades ago some Russian hob-nob his nibs said "there is no homosexuality in Russia."
> Right. Of Course.


Are you sure of that PetrB? I have a vague recollection it was some Iranian politician (speaking of Iran, of course).


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Some very divisive language being used, just because someone might not be for the adoption of children by homosexual couples doesn't make them a bigot or a homophobe. Its not homophobic to believe that men and women are complementary and when you see an exemplary straight couple, it is not hard to therefore think they would make an ideal family. I'm not anti-gay, sure a good gay couple have more of a right to raise a child than a bad straight couple, but that is not the ideal upbringing in my opinion.


Last time I checked, research has shown that it makes no difference.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Maybe some people just don't want other people's sexual preferences shoved down theirt throat in the form of gay pride parades: "Hey! I am a man who screws other men and you gotta admire me for that!" Most people would rather prefer these things to stay in the bedroom, you know.


but if you'd take a fraction of a second to think about the opposite perspective, gay people have to walk into a world where it is _assumed_ that you're straight, which is the reverse of what you're talking about here. how is that fair?

also, was the civil rights movement "obnoxious" because it had a lot of publicity? if you can put it into perspective as a movement that must occur for many things in the world to be fixed, it is just.

and if you think that it's really obnoxious.....come on. Not only is it limited to certain days of the year (which, you can just not go outside, y'know), it is not tolerated on any other days. The next logical thing to saying that pride parades are obnoxious is just eliminating them at all, which is apparently equal rights to you.

this is a classical music forum. we are not here to discuss gay rights, because it is a simple fact that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual. please stop being so offensive and grow up so we can please continue the conversation about music.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

There's no way in hell a straight man wrote Swan Lake.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Jobis said:


> Its not homophobic to believe that men and women are complementary and when you see an exemplary straight couple, it is not hard to therefore think they would make an ideal family. I'm not anti-gay, sure a good gay couple have more of a right to raise a child than a bad straight couple, but that is not the ideal upbringing in my opinion.


In an _ideal_ world there would be no war, no unwanted pregnancies, no orphans and no discrimination.........

Not allowing gay couples to adopt does not in any way help bring about your_ ideal _world. Quite the opposite.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

The Russian government is a shameful hive of scum and villainy (and when you think about it, when has it ever not been? We have the tyrannical and oppressive monarchy, then the totalitarian and oppressive Soviet regime, and now we have this new-age theocracy taking shape), and it seems current Russian mainstream society is no better. Its like a cross between 1950s America and any Islamic theocracy.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Couchie said:


> There's no way in hell a straight man wrote Swan Lake.


Yay stereotypes!  Because homosexuality in men automatically connotes feminine tendencies (Rob Halford is well-known for his delicate and gentle style of song-writing) and heterosexuality connotes masculine tendencies (you don't get more macho than Chopin).


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> and it seems current Russian mainstream society is no better. Its like a cross between 1950s America and any Islamic theocracy.


Ans the American society seems blood-thirsty and decadent as the Roman Empire.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Countdown to thread implosion 5..4..3..2..1.....BOOM!


Thank heavens


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

:wave:.........................


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> The Russian government is a shameful *hive of scum and villainy* (and when you think about it, when has it ever not been? We have the tyrannical and oppressive monarchy, then the totalitarian and oppressive Soviet regime, and now we have this new-age theocracy taking shape), and it seems current Russian mainstream society is no better. Its like a cross between 1950s America and any Islamic theocracy.


Heh. "We don't serve their kind here!" :tiphat:


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Tchaikovsky was gay. If that's a problem for the bigoted Putin, what an idio.t. I can't believe that these things are happening in the 21st century. Maybe in Stalin's time you could literaly erase someone from some picture (and in the real life too...), but now that's simply pathetic, and the only result is that it shows to the world what kind of ideology Putin really has. Even in a third world country like mine same-sex marriage was approved.


Its a problem for the bigoted Russia. You can blame the church for that.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Some very divisive language being used, just because someone might not be for the adoption of children by homosexual couples doesn't make them a bigot or a homophobe. Its not homophobic to believe that men and women are complementary and when you see an exemplary straight couple, it is not hard to therefore think they would make an ideal family. I'm not anti-gay, sure a good gay couple have more of a right to raise a child than a bad straight couple, but that is not the ideal upbringing in my opinion.


