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

Why was homosexuality relegalised in the USSR?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:16
Forgive me, my name is not Fred, but nice to see you. You are right, AIDS does affect more straights and Black persons than homosexuals today. I am NOT just referring to gay persons when I speak about sexual morality. I am of the opinion that all persons, whether they are straight OR gay, need to be taught to conduct themselves with dignity. It is correct that straights in the USA are living grossly immoral "Jersey Shore" style lives. The Revolutionary State needs to impose laws on sexuality that require that, at least in public, a person's behaviour be appropriate, regardless of the gender of the person he or she is with.

I don't care if a man is with a woman or with another man. There is absolutely no need to engage in nastiness in public. You can refrain from anti-social conduct. If you are unable to do so, then a year of Labour Reform and Moral Re-education wouldn't be a bad idea. What you do in private, and with whom you do it, is not my business. I don't care if you want to hump a woman or a man in the bedroom. That is your concern. I would prefer if you keep it that way.

As far as who marries whom, I don't particularly care, as long as the People make the decision through a free and fair election. The Revolutionary Proletariat should be allowed to vote on that and determine whether the atmosphere is right to allow non-traditional marriage or not. If they do indeed decide to permit it, then it is again up to them to determine HOW. Should it be full marriage, or Civil Unions? In either case, if either is permitted, they should carry with them all the rights and duties of straight marriage.

Public Morality should be very strict. PDA beyond a very limited level should simply not be tolerated. I should not have to watch you engage in lewd, filthy, quasi-pornographic behaviour. If you wish to be a hooligan, go do it in Labour Reform. Don't do it in front of me and other civilised Citizens.

I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself, yes. My views on that subject are very different than many others. That is why I am refusing to enter into the discussion any further.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:22
Yaakov001 wrote:
You are right, AIDS does affect more straights and Black persons than homosexuals today. I am NOT just referring to gay persons when I speak about sexual morality.

No, but that's the main thing you're ranting about. You've described homosexuality itself as "nasty," "disgusting," requiring "mental assistance." So don't make this just about obnoxious public sexuality, unless you think any and all homosexuality is that.

Quote:
As far as who marries whom, I don't particularly care, as long as the People make the decision through a free and fair election. The Revolutionary Proletariat should be allowed to vote on that and determine whether the atmosphere is right to allow non-traditional marriage or not.

Even your wording reeks of Fred Phelps. There was a time when monogamy was some weird, crazy "non-traditional marriage" too. Even into the Middle Ages, everyone was expected to have lovers outside of marriage. As Marxists, we care about the impacts of a given tradition and the circumstances causing it, not preserving whatever the tradition is just because.

Quote:
Public Morality should be very strict. PDA beyond a very limited level should simply not be tolerated. I should not have to watch you engage in lewd, filthy, quasi-pornographic behaviour. If you wish to be a hooligan, go do it in Labour Reform. Don't do it in front of me and other civilised Citizens.

Why do you care so much? I mean, to the point of putting people in labor camps for PDA. It seems more like resentment than anything, honestly.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 16 Nov 2014, 19:28, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:27
I see. Fred Phelps. Like I said, Although I am presently of the opinion that homosexuality may be a mental disorder, as it was so classified before 1973, I am willing to consider that I may be incorrect about that. And no, I am no more inclined to make gays go to Labour Reform than I am anyone else. I am happily married. And yes, if my wife and I engaged in gross, nasty conduct in public, I would hope that somebody would arrest our reactionary butts.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:29
Yaakov001 wrote:
And yes, if my wife and I engaged in gross, nasty conduct in public, I would hope that somebody would arrest our reactionary butts.

