Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Communism and homosexuality

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2012, 15:58
runequester wrote:
When was the last time you consciously chose to be straight, rather than gay? :?:

Actually, I had a run when I was a teenager where I thought I might be gay.

Why did I come to that conclusion? Well, I was pretty turned off by women, so I saw more compatibility with homosexuality than heterosexuality.

Such manifestations happen because my society accepts gays(for the most part).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2012, 19:12
No they happen because you like dudes. That you're okay with admitting it even to this level is the only way your culture defined that attraction. If you'd lived in a more repressive culture you'd still like dudes but be super repressed about it.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 18 Nov 2012, 21:05
So you are saying that being homosexual is independant from the social conditions in which you are living? Then it's biological and could be cured.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3832
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 18 Nov 2012, 21:12
Cured? why should it be cured? Is it a disease?

Again, no one has said why they shouldn't marry....


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2012, 21:23
OP-Bagration wrote:
So you are saying that being homosexual is independant from the social conditions in which you are living?

I don't see how you got that from what I said. Homosexuality is defined by social conditions but does not arise from them anymore so than heterosexuality. It's not the chicken or the egg it's both. Dialectics bro.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Then it's biological and could be cured.

Why does it need to be cured?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 19 Nov 2012, 01:57
Dagoth Ur wrote:
No they happen because you like dudes. That you're okay with admitting it even to this level is the only way your culture defined that attraction. If you'd lived in a more repressive culture you'd still like dudes but be super repressed about it.

Assuming that humans have a "natural" reaction towards each other, as you claim, how exactly is this argument compatible with human nature(which by the way is the same basis you're using here). If love came about because it allowed for humans to reproduce at a greater level(as a product of evolution), how does homosexuality tie into this? The only explanation is that human nature has no role in this, and that human consciousness necessarily supersedes such standards. Otherwise, there would be no homosexuality among humans. The only explanation for homosexuality among animals(which happens to exist on very rare occasions and by no means is it comparable to human homosexuality) is that they're naturally flawed(as animals aren't conscious as humans are).

Quote:
Homosexuality is defined by social conditions but does not arise from them anymore so than heterosexuality.

So society's influence doesn't overwhelmingly cause heterosexuality among humans? How can society function without the possibility of renewed generations necessarily coming about? It is for that reason that homosexuality will ALWAYS be alienated and at best be tolerated. It is best to expect that homosexuality and heterosexuality will never be held at an equal basis, as society will never accept the former's right to propagate its sexual values so long as they aren't useful for the reproduction of the human race.
Now the individual is far more likely to become a heterosexual, of course, as society needs reproduction, and thus it will naturally be an everlasting thesis that will never fall(unless biology is turned on its head- which it already has for Lesbians).

OP-Bagration wrote:
So you are saying that being homosexual is independant from the social conditions in which you are living? Then it's biological and could be cured.

If it were biological, which it can't be since human homosexuality is unprecedentedly greater than animal homosexuality, it should be cured. But human consciousness makes it impossible and rather irrelevant to even try, as it would be impossible to point out who is biologically homosexual and consciously homosexual whilst irrelevant because of that distinction.
Among animals, however, it should be cured(if at all possible).

Comparing humans to animals is rather corny, and I'm a Vegetarian myself.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3832
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 19 Nov 2012, 02:42
What's with all the reproductive talk??
People can't get married unless they're willing to reproduce? Sterile people can't fall in love and get married?

Why not accept what's actually going on in the world? Homosexual comrades are exactly that... comrades. I don't know about you, but I don't care who has sex with whom. If they want to get married, why not let them?

Once again... no one has given a reason why gay people shouldn't get married.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 19 Nov 2012, 03:38
Gay marriage and rights are side issues and gay activists can sometimes be annoying, but there is no good reason for gay marriage to not be legal and tolerated. The USSR re-banned it because of the conservative nature of the Soviet public. I think that was a mistake personally and one we should not repeat.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 19 Nov 2012, 12:10
Quote:
I don't see how you got that from what I said. Homosexuality is defined by social conditions but does not arise from them anymore so than heterosexuality. It's not the chicken or the egg it's both. Dialectics bro.