So you say "men and women are complementary", well OK you might be able to mount an argument from evolution for the necessity of male+female involvement in child rearing (though support for the "nuclear family" option might be a bit shaky).
But if then you allow that you can have a "bad straight couple" that should have less of a right to raise a child than a "good gay couple", we have to ask at what point in the discussion does this complementarity of men and women cease to be relevant? Because you've just now implied that male+female complementarity is neither necessary nor sufficient for the raising of children.

Or maybe when you say "good gay couple" you actually are implying that this would be two gay people who are complementary to each other? In which case that suggests that a person's sexuality is irrelevant to their raising of children.

I think you're totally in favour of gay adoption, you just haven't realised it yet. 

(Edited to add)
That last sentence was a jokey comment but on reflection I think it characterises how opposition to gay marriage has so quickly slipped away in many parts of the world. I remember back in the 80s when I was a teenager, gay marriage (well, "partnership") was just something Danish lesbians did - seemed a bit weird and no worse than that, but my attitude was "but they're gay, why would they get married?" Now of course my thinking (and the thinking of marriage-equality supporters generally) is "they're _people_, why _wouldn't_ they get married?" It's a huge shift but also a very small one, and one I encourage all "but I'm not a homophobe" people to try out.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> I think you're totally in favour of gay adoption, you just haven't realised it yet.


Probably, but I was raised catholic so my conservative beliefs are pretty ingrained.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Tchaikovsky was gay. If that's a problem for the bigoted Putin





> Its a problem for the bigoted Russia.


First of all, it was a problem for Tchaikovsky.

And given his ambiguous approach to this part of himself it's unproper to attempt turning Tchaikovsky into some kind of gay martyr, as it happens recently - "Met stages Tchaikovsky's opera so they are also morally obliged to make political statement in favor of gay rights in Russia to honour him". Yeah. Sure.

I'm not standing for any party here, I just try to stand for Tchaikovsky whose artistic status is being shamefully used. Or I suppose I'm just "racist".



> I have to admit that I wish Sharik wasn't currently banned so that I could read his almost certain to be insane response to this post.


You mean as crazy as some angry girl putting down centuries-old line of national leaders by labeling them as shameful hive of scum and villainy... I'm with you, I'd love to read some more of this kind of craziness.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Yeah, let's put it in the fridge until he gets back! :devil:


Oooooh! I know, Kieran, where you are coming from!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Probably, but I was raised catholic so my conservative beliefs are pretty ingrained.


Fair enough - so was I, but I've gotten over it...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I was raised a Catholic, left it behind, and am very happy I'm now Catholic again, and I have no issues or bother with anyone gay.

It makes no difference to me if Tchaikovski or Michaelangelo were gay, straight or eunuchs. I heard a piece of music on the radio this aft, and didn't defer my preference for it until I knew who composed it, and then googled their private life.

The sinister thing for me is that the Russians are whitewashing history, again. It's only a matter of time before they _photo-shop pro_ a photo of Tchaikovski and Putin together, stripped to the waist (typically) arm-rassling with crocodiles in a Siberian jungle somewhere, as *proofski *that Pyotr was innocent and straight!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Aries said:


> ... like dancing naked through the streets.
> ... like marrying without the possibility of making children.
> ... like adopting children without a spouse of the other sex.


THE HORROR :O

Next people with different skin-colors will start acting like friends or something, and men and women won't feel obligated to act according to stereotypes when they don't fit that personality! Can't have that, too much freedom and happiness.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aramis said:


> First of all, it was a problem for Tchaikovsky.
> 
> And given his ambiguous approach to this part of himself it's unproper to attempt turning Tchaikovsky into some kind of gay martyr, as it happens recently - "Met stages Tchaikovsky's opera so they are also morally obliged to make political statement in favor of gay rights in Russia to honour him". Yeah. Sure.
> 
> I'm not standing for any party here, I just try to stand for Tchaikovsky whose artistic status is being shamefully used. Or I suppose I'm just "racist".