So then, define "gross, nasty conduct." Where does the PDA threshold for being sent to the gulag start?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 21
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2012, 17:05
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:34
I would simply like to say that as a gay man, same sex married, I never, ever wanted to display my sexuality in public or to discuss my personal life in public. I would have much preferred to have remained a totally private person. It was the laws of the State I live in and the US Federal government that made it necessary for me to speak up and out. It was people who felt completely free to walk up to my face and impose themselves, asking all sorts of personal questions that they had no right to the answers they sought. I would have been completely happy to leave alone had I been left alone, but society wouldn't consider that course for a second.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:41
If more than two people say "Get a room", you need to behave your damn self.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:44
bundtrock wrote:
I would simply like to say that as a gay man, same sex married, I never, ever wanted to display my sexuality in public or to discuss my personal life in public. I would have much preferred to have remained a totally private person. It was the laws of the State I live in and the US Federal government that made it necessary for me to speak up and out. It was people who felt completely free to walk up to my face and impose themselves, asking all sorts of personal questions that they had no right to the answers they sought. I would have been completely happy to leave alone had I been left alone, but society wouldn't consider that course for a second.


And I can respect that. You should have been left the Eff alone and been allowed to be your own self. If you keep your sexual conduct to yourself, and didn't make it my business, then I don't care who you sleep with.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:49
Yaakov001 wrote:
If more than two people say "Get a room", you need to behave your damn self.

So, that's the standard for being sent to a labor camp, then? Because that's often said for things like people kissing on a date.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:52
Kissing is one thing. Being all over each other is something entirely different.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 16 Nov 2014, 20:00
Yaakov001 wrote:
Kissing is one thing. Being all over each other is something entirely different.

Sure, I might be peeved by that, so would most people. But is it really to the point of warranting being sent off to the gulag? Isn't "get a room" punishment enough?

Let me reiterate: why do you care so much about it?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 21
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2012, 17:05
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 20:46
Yaakov001 wrote:
And I can respect that. You should have been left the Eff alone and been allowed to be your own self. If you keep your sexual conduct to yourself, and didn't make it my business, then I don't care who you sleep with.


My concern has been one of legal rights, benefits, access and is the reason I have been vocal and active in the Gay rights movement. We are only now in the US actually getting same sex marriage in a majority of US states and that fight is far from over. I am disabled and should my younger mate die before me, living in Texas, I would not be able to file for Social Security Spousal benefits because Texas does not to this day recognize my marriage. A number of US States are passing laws that allow so called religious folks to actively discriminate against me in everything from the provision of services to employment, based on their religious beliefs. I will not be a hypocrite, it is about the money, absolutely and why not, my mate and I pay taxes just like everyone else. Why shouldn't we have the same access to those same benefits and services? All I am looking for is equity here.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 20:51
I actually wouldn't argue with that myself. In a Revolutionary State, I think it should be up to the Proletariat to vote on it. It is a radical shift to make on a social level. Personally, I've got no problem with it myself. If I were asked to vote on the subject, I'd vote in favour of it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 17 Nov 2014, 00:26
Yaakov001 wrote:
I actually wouldn't argue with that myself. In a Revolutionary State, I think it should be up to the Proletariat to vote on it. It is a radical shift to make on a social level. Personally, I've got no problem with it myself. If I were asked to vote on the subject, I'd vote in favour of it.

So, they're disgusting, vile, breaking down the family, and recruiting our precious youth. But you have no problem with them getting married. How thoughtful of you, I'm so relieved.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 Nov 2014, 00:33
Gay marriage does undermine the institution and I'm stoked that it does.

Yaakov001 wrote:
Good heavens, would you stop with the whiny statements.

In what sense was I being whiny?

Yaakov001 wrote:
In a truly Communist society, a visit to a therapist would be paid for by the State.

If you don't see how stigma is generated from a scenario where one orientation is lauded and the other lands you in a therapist's office I don't really know what to say. You can go on about how in communism people will just, all of the sudden, stop thinking like humans but this kind of groupthink only can survive when there is an "other", in this case gays.

Yaakov001 wrote:
"gay kid''

Why did you put gay kid in scare quotes? Are you implying there are no gay children?

Yaakov001 wrote:
The Revolution is more than just about changing the government. it is about changing the whole way we think.