Didn't you said that he would have been homosexual regardless of the social conditions? There is a possibility that, had the culture and social practice been different, he wouldn't have been homosexual. Obviously in each society there is a certain amount of homosexuality because there is some contingency in the psychological evolution of each indivudal.

Quote:
Why does it need to be cured?

I don't think this kind of relationship is useful to society, that's why. But of course, since it's not biological imo, I don't want to cure it.

Quote:
Cured? why should it be cured? Is it a disease?

I don't know if it's a disease, but why not?

Quote:
Why not accept what's actually going on in the world? Homosexual comrades are exactly that... comrades. I don't know about you, but I don't care who has sex with whom. If they want to get married, why not let them?

I think nobody there wants to reintroduce the "sodomy law". But allowing same-sex marriage means that the whole society has to recognize equality between gay and straight sexualities. Of course there is gay comrades bu what? I also have comrades smoking smoking cannabis, yet I'm still against cannabis.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 19 Nov 2012, 21:34
Havee3333333 wrote:
Assuming that humans have a "natural" reaction towards each other, as you claim,

Where did I claim anything like this?

Havee3333333 wrote:
how exactly is this argument compatible with human nature(which by the way is the same basis you're using here).

There is no such thing as human nature.

Havee3333333 wrote:
If love came about because it allowed for humans to reproduce at a greater level(as a product of evolution), how does homosexuality tie into this?

Personally I've always felt homosexuality was a common tactic used by animals for population control. Like disease and infertility. Oh and it's not love that causes us to reproduce at greater levels rather that is lust. Love is an ideology.

Havee3333333 wrote:
The only explanation is that human nature has no role in this, and that human consciousness necessarily supersedes such standards. Otherwise, there would be no homosexuality among humans. The only explanation for homosexuality among animals(which happens to exist on very rare occasions and by no means is it comparable to human homosexuality) is that they're naturally flawed(as animals aren't conscious as humans are).

That's wrong and retarded. All great apes display homosexuality on a regular basis. The lesser animals do as well. But what is this natural flaw you alude to? Insanity or something like that?

Havee3333333 wrote:
So society's influence doesn't overwhelmingly cause heterosexuality among humans?

I didn't say it didn't. Rather is said society determines how they are homosexual rather than wh they are. If you want to frag your own gender but don't you're still gay. Just because people screw the gender they're "supposed" to does not mean they prefer it or even like it. The 50's in the western world exposed this nonsense. Gay dudes, under pressure, will obviously act like straight dudes. My question to you is why would you oppress someone in such a way?

Havee3333333 wrote:
How can society function without the possibility of renewed generations necessarily coming about?

If humans could have killed ourselves off with homosexuality we would have done it back when we were dumb beasts and thought women got pregnant from the wind.

Havee3333333 wrote:
It is for that reason that homosexuality will ALWAYS be alienated and at best be tolerated.

So now we're to justifying oppression and alienation.

Havee3333333 wrote:
It is best to expect that homosexuality and heterosexuality will never be held at an equal basis, as society will never accept the former's right to propagate its sexual values so long as they aren't useful for the reproduction of the human race.

Very pessimistic bro. Do you really think the only reason straight people frag is because they want to reproduce?

Havee3333333 wrote:
Now the individual is far more likely to become a heterosexual, of course, as society needs reproduction, and thus it will naturally be an everlasting thesis that will never fall(unless biology is turned on its head- which it already has for Lesbians).

What the frag does that last line even mean? Btw your "everlasting thesis" reeks of idealism.

Havee3333333 wrote:
If it were biological, which it can't be since human homosexuality is unprecedentedly greater than animal homosexuality, it should be cured.

... Jesus Christ dude.

Havee3333333 wrote:
But human consciousness makes it impossible and rather irrelevant to even try, as it would be impossible to point out who is biologically homosexual and consciously homosexual whilst irrelevant because of that distinction.
Among animals, however, it should be cured(if at all possible)

Why?

Havee3333333 wrote:
Comparing humans to animals is rather corny, and I'm a Vegetarian myself.

human are animals. Thinking any other way is to completely divorce yourself from materialism.

Btw hitler was a vegetarian.