Here's the man himself, in a letter to his brother Modest (also gay, as it happens):

_I have decided to get married. It is unavoidable. I must do it, not just for myself but for you, Modest, and all those I love. I think that for both of us our dispositions are the greatest and most insuperable obstacle to happiness, and we must fight our natures to the best of our ability. So far as I am concerned, I will do my utmost to get married this year, and if I lack the necessary courage, I will at any rate abandon my habits forever. *Surely you realise how painful it is for me to know that people pity and forgive me when in truth I am not guilty of anything. How appalling to think that those who love me are sometimes ashamed of me.* In short, I seek marriage or some sort of public involvement with a woman so as to shut the mouths of assorted contemptible creatures whose opinions mean nothing to me, but who are in a position to cause distress to those near to me._ (quoted by Gavin Plumley here; my bold)

Tchaikovsky's "problem" seems to have been one imposed by society upon him.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread is about *Tchaikovsky, his sexual orientation, and the current Russian response to Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation*. The vast majority of posts have nothing whatsoever to do with those topics. Sexual orientation by itself is considered a political topic so please refrain from such posts.

Once again, we impose these rules because of the past history of problematic posts in threads such as this one leading to infractions. In our estimation, the likelihood that such threads eventually produce infraction worthy posts is simply too high.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> This thread is about *Tchaikovsky, his sexual orientation, and the current Russian response to Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation*. The vast majority of posts have nothing whatsoever to do with those topics. Sexual orientation by itself is considered a political topic so please refrain from such posts.
> 
> Once again, we impose these rules because of the past history of problematic posts in threads such as this one leading to infractions. In our estimation, the likelihood that such threads eventually produce infraction worthy posts is simply too high.


I am afraid what you have written is nonsense*. Given the polemical nature of the OP and the fact that the issue cannot reside in a vacuum - despite your most ardent wishes, I personally find that the vast majority of posts have sought to address it fairly. Sometimes they are 'muscular', but this is not a featherweight debate.

* The term 'nonsense' here is used in a 'disinterested' objective fashion and not intended as an _ad hominem_.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Given the polemical nature of the OP and the fact that the issue cannot reside in a vacuum


The obvious time to shut down the thread would have been right after the OP - presumably from a moderator's POV this isn't feasible though.



mmsbls said:


> Sexual orientation by itself is considered a political topic


Well, that's the nub of it right there, isn't it?

I know the forum's supposed to be apolitical (also asexual, I guess) but the arguments on this occasion strike me as being full of "teachable moments" and I do think it's a pity we can't discuss civil rights issues openly.

But, given that the moderator stepped in right after one of my posts, I shall take that as a sign that I have won the debate and that everyone here now fully supports total equality for gay people. Yay!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

It all makes sense now...I'l bet that the next announcement is going to concern how Tchaikovsky was poisoned by people wanting to promote gay rights!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> I am afraid what you have written is nonsense*. Given the polemical nature of the OP and the fact that the issue cannot reside in a vacuum - despite your most ardent wishes, I personally find that the vast majority of posts have sought to address it fairly. Sometimes they are 'muscular', but this is not a featherweight debate.
> 
> * The term 'nonsense' here is used in a 'disinterested' objective fashion and not intended as an _ad hominem_.


The Guardian article has 9 paragraphs only one of which does not discuss Tchaikovsky, his sexual orientation, and the current Russian response to Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation. That one paragraph discusses the Russian response to sexual orientation (not specifically Tchaikovsky's). The majority of posts have discussed none of these. Let's assume that if the Guardian can do it, then so can TC members. *But more importantly, it's the law here.*


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Here's the man himself, in a letter to his brother Modest (also gay, as it happens) (...)


Then, in other letter, he DO feels guilty about his homoerotic feelings for his student, Kotek, and confess to being uncomfortable with them. So it is, as I said, ambiguous.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

I was waiting for this topic to come up. It's been in the news for quite some time now.

I will say it now, and I can say it over and over: After spending some forum-time on Tchaikovsky Forum with a group of experts, I suppose it can be concluded that there is really _no_ "historically accurate" movie on the composer.

