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: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Feb 2011, 17:36
1. youre wrong
2. "yes" isnt even a possible answer for my first question
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Feb 2011, 14:18
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 10 Feb 2011, 14:35
Homosexuality is a wrong way for light future with good family, strong mans and healthy culture.
That's why communist party was prohibit homosexual relationship in law.
It was in time of USSR.
In our days in Russia homosexual culture in law, unfortunately

In the other hand, traditional russian male upbringing is condemn homosexuals.
So, we has a hope for future. )
My English is very bad. Sorry.
I am former Soviet, now Russian.
Can answer the questions
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 267
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Dec 2010, 16:17
Komsomol
Post 15 Feb 2011, 03:16
Russian_citizen wrote:
Homosexuality is a wrong way for light future with good family, strong mans and healthy culture.
That's why communist party was prohibit homosexual relationship in law.
It was in time of USSR.
In our days in Russia homosexual culture in law, unfortunately

In the other hand, traditional russian male upbringing is condemn homosexuals.
So, we has a hope for future. )


Homosexual marriage was perfectly legal and accepted under Lenin and Trotsky.

Why this wave of conservative hate and condemnation all of a sudden, from (supposed) leftists!?
Whatever happened to "equality for all people"!? Oh yeah, Stalin purged it -_-

Homosexuality does NOT negatively impact on family and culture. All homosexuals are brought up in families and many belong to extended families. Homosexuals appreciate family life no more or less than hetrosexuals and many work hard at maintaining family ties. Some homosexual couples seek alternative methods of having children and establish families of their own.
Free love, not trade!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Feb 2011, 03:25
I think what soviet78 said about poligraf would also apply to Russian_citizen.
soviet78 wrote:
Guys, please note that poligraf's reasoning comes from a non-liberal, non-Western position. Please be reasonable in your attempts to convince him why he is wrong, rather than just criticizing his position.

Some countries don't have such a liberal and tolerant attitude to sexual variations which are still only emerging in Western countries.
I'm not saying that it's cool, just that you need to allow for it a little.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4779
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 May 2010, 07:43
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 15 Feb 2011, 03:33
soviet78 wrote:
Guys, please note that poligraf's reasoning comes from a non-liberal, non-Western position. Please be reasonable in your attempts to convince him why he is wrong, rather than just criticizing his position.


Yeah, I kind of thought that a while after I had written my own response back there, and after Order and I both [ur=http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=832832#p832832]talked about it[/url] in The Longest Communist Thread Ever. (Serious conversation in TLCTE? It's more likely than you think.)

Order227 wrote:
The acceptance of LGBT in the Socialist scheme of things is a comparatively recent development. Orgs like CPUSA and RCP haven't always held such inclusive views. It's possible that people like Jim Profit have been influenced by Communists of older, more conservative vintage.

I wrote:
That's true, and despite my gut reaction up there, we should also remember that some of these people came from cultures that were very conservative regarding sexual mores and which even the establishment of Socialism did not necessarily eradicate (I'm talking about like the USSR, and also the PRC and Cuba, though I seem to recall reading about both of the latter having changed their stances lately). Members like that poligraf guy in the homosexuality thread whom I just responded to, for instance, seems to be from the Old Country, and probably of an older generation. I know that my parents, who are pretty liberal about a lot of things, can be prudish when it comes to sexuality.


I mean, it's a perspective that I'm not personally entirely comfortable with, but I can see how it's possible for it to exist among leftists, from the old socialist states, particularly among the older generations. Tolerance for different lifestyles isn't just something that you can teach, and old prejudices are not things that can be suddenly eradicated by adopting Socialism, and sometimes, the tide of popular opinion might even bring these more old-fashioned mores back, regardless of what you set out to do initially, as seen, for instance, in Stalin's USSR.

I had said this previously:

I wrote:
The problem is that a lot of the free love and liberalization of sexuality that took place at the time was not as widely accepted by the public. That's part of the reason why Kollontain wasn't very influential in Soviet society either. Contrary to mainstream image, particularly that presented by the "totalitarian" model, the Bolsheviks did not and were not fully able to force their vision upon the entirety of society.

Trying to get the entire population of the largest state on the planet, in essence people who had been raised to believe in the official line of the Orthodox Church and the conservatism of tsarist government and influence of Orthodoxy, people who had not been taught otherwise, to reject all of that and adopt a totally radical (lol apologies for using this phrase, but it's 3am here, and I can't think of anything at this moment) was not the most successful campaign. This didn't even sit that well among the intelligentsia and revolutionaries who were in favor of revolution and rejecting the past, which just goes to show how deeply ingrained attitudes toward sexual mores can become. A campaign like this was pretty much seen along the same lines as the League of Militant Godless, and not too welcomed by the populace at large.