OP-Bagration wrote:
Didn't you said that he would have been homosexual regardless of the social conditions?

Depends on how you define homosexual. If you consider a represses homosexual with a wife and children "straight" then yes social conditions entirely define homosexuality (which is entirely correct as a social category). However that man still wants to chow down on dick. Repression is not a cure.

OP-Bagration wrote:
There is a possibility that, had the culture and social practice been different, he wouldn't have been homosexual. Obviously in each society there is a certain amount of homosexuality because there is some contingency in the psychological evolution of each indivudal.

We don't choose who we're attracted to and no one chooses them for us. If you're attracted to men as a man no amount of social practice will ever stop you from wanting to frag men. You'll just hide/suppress those feelings. Usually with disasterous repercussions for everyone involved.

OP-Bagration wrote:
I don't think this kind of relationship is useful to society, that's why. But of course, since it's not biological imo, I don't want to cure it.

Our relationships are defined by their usefulness to society?

OP-Bagration wrote:
But allowing same-sex marriage means that the whole society has to recognize equality between gay and straight sexualities.

lol no it doesn't. White women can legally marry black men nowadays but that doesn't change the fact that many people still think that's a wrong relationship. Actually there's even whole organizations dedicated to the wrongness of interracial life.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Of course there is gay comrades bu what? I also have comrades smoking smoking cannabis, yet I'm still against cannabis.

What's so wrong with weed?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2294
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 19 Nov 2012, 23:57
Quote:
Depends on how you define homosexual. If you consider a represses homosexual with a wife and children "straight" then yes social conditions entirely define homosexuality (which is entirely correct as a social category). However that man still wants to chow down on dick. Repression is not a cure.

If a straight person is a "repressed homosexual", then a homosexual is a straight repressed. Social conditions isn't only about repression. What I mean is that there is some societies in which been homosexual is a way of life, like in Ancient Greece, and those societies produce more homosexuals than societies who consider that heterosexualiy should be the basis of sexual relationships. Also, it's possible that some classes produce more homosexuals than other classes and that it's not the product of lack of repression or greater tolerance and material ressources, but a personal evolution. For example, a friend of mine who was attracted to women became attracted to men, but only to black men even though he was white! This isn't something "natural", there is a social construction.

Quote:
We don't choose who we're attracted to and no one chooses them for us. If you're attracted to men as a man no amount of social practice will ever stop you from wanting to frag men. You'll just hide/suppress those feelings. Usually with disasterous repercussions for everyone involved.

I agree, that's why I support tolerance. But it doesn't mean that we should officially recgonize this through marriage.

Quote:
lol no it doesn't. White women can legally marry black men nowadays but that doesn't change the fact that many people still think that's a wrong relationship. Actually there's even whole organizations dedicated to the wrongness of interracial life.

Because your country is backward. In France criticizing interracial life would mean going to jail. And obviously, if you allow gay marriage, you will have to recognize it officially. For example if you are a teacher, you will have to make no difference between the parents, if you are a mayor, you won't be allowed to refuse to marry gay people.

Quote:
Our relationships are defined by their usefulness to society?

Of course, why do you think we have this kind of straight couple family with a leading man? And not polygamy, or like in some tribes the collective education of children? Because this family corresponds to our society, but now the evolution of capitalism has already started its disintegration: equality of men and women, divorce, and now same-sex couples.

Quote:
What's so wrong with weed?

It kills people, deprave the youth and support criminal networks.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 20 Nov 2012, 02:03
Che Burashka wrote:
What's with all the reproductive talk??
People can't get married unless they're willing to reproduce? Sterile people can't fall in love and get married?

Why not accept what's actually going on in the world? Homosexual comrades are exactly that... comrades. I don't know about you, but I don't care who has sex with whom. If they want to get married, why not let them?

Once again... no one has given a reason why gay people shouldn't get married.

These moralist arguments are cute, but don't properly address the needs of society. There are no such things as absolute ideals, and thus we cannot attribute our values to other societies that have other material conditions.

I perhaps haven't given moral reasons as to why they shouldn't get married (which is what you're biting at), but I have addressed contradictions and its material incompatibility with society. Thus as a Scientist, I have come to the conclusion that their trend is not useful for the existence of the human race, and thus they should be alienated permanently from wide scale social acceptance (but tolerated).