Now for what I think: Why? Because he is not history. Rather he's a person. So it's not like we're describing some historical event - there's some bias involved. For example, homosexuals today look towards Tchaikovsky to "describe" their "shared pain" in his music. IDIOCRACY. Blant. Evident. Idiocracy. I take that as a direct insult towards the man, and nothing to be taken lightly. Some of the pain that the composer experienced had _nothing_ to do with sexual orientation. That is a fact. People say that others dowgrade the orientation? Ironically, it's quite the opposite. Through his letters, dedications in music, beliefs, etc., it is apparent that his life had virtually very little to do with much of his life.

Knowing me, even over the web, you should know that I like a fair share of science in many things. Therefore: It makes no sense for Tchaikovsky to have written many of his greatest work, especially the Pathetique, due to sexuality. Why? Think about it. It makes sense. Well, levels of certain hormones peak at certain ages, and certainly no one really means to suggest that a 53-year-old, aged while still young, and even somewhat sickly man would have impulses common to a healthy, 20-30 year old person? If he was as sickly as reported, then there is just about no way that his body would concentrate on sexuality more than survival itself. Rule: When there is ample space and excess fundamental needs for life, reproduction is likely to occur. Obviously, excess fundamental needs for life were not present, as Tchaikovsky was not fat. Sorry, yes, stop and laugh. Go ahead. Anyway, in short, unless he was a adorer of gluttony, it scientifically makes no sense for him to have based his later, most impressive works, or events in life, on sexuality. There.

As for earlier in life, there were hidden motives to Tchaikovsky's marriage. Read some of his letters, then draw conclusions. Thise motives did not only have to do with rumors about his sexuality, since he had previously been arrested for frequently attending a homosexual bar, as well as the fact that he was said to be something of a "man about town" at that younger age, we can assume that he was pretty well known already. Therefore, the marriage had to do with other things as well. An example is, as Pyotr himself had admitted, the want for family. This is nothing but natural for a young person. Another reason was, perhaps, the want to put to an end the tiresome type of "thrilling" (as in evasive, etc., nothing else intended) life that he lived as a result of influence from the, some argue, immoral School of Jurisprudence which he had attended at quite a young age. In other words, he "wanted to be normal." Blech - I hate using those words. Anyhow, even his marriage did not have directly so much to do with sexuality itself that it needed to be put into a movie.

Basically, Tchaikovsky's life did NOT center around sexuality. As for those contemplating whether he was homosexual or not, well, he said himself at one point that the answer was yes. So was his younger brother, Modest Tchaikovsky, perhaps after being influenced to be so from his older brother. The question at hand is: for how _long_ and how important was this to his life? 
The answer: not as long as the majority thinks: ranked for cruciality in his life, 1 being least and 10 being greatest? 3.2. No less, no greater. Therefore, including it in a movie in not necessary, and is usually not done, anyway.

In short: though homosexual for a relatively short period of time in ratio with the rest of his life, Tchaikovsky led a life that had virtually little to do with it.

And that's the truth.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Then, in other letter, he DO feels guilty about his homoerotic feelings for his student, Kotek, and confess to being uncomfortable with them. So it is, as I said, ambiguous.


Again, though, _why_ would he feel guilty about these feelings? 
Might it be because he lived in a society that told him these feelings were unnatural and wrong and therefore should be a cause for guilt, self-loathing and the rest? 
Would he feel guilty if society said to him, "You know what, Pyotr Ilyich, the fact that you have these feelings towards Kotek is not any concern of ours (aside from any teacher/student impropriety, of course, which is a whole other issue), so hey, enjoy yourselves. You know what? If you guys want, you can get married, adopt some kids, grow old together"? 
I think he might not be so uncomfortable then.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Might it be because he lived in a society that told him these feelings were unnatural and wrong and therefore should be a cause for guilt, self-loathing and the rest?


It might be. But we have reasons to consider Tchaikovsky someone able to think indepedently, so you can't just assume he was plain victim of society and that these negative feelings had no source in his very person. Even today, in countries with liberal laws, there are some homosexual people who have problems dealing with thieir orientation. Also, some people seem to demonize times of Tchaikovsky, like only now people finally have learned to think but as recently as 100-200 years back, they still lived in darkness and couldn't think for themselves. Of course, masses belived what they belived (as they do today) and law was the way it was but the assumption that educated, intelligent person couldn't see things diffrently and absolutely had to adopt the common perception of subject is very far-fetched.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Even today, in countries with liberal laws, there are some homosexual people who have problems dealing with thieir orientation.