In hindsight, and from our more liberalized perspective, we can criticize, for instance, Stalin for his conservatism, but at the same time, Stalin was as much a product of his own time and acting pragmatically in this case.


You can see the more conservative, traditionalist attitude that I spoke of in what Russian_citizen wrote:

Russian_citizen wrote:
Homosexuality is a wrong way for light future with good family, strong mans and healthy culture.
...

In the other hand, traditional russian male upbringing is condemn homosexuals.


This is an attitude that the state had not gotten rid of during Lenin's time, and which led to the conservative backlash in the period after.

Shigalyov wrote:
Some countries don't have such a liberal and tolerant attitude to sexual variations which are still only emerging in Western countries.
I'm not saying that it's cool, just that you need to allow for it a little.


Yeah, I mean, even in the West, the LGBT movement is relatively new. The socialist states of the past didn't even have that much exposure to those things. As some traditional cultural standards were not challenged during socialist times, and then when the socialist states collapsed, everybody was too busy transitioning to the market economy to care about social issues, it's not too surprising that those countries are a bit "behind" in these matters. On the flip side, countries like Cuba and China, where the Communist Party did not collapse in the late 1980's, are re-evaluating their perspectives on issues like this in recent years.
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals” - Mark Twain
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 32
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Feb 2011, 03:04
Pioneer
Post 15 Feb 2011, 04:15
I think we shouldn't talk about homosexuals just like they're just a social group. Homosexuality is sexual deviation. It's a fact.

Homosexuals should have all the same rights as other people except those spheres where homosexuality can influence on normal behaving. For example upbringing of child. Of course homosexuals can be good parents, may be better than other people. But sexual deviation can bring problems with psychic development of a child (problems with selfidentification, mockery of other children or something else).

So problem should be under careful examination. We can't just say that homosexual families have the same rights in children upbringings as heterosexual just because it's in spirit of tolerance. Of course homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated in other spheres of social life where homosexuality doesn't have any role. All decisions of the issue should be reasonable, I dare to say.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 15 Feb 2011, 04:58
I think suitability for parenthood should be a matter where the state has certain powers to restrict specific people from being parents, but I think the sexual orientation of the parents is only one (and certainly not the most important) of a large number of factors which need to considered when it comes to deciding who is a suitable parent.

If we are going to go down the road of judging whether people can be parents, there are plenty of heterosexual parents who probably shouldn't be raising children.

If we are concerned about how children are being raised, we should probably be considering ways to limit their abilities to have any number of children and treat them in a terrible manner.

Simply saying that homosexual parents are negative, while heterosexual ones are positive is a gross simplification and not something which scientific evidence would seem to justify.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 32
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Feb 2011, 03:04
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2011, 02:17
Yes, you're right. Not any people can be parents independently of their sexual orientation and a state should keep watching on it. There are many factors of suitability for parenthood, but topic is about homosexuals. I think homosexuality of parents is a risk for child. And we should discuss this problem not from position of tolerance, but of rationality, which based on scientific researches.

It's a fact that I don't know any researching of this issue (parenthood of homosexuals). But if it exists and if results are positive I don't have any objections to homosexual parents.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2011, 05:23
Vadim wrote:
And we should discuss this problem not from position of tolerance, but of rationality, which based on scientific researches.


Well then provide your scientific data.

On the issue of raising children: humans were designed to be raised by collective groups not just a father/mother combo. So to be honest homosexual parents are as poor a replacement for community rearing as traditional hetero rearing. And from a purely numerical standpoint heterosexual parents have failed far more times than homosexual parents have.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 32
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Feb 2011, 03:04
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2011, 06:14
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Well then provide your scientific data.

Read with attention, please. Below I wrote:
Quote:
It's a fact that I don't know any researching of this issue (parenthood of homosexuals). But if it exists and if results are positive I don't have any objections to homosexual parents.

Then.
Dagoth Ur wrote:
On the issue of raising children: humans were designed to be raised by collective groups not just a father/mother combo. So to be honest homosexual parents are as poor a replacement for community rearing as traditional hetero rearing.

It's rational. But to different societies and even families it's true in different extent. For example in my family parents' influence was the biggest so as in some of my friends' one. But I know contrary examples too. So we can't just say that community has more influence on a child than parents because it's far not always true.
Dagoth Ur wrote:
And from a purely numerical standpoint heterosexual parents have failed far more times than homosexual parents have.