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Where did I claim anything like this?

You didn't directly say it, but when reconstructing your argument that's what I was lead to.

Quote:
There is no such thing as human nature.

Good, so you'll agree that people don't "like guys" simply out of personal whim. Rather they're conditioned by their societies to have such values, and that the emotion "love" is too relative to such conditions.

Quote:
Personally I've always felt homosexuality was a common tactic used by animals for population control. Like disease and infertility. Oh and it's not love that causes us to reproduce at greater levels rather that is lust. Love is an ideology.

Can animals construct complexities like that?

And you're right, there is no such thing as human nature. There is however such a thing as nature, which humans are a part of. And what is nature? A never ending fluctuation where the present determines the future.

So do animals act according to their conditions? They have to, as they are products of nature. Humans do as well, but human consciousness abstracts this relationship.

Quote:
But what is this natural flaw you alude to?

Animals aren't conscious... They are necessarily products of nature, and all of their actions are directed by nature. Humans, on the other hand, are conscious, so they can make decisions that, although still directed by nature, are more complex and better address the physical realm. Why did this come about in humans? Because the human mind is a product of evolutionary matter, as the mind and all its functions came about necessarily for the prolongation of the human race (as a species that was able to assess conditions lasted longer than those that didn't).

This is the underlying issue with homosexuality. If humans were meant to marry their own respective sexes, nature would have necessarily made room for that capability. Homosexual males have yet to show reproductive features, and thus they aren't beneficial to the prolongation of the human race. Homosexual females, on the other hand, are still able to reproduce by fertilizing their eggs, and thus they have defeated the genetic blockade and are allowed to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect society to adhere to absolute ideals when they contradict real world conditions. We are actually distancing ourselves from Marxism and have entered Liberal territory with this argument.

Quote:
If you want to frag your own gender but don't you're still gay.

That's impossible. People can't be gay in societies that ban it, unless there is a necessary medium from which it exists. This is Kantian nonsense... And no, men can easily become heterosexuals again, as social conditions will necessarily force it to the point that the antithesis has no more compatibility with physical conditions the individual lives in.

By the way, this is a human nature argument. Something you said doesn't exist earlier.

Quote:
Gay dudes, under pressure, will obviously act like straight dudes. My question to you is why would you oppress someone in such a way?

I don't... Societies do, as it is society (and not the individual) that conditions the individual to interpret the material world. Once again, humans are not subjects to absolutism. A man who is still attracted to men, but "represses" it, is not needlessly constraining himself, because if the society in question's thesis made sense to the individual, he'd give it up. The fact that he is homosexual in the first place is because something throughout his life taught him to be, and he asserted that such views were more compatible with his realities than heterosexuality. If someone was at one time homosexual, but now attracted to women (as was the case with me), it is not because some deep spirit in him that determines that he'll he homosexual for the rest of his life is being repressed (and this is some Fraudian crap here), it is rather because he came to the realization that one mode of love was better for his interests than another (Isolation and ridicule from women at a very young age made me withdraw myself from heterosexuality, whilst I later changed that standard after I fell in love with a longtime ex-girlfriend- although that didn't happen in one night, rather it came about as my friendship with her grew to the point that I didn't like men anymore). If an individual man didn't come to the realization, it is because homosexuality is better for their interests than heterosexuality.

Quote:
So now we're to justifying oppression and alienation.

I will always think relative to my conditions. I do not strongly oppose homosexuality now because society doesn't need to expand itself as much as it did in the Feudal and early-Modern eras, whilst, as a minority, I'm not part of some majority that believes it is under threat of going extinct under the brunt of immigration, and thus I have to care whether the majority society starts having more kids or not.

Quote:
Very pessimistic bro. Do you really think the only reason straight people frag is because they want to reproduce?

As if that's relevant for every historical period in history.

Quote:
What the frag does that last line even mean? Btw your "everlasting thesis" reeks of idealism.