Because changing the law is only a small though essential step. What is needed is for people to change their attitude.
People just want to be accepted for who and what they are. Not just tolerated but accepted.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aramis said:


> It might be. But we have reasons to consider Tchaikovsky someone able to think indepedently, so you can't just assume he was plain victim of society and that these negative feelings had no source in his very person. Even today, in countries with liberal laws, there are some homosexual people who have problems dealing with thieir orientation. Also, some people seem to demonize times of Tchaikovsky, like only now people finally have learned to think but as recently as 100-200 years back, they still lived in darkness and couldn't think for themselves. Of course, masses belived what they belived (as they do today) and law was the way it was but the assumption that educated, intelligent person couldn't see things diffrently and absolutely had to adopt the common perception of subject is very far-fetched.


I guess we're straying off topic again here, but "Even today, in countries with liberal laws, there are some homosexual people who have problems dealing with thieir orientation" needs some evidence to support it, and besides a society is not just its laws. 
Also, no matter how independent a thinker you are, you will be influenced by your society. (There's an old joke from Northern Ireland: "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" "Actually, I'm an atheist". "But are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist"? There's definitely some truth in that.) To make a stupid sort of analogy, who in our society feels guilty about liking yellow flowers? Nobody, because society has never said there was anything wrong with liking yellow flowers.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Well, it looks like we'll all have to call it a day.

So much for the credibility of _the Russian Ministry of Culture_.....


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> People just want to be accepted for who and what they are. Not just tolerated but accepted.


Many would accept gays, if they would not demand gay parades, the right to marry, the right to adopt and other presumptuous things.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Aries said:


> Many would accept gays, if they would not demand gay parades, the right to marry, the right to adopt and other presumptuous things.


Denying them the right to marry and raise children is the very definition of not accepting them.

So, no, many people would not "accept" gays if gays would just stop demanding the right to participate in society.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> I guess we're straying off topic again here, but "Even today, in countries with liberal laws, there are some homosexual people who have problems dealing with thieir orientation" needs some evidence to support it.


I have read about this subject in reliable press, all described by professional therapist who encountered such people.



> Also, no matter how independent a thinker you are, you will be influenced by your society.


Of course and that's what makes it so complex - but it's no argument at all, because you state that Tchaikovsky could be influenced by views of contemporary society and thus we can't really take his negative feelings towards his homosexuality for natural and his own, then you come to suggest another kind of influence, more positive towards his homosexuality and say it like under this influence he would develop only natural feelings. Sorry, but it can only make me think you're biased and determined to prove something according to your preference rather than consider and seek the truth.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Of course and that's what makes it so complex - but it's no argument at all, because you state that Tchaikovsky could be influenced by views of contemporary society and thus we can't really take his negative feelings towards his homosexuality for natural and his own, then you come to suggest another kind of influence, more positive towards his homosexuality and say it like under this influence he would develop only natural feelings. Sorry, but it can only make me think you're biased and determined to prove something according to your preference rather than consider and seek the truth.


...and there we have it. Yes, his feelings were natural.
In the "negative" scenario, society denies/condemns this.
In the "positive" scenatio, society accepts it.
It's up to him whether he agrees with society, but society itself is an influence on how he comes to that decision.

I await your truth with bated breath.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> Denying them the right to marry


It is allowed to every gay to marry a woman. Marriage is there to create a safe enviroment for children.



EricABQ said:


> and raise children


This is denied by nature.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> The Russian government is a shameful hive of scum and villainy (and when you think about it, when has it ever not been? We have the tyrannical and oppressive monarchy, then the totalitarian and oppressive Soviet regime, and now we have this new-age theocracy taking shape), and it seems current Russian mainstream society is no better. Its like a cross between 1950s America and any Islamic theocracy.


Ah, what a pure unadulterated hatred. One can almost picture the foam dripping onto the keyboard.