Of course, just remember that from a purely numerical standpoint there are much more heterosexual families than homosexual. That's why we have such "statistics". And don't forget that I've talked about homosexuals not as a good/bad people/parents. Humanities don't depend on sexual orientation. I've talked just about influence of homosexuality on a child, which can be done or not. At least I don't know any researches proved or refuted negative influence of homosexuality. If you know - I would glad to look it through.

Edited: Shigalyov, yes you got what I want to say.
Last edited by Vadim on 16 Feb 2011, 06:22, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 16 Feb 2011, 06:18
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Well then provide your scientific data.

I'm not sure why you're having a go at him for this Dagoth, he says:
Vadim wrote:
It's a fact that I don't know any researching of this issue (parenthood of homosexuals).
, but then adds in a most reasonable manner:
Vadim wrote:
But if it exists and if results are positive I don't have any objections to homosexual parents.

It sounds to me like he has his basic reaction to the situation, but he seems more than ready to modify his opinion if evidence (which contradicts it) is presented to him - I'm not sure what more you expect from someone.


edit: it looks like Vadim is saying something similar.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2011, 06:29
Vadim wrote:
Read with attention, please. Below I wrote:


My point is that you're making a point and asking for scientific data to refute it without any scientific data of your own.

Vadim wrote:
It's rational. But to different societies and even families it's true in different extent. For example in my family parents' influence was the biggest so as in some of my friends' one. But I know contrary examples too. So we can't just say that community has more influence on a child than parents because it's far not always true.


We can because this is how all humans everywhere were raised in pre-patriarchy days. The family was originally just a formalized extension of this (children being raised by aunts/uncles/etc) but the two-person modern family is completely inefficient as a rearing method because of the communities lack of contribution.

Vadim wrote:
Of course, just remember that from a purely numerical standpoint there are much more heterosexual families than homosexual.


It doesn't matter because there are far more bad hetero parents than homo parents. So being a bad parent is not something you can use against homosexuals.

Vadim wrote:
I've talked just about influence of homosexuality on a child, which can be done or not.


Herein lies the point. You said:
Vadim wrote:
But sexual deviation can bring problems with psychic development of a child (problems with selfidentification, mockery of other children or something else)


All of these are problems experienced by hetero parents in greater numbers.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that I agree with you that homosexual parents are insufficient to properly raise a child, but I'm going one step further and saying that a two-person system of raising children is insufficient. It is through the community that terrible parents (heterosexual and homosexual) are weeded out.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 32
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Feb 2011, 03:04
Pioneer
Post 16 Feb 2011, 07:29
Quote:
My point is that you're making a point and asking for scientific data to refute it without any scientific data of your own.

Yes, you're right that I haven't given any proves from my side, but it's natural to think that sexual deviation can bring some problems with children's upbringings. And until the contrary will be proved I continue think in this way.
Quote:
We can because this is how all humans everywhere were raised in pre-patriarchy days. The family was originally just a formalized extension of this (children being raised by aunts/uncles/etc) but the two-person modern family is completely inefficient as a rearing method because of the communities lack of contribution.

I'm talking not about efficiency or past, but about currently state of affairs. I gave you example - me. I know another examples. Both my good friends' parents influenced on them more than community. What's then?
Quote:
It doesn't matter because there are far more bad hetero parents than homosexual parents. So being a bad parent is not something you can use against homosexuals.

Do you think that ability to be good parents depends on sexual orientation? I don't. May be I should repeat that sexual orientation doesn't depend on humanities. In fact I'm not talking about homosexuals as people, but about homosexuality as phenomenon. You're right that heterosexual families has many problems and risks, but homosexual one has the same + one - sexual deviation of parents.

P.S. And let me make it clear. I think it's right that community should participate in children's upbringing, but I'm talking not about how it should be but how it is.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2011, 16:14
Vadim wrote:
but it's natural to think that sexual deviation can bring some problems with children's upbringings.


Homosexuality and heterosexuality are deviations from natural bi-sexual human behavior. Ultimately however what gives someone a boner is one of the least important indicators of how they will be as a parent unless, of course, that thing is children.

Vadim wrote:
And until the contrary will be proved I continue think in this way.


Correlation versus Causation

Vadim wrote:
I'm talking not about efficiency or past, but about currently state of affairs.