I'd say it's more about structural change where progress can be unleashed. We don't aim to change the way people are but to allow them to be free and full human beings. And you don't know what revolutionary morals wil be any mor than me because the revolution is a product of its time and we aren't seers.

Yaakov001 wrote:
There is no shame in being gay.

There is enough shame apparently that children cannot even be allowed to understand what homosexuals are.

Yaakov001 wrote:
you should still not express yourself sexually in public, with a man or a woman. Keep your nasty behaviour to yourself. Do it in private, where it is not nasty,

Yes you should not that is clear to all reasonable people. However treating them like shit for being public sexually should do the trick, gulag is a massive overreaction.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 02:45
MissStrangelove wrote:
So, they're disgusting, vile, breaking down the family, and recruiting our precious youth. But you have no problem with them getting married. How thoughtful of you, I'm so relieved.


I never said anything about that. I personally find sleeping with another man revolting, but what hey, if that's what trips your trigger, go for it. Nor do I think they are trying to recruit the youth as such. Nor for that matter does a gay marriage threaten my marriage in any way.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 17 Nov 2014, 02:55
Then why can't children hear about gays?
Image
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 02:58
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Gay marriage does undermine the institution and I'm stoked that it does.


See above statement.

Quote:
In what sense was I being whiny?


You just sound like everything is a problem for you.

Quote:
If you don't see how stigma is generated from a scenario where one orientation is lauded and the other lands you in a therapist's office I don't really know what to say. You can go on about how in communism people will just, all of the sudden, stop thinking like humans but this kind of groupthink only can survive when there is an "other", in this case gays.


I personally don't care what your sexuality is. Just don't be nasty in public. Do whatever you want to do. Talk with whomever you want to talk. But don't be nasty in public.

Quote:
Why did you put gay kid in scare quotes? Are you implying there are no gay children?


Actually, no. I did that because somebody else used the term. It seemed a bit harsh to me. I don't personally care if he's gay or not.

Quote:
I'd say it's more about structural change where progress can be unleashed. We don't aim to change the way people are but to allow them to be free and full human beings. And you don't know what revolutionary morals wil be any mor than me because the revolution is a product of its time and we aren't seers.


Well, to a limited degree, you might be right. But I think that certain ethics won't change. Nastiness in public is still nastiness.

Quote:
There is enough shame apparently that children cannot even be allowed to understand what homosexuals are.


Let their parents explain it to them.

Quote:
Yes you should not that is clear to all reasonable people. However treating them like shit for being public sexually should do the trick, gulag is a massive overreaction.


That depends on whether telling them to get a room is enough. Some people simply have no shame, and it would not be enough.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 17 Nov 2014, 03:25
Yaakov001 wrote:
I never said anything about that. I personally find sleeping with another man revolting, but what hey, if that's what trips your trigger, go for it. Nor do I think they are trying to recruit the youth as such. Nor for that matter does a gay marriage threaten my marriage in any way.

And I quote, bold for emphasis:

Yaakov001 wrote:
In the new post-Revolutionary world, we should be striving to bring up consciously moral, revolutionary young people. Teaching them a vice like homosexuality, which leads to unhappiness, unstable homelife, and disease is NO way to start.

So, you said people are teaching young people "a vice like homosexuality." Exactly the claim made when conservatives say "the gays are recruiting," that teaching tolerance of it means making more people gay. Ostensibly because the gaylluminati wants more butts or something.

Quote:
I personally don't care what your sexuality is.

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.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 03:30
I'll acknowledge, I did say that. I don't think the subject should be discussed in the schools, or in public discourse. If someone is gay, they can discuss it privately, with family, friends, therapists, clergy, and the like. But in terms of Social Morality, no.
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 03:33
As far as marriage goes, though, if the population itself is ready for that, then that means Social Morality is ready to change. I can go with that. My definition of Social Morality may in fact be more conservative than the general public. Perhaps that needs to be considered as well.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.