These people, the Russians, have been oppressed and seen their country and their way of life destroyed for 70 years, and now that they are finally recovering and trying to live their life in a way that their culture, mentality, convictions and upbringing dictate, they receive such hatred in return. Now, I am certainly no fan of Mr. Putin or of the Russian state, but in this particular instance this particular anti-gay-parade law is indeed a genuine expression of the will of the Russian people, not some arbitrary bureaucratic decision. That is how the Russians want it to be in their country, and who are we to dictate them otherwise?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Aries said:


> It is allowed to every gay to marry a woman.


Funniest contribution yet!

You could not make this stuff up.

Well, that's me done for the night... I'm sure the thread will be kaput by the time I look again tomorrow.

:tiphat: to all the tolerant folk here.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Well, that's me done for the night... I'm sure the thread will be kaput by the time I look again tomorrow.


This thread's only starting! We're still waiting for Sharik to pronounce! :tiphat:


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is how the Russians want it to be in their country, and who are we to dictate them otherwise?


No one is "dictating" anything, just pointing out the obvious fact that in this case the "will of the Russian people" is the will to treat an entire class of people as second class citizens and deny them basic human rights.

In the early and mid-20th Century in my country it was the "will of the people" in many of our states to segregate the Black population. Should that have just been accepted because it was the will of the people?


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

I'd resisted looking at this thread for a while, suspecting that it would have little to do with either music, or the composer...

I made the mistake of giving in to temptation and found out I was right.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

What's happening in Russia is a good example of why things like free speech rights and the right to assembly need to be enshrined in a legally binding constitution so they will not be subjected to the "will of the people."


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> No one is "dictating" anything, just pointing out the obvious fact that in this case the "will of the Russian people" is the will to treat an entire class of people as second class citizens and deny them basic human rights.


How in the world are they denied "basic human rights"? They are not hunted down and killed because they are gay, they are not imprisoned, they are not put into ghettos, they don't have their orientation written down in their passports, they are not denied employment and education because of it, they are protected by law in the same way and have the same right to property (now, the Russian "protection by law" is a whole different story, but if Russian police is famous for being corrupt, they will take bribes from straight and queer folks alike), they still have their clubs and bars and meeting places. However, if their intention is to shock, to provoke, to stick out their middle finger (pardon the crude expression) into the face of a fairly conservative society that still believes that whatever is happening in the bedroom does not belong out on the main street, now, that is not happening.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> What's happening in Russia is a good example of why things like free speech rights and the right to assembly need to be enshrined in a legally binding constitution so they will not be subjected to the "will of the people."


But a constitution should be exactly the expression of the will of the people! It is the people in a particular country that should be involved into making laws they desire to live by, isn't that the basic principle of democracy? Or would you rather impose the laws that you like on the population? Now, that would be tyranny, and that also happens in Russia - but not in this particular case.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I think I'm going to sit this one out...


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> How in the world are they denied "basic human rights"? They are not hunted down and killed because they are gay, they are not imprisoned, they are not put into ghettos, they don't have their orientation written down in their passports, they are not denied employment and education because of it, they are protected by law in the same way and have the same right to property (now, the Russian "protection by law" is a whole different story, but if Russian police is famous for being corrupt, they will take bribes from straight and queer folks alike), *they still have their clubs and bars and meeting places. However, if their intention is to shock, to provoke, to stick out their middle finger (pardon the crude expression) into the face of a fairly conservative society that still believes that whatever is happening in the bedroom does not belong out on the main street, now, that is not happening.*


I'll say it again
(20charlimit):



> and if you think that it's really obnoxious.....come on. Not only is it limited to certain days of the year (which, you can just not go outside, y'know), it is not tolerated on any other days. The next logical thing to saying that pride parades are obnoxious is just eliminating them at all, which is apparently equal rights to you.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> But a constitution should be exactly the expression of the will of the people! It is the people in a particular country that should be involved into making laws they desire to live by, isn't that the basic principle of democracy? Or would you rather impose the laws that you like on the population? Now, that would be tyranny, and that also happens in Russia - but not in this particular case.


Oh for crying out loud. A constitution is there to protect all citizens from the capricious whims of the "people." If rights like free speech and free assembly aren't extended to all people at all times, they aren't rights at all, they are privelidges granted to certain classes of people but not others. A constitution prevents tyranny by ensuring the rule of law and basic civil rights.