I explained that last line earlier in this comment. It does in fact reek of Kantian absolute idealism, but that's not the basis I'm using. If society has no reason to accept homosexuality as a permanent player, it will necessarily keep the thesis in tact forever. Again, thesis will only break in cases of contradiction. And, as I've repeatedly noted, there are massive contradictions in the antithesis of gays being equals to non-gays. Unless that is changed (as it did for Lesbians through biological advancements), they'll be alienated forever.
Quote:
human are animals. Thinking any other way is to completely divorce yourself from materialism.

Humans = conscious. Animals = not conscious. The fact that you're holding animals to human standards is hard to understand. Whilst animals are a force of nature with no free will of their own, humans are conscious do to evolutionary developments that I explained earlier.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3832
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 20 Nov 2012, 04:35
OP-Bagration wrote:
Because your country is backward. In France criticizing interracial life would mean going to jail. And obviously, if you allow gay marriage, you will have to recognize it officially. For example if you are a teacher, you will have to make no difference between the parents, if you are a mayor, you won't be allowed to refuse to marry gay people.

And your country is backwards too. In Argentina, criticizing gay marriage would mean...well, not going to jail, but it'll mean you're a bigot. Allowing gay marriage IS recognizing it officially, it means you have to make no difference between anyone. What's the problem with treating our comrades as equals?

Havee3333333 wrote:
These moralist arguments are cute, but don't properly address the needs of society. There are no such things as absolute ideals, and thus we cannot attribute our values to other societies that have other material conditions.

I perhaps haven't given moral reasons as to why they shouldn't get married (which is what you're biting at), but I have addressed contradictions and its material incompatibility with society. Thus as a Scientist, I have come to the conclusion that their trend is not useful for the existence of the human race, and thus they should be alienated permanently from wide scale social acceptance (but tolerated).


Ahhh science. Since your logic is flawless, we should exterminate all gays. Because they're useless to society, right? You sound like a true supporter of eugenics, and other pseudo-sicence fascist stuff.

What you've proved beyond any question is that 2 gay men can't reproduce. Congratulations!!! We've never thought of that...
But that gays are useless for mankind?? How can you arrive to that conclusion? Yes, they can't reproduce, so what??

I guess that sterile people shouldn't get married either. Or old people. Because clearly, if you're not willing to have children, then you can't perform a legal contract. That's very scientific.

Havee3333333 wrote:
This is the underlying issue with homosexuality. If humans were meant to marry their own respective sexes, nature would have necessarily made room for that capability. Homosexual males have yet to show reproductive features, and thus they aren't beneficial to the prolongation of the human race. Homosexual females, on the other hand, are still able to reproduce by fertilizing their eggs, and thus they have defeated the genetic blockade and are allowed to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals.


So, marriage = reproduction?? Dude, you should be giving classes at the Vatican.

Havee3333333 wrote:
I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect society to adhere to absolute ideals when they contradict real world conditions. We are actually distancing ourselves from Marxism and have entered Liberal territory with this argument.


Real world conditions say that gay people exist. They're a minor part of society, but they're out there. Dealing with that is scientific, not dismissing them because they don't fit your hypothesis of an ideal society.

Havee3333333 wrote:
That's impossible. People can't be gay in societies that ban it, unless there is a necessary medium from which it exists.

Really? I wonder how gays become true then. Because homosexuality has been banned in the West for centuries... yet they keep appearing...

Havee3333333 wrote:
Humans = conscious. Animals = not conscious. The fact that you're holding animals to human standards is hard to understand. Whilst animals are a force of nature with no free will of their own, humans are conscious do to evolutionary developments that I explained earlier.

You certainly sound like a scientist. A XIXth century one.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Nov 2012, 06:46
Havee3333333 wrote:

Such manifestations happen because my society accepts gays(for the most part).


Say what? I was raised in Denmark, one of the most liberal, multi-cultural, hippie egalitarian societies on the friggen planet today, and I am not particularly gay, neither did I know a single person growing up that was openly gay.

Shouldn't they have been all over the damn place?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Nov 2012, 22:29
OP-Bagration wrote:
If a straight person is a "repressed homosexual", then a homosexual is a straight repressed.

