Why was homosexuality relegalised in the USSR?

MissStrangelove wrote:

Everything you've said here, before you were called out on it, belies that. And you continue to say you're revolted by it. If you don't care, why would there be revulsion? You're contradicting yourself.

There is no contradition. He hates homosexuality but that doesn't mean he hates other people for being homosexual. It is a personal matter.

Engels, that's more or less it, yes.

Engelsist wrote:

There is no contradition. He hates homosexuality but that doesn't mean he hates other people for being homosexual. It is a personal matter.

The question I was responding to there was whether or not he cares, though. Not caring means apathy, seeing it as just a non-issue; if he's disgusted, it affects him. Ergo, he cares.

Just evidently not enough to ruin other peoples' lives over it... unless they talk about it publicly.

So is this the thread where we brag about our endeavors while pretending to sincerely discuss the issue of people having sex in public, because in that case...

Also, here in Russia, the biggest proponent of anti-gay laws and the creator of the original gay propaganda law, Vitaliy Milonov, is himself rumored to be a homosexual, so let's make some conclusions about what that means.

what it comes down to for me, ultimately, is that sexuality is private. who you sleep with and what you do with them is entirely your business. I personally would hope that you would keep it your business. I don't need to see it in public, I don't need to see it on television, I don't need to see it over the movies, I don't need to hear it on the radio, and frankly, I don't need to see or hear it anywhere else. sex in the public sphere is simply outright nasty. keep it to yourself and let's make everybody happy. I am married, & I have a wonderful sex life with my wife. but it is our business. we don't try to make it other peoples business. a lot of you are going to call me some kind of Puritan. many of you will even come right out and call me a prude. if that is the case, then I embrace both terms.

I apologize for the lack of capitals at the beginning of sentences. I am using voice recognition to type this message over my phone. it doesn't seem to want to recognize capitals at the beginning of sentences. but it is faster than typing on a phone. My computer for some reason does not want to access this site. I am uncertain why that is. sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not. well I look forward to hearing your responses. This is a very interesting website. I like to hear everybody's responses, even when I disagree with them so profoundly. It's a challenge to my point of view. I have to go for the present. I'll talk to you all later.

No, you're not prudish, just preoccupied with the idea. For most people, kissing and whatever else outdoors is a normal expression of love for each other, which other people either ignore or sometimes find adorable. Depictions of sex in movies and other media simply portray it as a part of life and the physical and emotional events that we experience. If you find yourself spewing at the mouth because there are two people pretending to have sex on a movie screen, it is probably more of an emotional issue because I can't really imagine how you can bring yourself to this, unless you constantly told yourself for years that it is bad and you should feel bad and then found a forum about communism and dug up a topic about the history of homosexuality in the USSR to express your feelings about your issue with people being intimate in public to people whom you seem to expect to consider your views stupid and backwards.

Quote:

I don't need to see it in public, I don't need to see it on television, I don't need to see it over the movies, I don't need to hear it on the radio, and frankly, I don't need to see or hear it anywhere else.

Well that sucks because lots of aspects of sexuality need to be discussed publicly for people to make informed, rational decisions and not hurt one another.

please understand what I'm talking about is gross sexuality in public. I don't mind normal reasonable control sexuality. who two people kiss one another publicly is one thing as long as its not nasty. hang two people dry humping public along with kissing is something entirely different. They are to be arrested. I agree with the last poster that there are some things that do need to be talked about in public or what not in order that people can make informed delusions about their sexuality. I'm just saying there are limits and then there are limits. just lets stop being nasty. I mean come on you and I both know the difference between normal sexual behavior, it doesn't gross people out, and disgusting repulsive nasty behavior that's simply should not be allowed to be tolerated.

Quote:

They are to be arrested.

Cool. Then why don't you go to some kibbutz or your mum's basement or whatever and pretend you're still living in the 19th century and spare the rest of the world of this useless moralizing.

oh LOZ grow up. its like dealing with a child. what are you, about 14? if you're going to be insulting, at least be creative. God forbid that someone should disagree with the almighty Loz. in spite of what you think, morals are as much a part of revolution as anything else. Chairman Mao knew that. from what I have read of Stalin, he seemed to know it too.