Right now in Russia they are choosing to restrict certain civil rights for gay people simply because they are gay. That is tyranny, and that is what a legitimate constituion prevents.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> Right now in Russia they are choosing to restrict certain civil rights for gay people simply because they are gay. That is tyranny, and that is what a legitimate constituion prevents.


Last time I checked, legitimacy in the political sense meant exactly being accepted and/or elected by the people. Whereas, if the Russian government decided right now to enact a law for the establishment of gay pride parades or gay marriage, the Russians would likely have another revolution.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

And WHAT DOES ALL _THIS_ HAVE TO DO WITH TCHAIKOVSKY?! I wrote an essay-worthy post in ten minutes, and it is completely ignored. Why? Because it's about what this thread was going to be about. Aaahhh.... But I see! That was how it got past the moderators and their no-political-threads rule.... WELL! I say! As interesting as Russian politics is, this thread should either be placed in the community forum or somewhere else, because it really has nothing to do with music whatsoever.

I'm not trying to sound like I think I'm a moderator or anything, but really - this??


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Let's get the facts straight. 
First homosexuality is not illegal in Russia as it is in (eg) Qatar which is hosting the World Cup.
Russia's parliament this summer passed a law that outlaws "gay propaganda" among minors. 
"In the case of Tchaikovsky his homosexuality is so well documented by his own writings and the writings of others that it is simply to suggest otherwise," said the author Konstantin Rotikov.
The Russian president , Vladimir Putin, conceded that Tchaikovsky was probably gay in a recent interview. "They say that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual," said Putin, rebutting claims that Russia's new laws are homophobic. "Truth be told, we don't love him because of that, but he was a great musician, and we all love his music. So what?"


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Last time I checked, legitimacy in the political sense meant exactly being accepted and/or elected by the people. Whereas, if the Russian government decided right now to enact a law for the establishment of gay pride parades or gay marriage, the Russians would likely have another revolution.


Well, I'm just glad I live in a country where a bill of rights protects all people, and a law taking away certain free speech rights from certain classes of people would have exactly %0 chance of surviving legal challenges.

Like I said, if you allow certain rights to be subject to the whims of the people, that is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

:wave:........................


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Itullian said:


> :wave:........................


I agree.... Forget this thread! Well, I love Tchaikovsky, regardless of.... RUSSIAN POTENTIAL LAWS OF THE 21 CENTURY. So....

:tiphat:....................


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> First homosexuality is not illegal in Russia


It's just firmly "discouraged."


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's just firmly "discouraged."


There was always leniency for it. (Couldn't help but posting. *slightly annoyed sigh*)


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

WAIT.... So you mean to tell me that nobody knows about Tchaikovsky's servant?! The affairs? Nobody?

Well.... (Hesitation) All you need to know from me is that it is _certain_ that somebody who repeatedly had affairs with his male servant at a young age is homosexual....

Yes, unpleasantly expanding our knowledge about Tchaikovsky's early personal life. Eaugh. :lol:


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Ok, it's Friday afternoon and I'm now relaxing with a cold beer, so I'm out.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Ah, what a pure unadulterated hatred. One can almost picture the foam dripping onto the keyboard.
> 
> These people, the Russians, have been oppressed and seen their country and their way of life destroyed for 70 years, and now that they are finally recovering and trying to live their life in a way that their culture, mentality, convictions and upbringing dictate, they receive such hatred in return. Now, I am certainly no fan of Mr. Putin or of the Russian state, but in this particular instance this particular anti-gay-parade law is indeed a genuine expression of the will of the Russian people, not some arbitrary bureaucratic decision. That is how the Russians want it to be in their country, and who are we to dictate them otherwise?


Its not hatred. It is outrage. First of all, don't the LGBT people of Russia count for anything? Its okay that they are still suffering and oppressed as long as the heterosexuals have a marginally better existence? And I don't care if its "the will of the people" in these cases. The will of the majority is no better than a draconian edict when its used for oppressing people. Russia is no better a place, they've just marginalized their oppression to one group of people.