That would only make sense if I was saying straight people are repressed homosexuals. Rather I'm saying a society like ours just makes many repressed homosexuals who pretend to be straight, which isn't good for the rest of us.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Social conditions isn't only about repression. What I mean is that there is some societies in which been homosexual is a way of life, like in Ancient Greece, and those societies produce more homosexuals than societies who consider that heterosexualiy should be the basis of sexual relationships.

While ancient Greece did view male love as the ideal (strong patriarchy) form of love but being entirely homosexual was still deviant. You had to have a wife and children to be a true Greek Man.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Also, it's possible that some classes produce more homosexuals than other classes and that it's not the product of lack of repression or greater tolerance and material ressources, but a personal evolution. For example, a friend of mine who was attracted to women became attracted to men, but only to black men even though he was white! This isn't something "natural", there is a social construction.

I've never claimed that people couldn't make themselves gay, it's just most don't.

OP-Bagration wrote:
I agree, that's why I support tolerance. But it doesn't mean that we should officially recgonize this through marriage.

frag tolerance, what's needed is equality if we're to overcome this dialectic.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Because your country is backward. In France criticizing interracial life would mean going to jail. And obviously, if you allow gay marriage, you will have to recognize it officially. For example if you are a teacher, you will have to make no difference between the parents, if you are a mayor, you won't be allowed to refuse to marry gay people.

lol fair enough. But there are still reactionaries bemoaning the death of the white man and the family in France no matter how silent they become. It's kinda like American racism, quiet but pervasive.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Of course, why do you think we have this kind of straight couple family with a leading man? And not polygamy, or like in some tribes the collective education of children? Because this family corresponds to our society, but now the evolution of capitalism has already started its disintegration: equality of men and women, divorce, and now same-sex couples.

Ending ideals is a good thing.

OP-Bagration wrote:
It kills people, deprave the youth and support criminal networks.

You blame weed for nothing it does. The first is a lie, the second a lack of guidance, and the third a product of a criminal system of law.

Havee3333333 wrote:
You didn't directly say it, but when reconstructing your argument that's what I was lead to.

So you misunderstood me.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Good, so you'll agree that people don't "like guys" simply out of personal whim.

lol dude... Personal choices aren't human nature. Human nature is shit like how we're supposed to betray each other at the earliest point yet we have these big societies based on working together to insane degrees. What you individually want to stick your dick in has nothing to do with nature but the construction of your brain. But just like there isn't a gay gene there isn't a particular set of circumstances and allowances that builds gay kids. There are far too many factors involved in human sexuality to ever have any kind of answers that apply in any mass scale.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Rather they're conditioned by their societies to have such values, and that the emotion "love" is too relative to such conditions.

Love like homosexuality is just a word for brain chemicals. Homosexuality like love happens without society too.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Can animals construct complexities like that?

They don't need complexities. They frag what feels good to frag. They're just not clever enough to figure out the angles. But then we're so clever we built up complexes about this shit. A chimp will mouth-rape a frog to death with no remorse.

Havee3333333 wrote:
And you're right, there is no such thing as human nature. There is however such a thing as nature, which humans are a part of. And what is nature? A never ending fluctuation where the present determines the future.

That's all nice and sweet sounding but that's bullshit. It's all mathematical factors compounding at an infinitely exponential rate. Nature, luck, coincidence, they're all just terms for things we can't really get our minds around. There is no natural because there is no artificial, it is the very definition of a false dichotomy. Nature is as stupid a notion as free will.

Havee3333333 wrote:
So do animals act according to their conditions? They have to, as they are products of nature. Humans do as well, but human consciousness abstracts this relationship.

Not as much as you want to believe. More than anything we just blind ourselves to how close we are to the other animals. And it's not human consciousness but human ideology that stands in the way of understanding our human animal selves.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Animals aren't conscious...

That's the most retarded thing I've heard on S-E in quite some time.

Havee3333333 wrote:
They are necessarily products of nature, and all of their actions are directed by nature. Humans, on the other hand, are conscious, so they can make decisions that, although still directed by nature, are more complex and better address the physical realm. Why did this come about in humans? Because the human mind is a product of evolutionary matter, as the mind and all its functions came about necessarily for the prolongation of the human race (as a species that was able to assess conditions lasted longer than those that didn't).