Which are dismal. We leave far too many children at the mercy of abusive and distant parents. Using the current state of child rearing to defend anything is amusing in a very sad way.

Vadim wrote:
I gave you example - me. I know another examples. Both my good friends' parents influenced on them more than community. What's then?


It's not that the two-person system is incapable of raising a normal child but that it offers far too wide a difference between what is normal for one child and what is normal for another. For instance, there are many children in the world where normalcy is hiding under their bed when their parents get drunk to hide from a beating. There are also children who think it's normal to have parents who never pay attention to them whatsoever.

This is where the community comes in. They offer an equality of normality. Children who do not get attention can find it in the community, they can also find protection from abuse, and, most importantly, they will learn how to work with these people rather than against these people.

Vadim wrote:
Do you think that ability to be good parents depends on sexual orientation?


I do not. The Ancient Greeks were pretty homosexual and they did not seem so bad as parents (considering what their country was able to do). I think homosexuals have the capacity to be terrible abusive parents and great beloved parents. Just like most other humans.

I'll ask you: what about orientation effects a person's ability to be a 'good' parent?

Vadim wrote:
In fact I'm not talking about homosexuals as people, but about homosexuality as phenomenon.


Homosexuality as a phenomenon is as old as man.

Vadim wrote:
You're right that heterosexual families has many problems and risks, but homosexual one has the same + one - sexual deviation of parents.


I'm interested to understand how sexual deviation effects parenting. I'm not trying to be critical I'm just trying to understand.

Vadim wrote:
I think it's right that community should participate in children's upbringing, but I'm talking not about how it should be but how it is.


How it is, is abysmal. As it stands I don't see how homosexual parents could end up doing any worse than we already have. We should also consider how homosexual parents, even if orientation hinders them, would still be preferable to children growing up in orphanages or foster care.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2408
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 16 Feb 2011, 16:47
I suppose we can ask the question of whether or not this should even be recognised as an issue. In the old days it was a non-issue, no one really thought about homosexual marriage or adoption. It has only been since the 1970s that these things became politicised. I do not see someone's orientation as part of their identity, it is not something which occurs to me and I do not really recognise it as part of the equation. Yes there is the doing of homosexuality but that does not give one a flag to raise and an identity to rally around. I see homosexuality and heterosexuality as behaviors and lifestyles, not as identities.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 16 Feb 2011, 17:27
They most certainly are. And I agree this is mostly a non-issue. Although having any laws concerning how people have sex (issues of consent being a matter of abuse) are fairly ridiculous.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 32
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Feb 2011, 03:04
Pioneer
Post 17 Feb 2011, 03:20
Dagoth Ur, you can except my surrender. I'm not so interested in this issue to continue discussing with so hard opponent.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Nov 2010, 16:48
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 19 Feb 2011, 07:31
a study was conducted on herds of sheep:
10% of the rams preferred to engage in homosexual intercourse even when females were available. This proves that homosexuality is neither a defect nor a phenomenon, it is part of life.
If applied to a society I don't see the problem of having from 5-7% homosexuals, it is sexual orientation and that's personal choice and should never be discriminated because it would be backwardness, since homosexuals are humans and they can engage in production activites, they shouldn't be discriminate and their parenting skills challenged, abusive incestors are far more dangerous and abusive so comparing homosexuals with abusers would be insane.

Even Lenin in the first quarter of the 20th century gave rights to homosexuals why shouldn't we as communist reject discrimination on sexual orientation. Capitalism has alienated them as much as us and especially them because we have a world of hypocrites intolerant of differences.
Image

In the Soviet Union you destroy free-market, In America free-market destroys you
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 24
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 11:07
Pioneer
Post 01 Mar 2011, 11:23
Does it matter, really? Homosexuals are as much your comrade as any other. We should really get past boundaries in order to suppress the capitalist.
Etre communiste, on doit comprendre les gens. Etre un vrai communiste, on doit comprendre des habitudes de gens, la vie, le terre et l’histoire. C'est les damnés de la terre qui sont le plus important dans ma vie, et je les aiderai vite, aucun doute.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Aug 2010, 17:20
Pioneer
Post 15 Mar 2011, 16:29
Red Armenian wrote:
10% of the rams preferred to engage in homosexual intercourse even when females were available. This proves that homosexuality is neither a defect nor a phenomenon, it is part of life.


While I absolutely no problems with homosexuals, to play the devil's advocate here, that doesnt really prove anything. At most it proves that the so called 'defect' is shown in more then one form of life.
"I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy."
"Death is the solution to all problems - no man, no problem."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron