By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The cruise ship Scarlet Lady made its arrival at the French port of Marseille in May 2024. This event marks a significant moment for the port and the cruise line, indicating a continued resurgence in maritime tourism. The presence of the Scarlet Lady highlights Marseille’s role as a key destination within the European cruise industry.
Read the original article here
It seems there’s a peculiar situation unfolding with Turkey, or as they’d prefer, Türkiye, blocking an American LGBTQ+ cruise from docking. The stated reason? “Moral standards.” This brings up quite a few interesting points and, frankly, some head-scratching contradictions.
The initial reaction is one of sheer surprise, especially given Turkey’s own insistence on how other countries should refer to it. It’s a bit of a jarring contrast, isn’t it? To be so particular about one’s own name while simultaneously imposing what many see as discriminatory policies based on the identity of visitors. It raises the question of whose moral standards are actually being upheld here.
Patti LuPone, who was slated to perform on the Atlantis cruise, expressed her shock and dismay, calling the ban “furious” but affirming that the cruise would find other ports of call. Her sentiment resonates with many: a ship filled with gay men and performers denied entry simply based on who they are feels like a step backward, and it’s understandable why she and others feel the performers and passengers deserve much better.
There’s a strong sentiment that this decision is a significant misstep for Turkey, potentially harming its own tourism industry. It feels like a country is, in a way, “speedrunning the collapse of their tourist industry” by alienating a significant demographic that contributes to global travel.
This situation leads to broader observations about the stance of many Muslim-majority nations on LGBTQ+ rights. While it’s important not to generalize, it’s a common perception that there is widespread disapproval of gay people in many such countries, and this incident seems to reinforce that perception.
The incident also brings to mind the ongoing debate about the name change to “Türkiye.” For many English speakers, the insistence on this new spelling feels like an imposition. The argument is that languages evolve with their own words for countries, and forcing a specific pronunciation or spelling onto another language’s established vocabulary feels like unnecessary nationalism, akin to Spain demanding everyone call it “España” in English.
It seems many believe that if a country is going to be so rigid about its name, it should at least behave in a way that warrants such demands. The idea of spelling it “Türkiye” is met with the sentiment, “We’ll spell it how you want when you behave.”
There’s also a disconnect noted between the country’s actions and what might be considered historical or even perceived past liberalism. Memories of seemingly more liberal times and LGBTQ+ parties in places like New York, contrasted with this current ban, leave some wondering if Turkey has regressed.
Some are questioning the cruise organizers’ decision-making, wondering why an LGBTQ+ cruise would even consider scheduling a stop in a region where LGBTQ+ rights are clearly not prioritized. The expectation is that the cruise captain or company should have factored in the political realities and potential for discrimination.
The legal and social climate for LGBTQ+ individuals in Turkey is a significant concern. Reports suggest that while not outright illegal yet, laws are being considered that could criminalize certain aspects of LGBTQ+ identity and expression, with potential prison sentences for transitioning or even openly discussing the topic. This, coupled with widespread discrimination in various sectors of society, paints a grim picture.
It’s also pointed out that while Turkey is blocking a gay cruise, some find it hypocritical given historical events and other international issues. The denial of the Armenian Genocide, while insisting on specific moral standards regarding sexuality, is seen by some as a glaring inconsistency.
The idea of “moral standards” itself is being scrutinized. Many argue that bigotry and discrimination are the truly immoral standards at play here, not the presence of LGBTQ+ individuals. They emphasize that true moral standards would involve inclusivity and respect for all.
The irony of Turkey demanding its preferred spelling while engaging in what is perceived as discriminatory behavior is not lost on many. It’s seen as a prime example of mixed messages – a desire for international recognition of a name change combined with actions that alienate potential visitors.
Ultimately, this situation serves as a stark reminder for travelers, especially those from the LGBTQ+ community, to research destinations thoroughly and be aware of the prevailing social and legal climates. While some countries might claim moral high ground, their actions often reveal a deeper intolerance, and it’s prudent to avoid places where one’s identity might be met with hostility.