Your writing style is so flowery. Humans are the product of millions of years of carnage. We are the apex predator and that is precisely why we got this smart. Everything else is an outcropping of our heritage as a species. Btw do you think you, with your human mind, would be better at being a rabbit than a rabbit would?

Havee3333333 wrote:
This is the underlying issue with homosexuality. If humans were meant to marry their own respective sexes, nature would have necessarily made room for that capability. Homosexual males have yet to show reproductive features, and thus they aren't beneficial to the prolongation of the human race.

Yes they are. They remove lines from the pool. That is an important function always. Also humans weren't meant to marry anything let alone their own gender. For that matter humans weren't meant for anything.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Homosexual females, on the other hand, are still able to reproduce by fertilizing their eggs, and thus they have defeated the genetic blockade and are allowed to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals.

You know girls don't have access to Y genes without us right? Besides that what you just said is nuts dude. That's like reminiscent of Ixabert type shit.

Havee3333333 wrote:
I'm not saying it is right or wrong. I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect society to adhere to absolute ideals when they contradict real world conditions. We are actually distancing ourselves from Marxism and have entered Liberal territory with this argument.

... what are you talking about? I'm an anti-idealist and anti-liberal, where have I said we should expect society to adhere to absolute ideals which contradict real world conditons? What are these supposed ideals I support and what are these real world conditions?

That's impossible. People can't be gay in societies that ban it, unless there is a necessary medium from which it exists. This is Kantian nonsense... And no, men can easily become heterosexuals again, as social conditions will necessarily force it to the point that the antithesis has no more compatibility with physical conditions the individual lives in.[/quote]
fragging a million women doesn't change the fact that you want to frag men. Men engage in homosexuality even in societies where they will be at least cast out if not killed and possibly raped. Like these pastors who spend their lives harping on gays yet still end up in a highway rest area sucking duck. You cannot discount people's internal emotions because they color the rest of their actions. And besides a repressed gay man is unhealthy for society more than a gay couple.

Havee3333333 wrote:
By the way, this is a human nature argument. Something you said doesn't exist earlier.

I adressed this above, you not understanding what human nature is and all.

Havee3333333 wrote:
I don't... Societies do

Dude that's a total cop-out. You're as responsible for the crimes of your society as much as anyone else not actively fighting against those crimes.

Havee3333333 wrote:
as it is society (and not the individual) that conditions the individual to interpret the material world. Once again, humans are not subjects to absolutism. A man who is still attracted to men, but "represses" it, is not needlessly constraining himself, because if the society in question's thesis made sense to the individual, he'd give it up. The fact that he is homosexual in the first place is because something throughout his life taught him to be, and he asserted that such views were more compatible with his realities than heterosexuality. If someone was at one time homosexual, but now attracted to women (as was the case with me), it is not because some deep spirit in him that determines that he'll he homosexual for the rest of his life is being repressed (and this is some Fraudian crap here), it is rather because he came to the realization that one mode of love was better for his interests than another (Isolation and ridicule from women at a very young age made me withdraw myself from heterosexuality, whilst I later changed that standard after I fell in love with a longtime ex-girlfriend- although that didn't happen in one night, rather it came about as my friendship with her grew to the point that I didn't like men anymore). If an individual man didn't come to the realization, it is because homosexuality is better for their interests than heterosexuality.

Either you were lying to yourself then, as there are repressed heterosexuals as well, or you're lying to yourself now. Either way it doesn't matter so long as you align yourself with your internal mechanisms.

Havee3333333 wrote:
Humans = conscious. Animals = not conscious.

Your math sucks. How are animals not conscious? Do you think they have no thoughts? Are you so sure they're all dumber than you?

Havee3333333 wrote:
The fact that you're holding animals to human standards is hard to understand. Whilst animals are a force of nature with no free will of their own, humans are conscious do to evolutionary developments that I explained earlier.

it's so quaint that you think you're so above the other animals. You're not so much more clever than them. And you're certainly not freer.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 21 Nov 2012, 22:55
I don't feel like replying to two different people, seeing that you both are claiming relatively the same things. So one reply will be sufficient if you're really interested in this topic.