Also this isn't just about not being able to do pride parades. Its about the government condoning violence and mistreatment of the LGBT community, its about the police allowing that violence to occur or perpetrating it themselves, its about censorship of any mention of homosexuality to marginalize and ostracize these people, to silence and repress their attempts to be free. I don't care if most Russians want that. If most Germans in the 1930s and 40s were cool with Hitler's final solution, would that be okay? I mean, who are we to dictate to them how they live their lives in their own country? I care about freedom and human rights, for all of humanity.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Some of the responses to this thread remind me of Australia's current homophobic, neoconservative, socially regressive prime minister






I know this thread isn't about gay marriage, but have a look at what he has to say about it anyway and compare this to the homophobic beliefs that other people have. Their opinions may be strong, but their arguments are most definitely not!

I'm done with this thread....it'll end up being closed anyway.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Okay - back to the OP

No doubt there are many Russian and other folk who believe homosexuality to be a perversion. And baulk at the idea that one of their national heroes could be of such a persuasion.

Well who are the real perverts? Vladimir Medinsky the culture minister and his cronies who want to pervert the truth to suit their own shameful political agenda.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

May we please close this thread? Half of the posts on here are either opinion or insultive to our beloved composer.  The rest are just not about him. I personally think that this thread introduced much controversy. May we please just forget this and go back to the good old days when we were talking about the composers' music, and not themselves or their personal lives?

Anyway, you can't judge a man without first knowing him. Since what we know about him that should really be discussed today is *his music*, let's do so!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I concur, close the thread please! Or at least move it to somewhere else! We're not talking about music here!


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I concur, close the thread please! Or at least move it to somewhere else! We're not talking about music here!


Moderators? Hulunsoittaja? Mamascarlatti? Administrator? Krummhorn? ANYONE?! I just so happen to _like_ the composer in question, and a bunch of unrelated rumors on an unrelated thread, partially having to do with _him_ and not even his music or life, but rather a controversial subject that had very little to do with him at all is not something that I like to see.

Forumers are ignoring this thread. It's getting both political and biased. Rumors are infiltrating the entire thread. We want the thread closed.

....Is _*THIS*_ what TC is coming to? If so, well, I can save some time in my day doing other things than trying to close a thread both inappropriate for a classical music forum and inappropriate, due to the several rumors and judgements, to the memory of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky!

*Is this necessary?!*


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> but in this particular instance this particular anti-gay-parade law is indeed a genuine expression of the will of the Russian people, not some arbitrary bureaucratic decision. That is how the Russians want it to be in their country, and who are we to dictate them otherwise?


This is a rather twisted interpretation of what a democracy is. Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority. Sure, the opinions of the majorities have weight; but in a democracy, the *human rights* and the laws are also respected. If the opinions of the majorities are in conflict with the human rights, then, in a true democracy, those opinions will not be respected. The history of the 20th century is full of examples of the atrocious results when the opposite was done. You propose a rather populist interpretation, proper of an authoritarian regime.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mstar said:


> *Is this necessary?!*


Of course you could just not read this thread...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

mstar said:


> ....Is _*THIS*_ what TC is coming to? If so, well, I can save some time in my day doing other things than trying to close a thread both inappropriate for a classical music forum and inappropriate, due to the several rumors and judgements, to the memory of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky!


If it's "coming to" anything it's taking a bloody long time doing it, it feels like we've had a thread devolve into off-topic bickering every other week ever since I've been here. In this instance I suggest you just be glad Tchaikovsky wasn't born in the 20th century and didn't compose atonal music, this thread could have been so much worse.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> If it's "coming to" anything it's taking a bloody long time doing it, it feels like we've had a thread devolve into off-topic bickering every other week ever since I've been here. In this instance I suggest you just be glad Tchaikovsky wasn't born in the 20th century and didn't compose atonal music, this thread could have been so much worse.


Ah but he was re-incarnated in the 20th C. Helloooooo Elton!!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I tried to give a strong warning about the content of posts here, but things have continued off topic and on politics. The thread is closed for repairs...

Incidentally, anyone who thinks a thread should be closed would do better to PM a moderator or report a post. We don't continuously monitor threads so we might not see your post for a long time (or ever).


----------