Yaakov001 wrote:

please understand what I'm talking about is gross sexuality in public. I don't mind normal reasonable control sexuality. who two people kiss one another publicly is one thing as long as its not nasty. hang two people dry humping public along with kissing is something entirely different. They are to be arrested. I agree with the last poster that there are some things that do need to be talked about in public or what not in order that people can make informed delusions about their sexuality. I'm just saying there are limits and then there are limits. just lets stop being nasty. I mean come on you and I both know the difference between normal sexual behavior, it doesn't gross people out, and disgusting repulsive nasty behavior that's simply should not be allowed to be tolerated.

What exactly is "nasty"? Because I think people eating each other's shit and masturbating is nasty, but you might have lower standards.

Kirov wrote:

Also, here in Russia, the biggest proponent of anti-gay laws and the creator of the original gay propaganda law, Vitaliy Milonov, is himself rumored to be a homosexual, so let's make some conclusions about what that means.

Haha, I had him pegged as being gay from the outset; when I saw that guy open his stupid, hate-filled mouth on Solovyev's show, I instantly started remembering all the US Republican lawmakers' speeches on the subject, seemingly overcompensating for something, after which some of the biggest loudmouth anti-gay personalities turned out to be closet homosexuals.

Ironically, I think that Russia's law today is pretty much alright; homosexuality is decriminalized, and there are all kinds of clubs and everything, but it is kind of like a 'don't ask, don't tell' situation in pretty much every sphere except the arts. Having lived in the West so long, I really can't understand where many peoples' outright hate comes from -that needs to change. But it's not going to happen with gay pride parades, and the Russian communists won't be leading that parade either, that's for sure. It's kind of refreshing in a way to see parties not focus on identity politics, which is what some left parties and movements in the West seem to be mired in.

Yaakov001 wrote:

oh LOZ grow up. its like dealing with a child. what are you, about 14? if you're going to be insulting, at least be creative. God forbid that someone should disagree with the almighty Loz. in spite of what you think, morals are as much a part of revolution as anything else. Chairman Mao knew that. from what I have read of Stalin, he seemed to know it too.

It depends on how we're defining "morals." Most Marxists would reject condemning things as nasty and sending people to the gulags just for the sake of upholding some tradition. Even Stalinists are usually pragmatic and utilitarian, not tradition-bound, at least in the West.

We're moral in a certain sense, but that's humanism. Serving human needs is our goal. If something seriously harms those needs, there's an argument for restricting it. Otherwise, there isn't. People here are mostly bothered by this because we don't really think people being "all over each-other" deserves more than "get a room." We don't think it harms us to any serious extent, and just don't care that much about it.

Quote:

Ironically, I think that Russia's law today is pretty much alright; homosexuality is decriminalized, and there are all kinds of clubs and everything, but it is kind of like a 'don't ask, don't tell' situation in pretty much every sphere except the arts. Having lived in the West so long, I really can't understand where many peoples' outright hate comes from -that needs to change. But it's not going to happen with gay pride parades, and the Russian communists won't be leading that parade either, that's for sure. It's kind of refreshing in a way to see parties not focus on identity politics, which is what some left parties and movements in the West seem to be mired in.

Except that gay people get molested, beaten, discriminated against and even killed on a daily basis and the state not only doesn't do anything against this, it in fact actively encourages and fosters homophobia. Truly an "alright" situation. Anyway, what about those gay parades and identity politics that some people seem so bothered with, which is no doubt reactionary and even criminal in the Russian context where there is so much anti-gay violence.

Where i live the first gay parade was guarded by riot police and dozens of people got injured, now it's a normal and cheerful walk though the city.

If it's daily, who are the last 5 people killed in Russia for being gay and what days were they killed on?

Quote:

Except that gay people get molested, beaten, discriminated against and even killed on a daily basis

Notice the part in italics. It's a different syntagm.

So you shat yourself when asked to source your claims and are trying to grammar your way out, got it.

I don't even know where to begin on this. Google anti LGBT violence in Russia for yourself.

I went outside today and it seemed fine, no gay people getting beaten up all over the place and no gay corpses on the ground with cops cheering the killers on, as you seem to be telling me is happening. What kind of Google do you want me to use, streetview? I thought that listing the last 5 people getting killed for being gay would be a compelling enough point for your argument, but apparently even you don't think that it is.

Actually, violence against the gay is much stronger in Brazil or Venezuela than Russia. And homosexuality is a crime in India, as pointed out by their Supreme Court.
Not to even mention how the gay are treated in Saudi Arabia...