Che Burashka wrote:
Ahhh science. Since your logic is flawless, we should exterminate all gays. Because they're useless to society, right? You sound like a true supporter of eugenics, and other pseudo-sicence fascist stuff.

What you've proved beyond any question is that 2 gay men can't reproduce. Congratulations!!! We've never thought of that...
But that gays are useless for mankind?? How can you arrive to that conclusion? Yes, they can't reproduce, so what??

I guess that sterile people shouldn't get married either. Or old people. Because clearly, if you're not willing to have children, then you can't perform a legal contract. That's very scientific.

So many strawmans here... I'll just note that I don't personally have a position on this issue, since viewpoints are relative. It is best to use Dialectical Materialism on these cases.

Also, it is not the job of logicians to assess what is right or wrong, rather to assess validity and contradiction (which is where I'm coming from).

Also, if you want to see my views on Eugenics, go here.
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=52905&start=20


Quote:
So, marriage = reproduction?? Dude, you should be giving classes at the Vatican.

Society chooses what marriage is... Why do you necessarily expect every society to adhere to the same values? If you want to deny Marxist logic for Kantian logic, go ahead and say so.


Quote:
Real world conditions say that gay people exist. They're a minor part of society, but they're out there. Dealing with that is scientific, not dismissing them because they don't fit your hypothesis of an ideal society.

Too bad "real world conditions" are always changing. Again, we Materialists believe the world is in a never ending fluctuation. Thus our opinions will always be relative. There is no OBJECTIVE MORALITY!

Quote:
Really? I wonder how gays become true then. Because homosexuality has been banned in the West for centuries... yet they keep appearing...

Sigh... Society is the bearer of thesis and antithesis. How does it choose a thesis? Whatever is most compatible with material conditions.
Why were gays banned in the middle ages? Various reasons, but mostly because it wasn't productive for the Aristocrats. Why do some Bourgeois societies allow it now? Because there are more than enough people already to exploit around the world. Why doesn't the middle east legalize it? They aren't the people who are doing the exploiting (instead it is the west), rather their Bourgeois classes are making slaves of them for the neo-Liberal world system. Why are they homophobic? Those countries necessarily need to spread conservative values to their people so they'll cooperate with the set thesis.

How do the Bourgeoisie do this? It happens naturally as conditions are reflected to the individuals.


Quote:
You certainly sound like a scientist. A XIXth century one.

Animals aren't conscious, and no shred of science will ever be able to say the contrary (unless evolution necessitates it, but one conscious being is enough for now).
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 21 Nov 2012, 23:08
runequester wrote:
Say what? I was raised in Denmark, one of the most liberal, multi-cultural, hippie egalitarian societies on the friggen planet today, and I am not particularly gay, neither did I know a single person growing up that was openly gay.

Shouldn't they have been all over the damn place?

What about MATERIALISM do you not understand? The world will naturally structure itself so society can maintain itself.

I can't stress this enough. There is no FIXED anything! We Materialists believe the world is in a never ending flux, and thus everything is relative and happens due to necessity!

If you don't want to believe this, fine. Follow some non-scientific dogma, or hell go for Liberalism! But when you come to the realization that there is nothing special about us humans except that our consciousness is an abstraction of the material realm, that we ourselves are the greatest development of matter in the history of the world, and our deaths will simply bring us back to our true mother- Earth- in our true form -matter, which we still are part of now but can't tell because of the abstraction, hopefully you'll accept Materialist/Scientific/Objective arguments.

I suggest Lucretius' On the Nature of Things.

Or how about this,
"Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it."
Lenin, Vol. XIII, pp. 266-67.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 21 Nov 2012, 23:17
If there is no objective morality, and you are not arguing from religious dogma, why the opposition to homosexuality?
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Nov 2012, 23:22
Yeah me and Che were saying the exact same thing.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 23 Nov 2012, 19:41
runequester wrote:
If there is no objective morality, and you are not arguing from religious dogma, why the opposition to homosexuality?

I'm not. I'm just rationalizing why it is viewed the way it is. I could frankly care less about how various societies view homosexuality, but it was my ambition to defend the societies who do oppose it (as conditions are what determines morality).
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron