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

Communism and homosexuality

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Nov 2012, 22:24
There is a discussion in France about gay people's right to get married and adopt children. What do you think about gay rights and homosexuality in general? Wat was the opinion of Marxists about it?
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: 3826
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 13 Nov 2012, 22:44
Here, in Argentina, they have the right to marry as any other citizen, and adopt children, just like anyone else.
Because, they are just like any other citizen.


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

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Nov 2012, 23:29
You are supposing that there is something as a "right to marry" but without taking into consideration that getting married can require to have a straight couple, which can't be a "right". And moreover, you can be homosexual and get married like any other citizen.
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: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 14 Nov 2012, 00:03
You're supposing that getting married may require a straight couple.
Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 14 Nov 2012, 00:31
The idea of gay marriage, although an applaudably progressive policy for now, is ultimately reactionary in terms of communism because there will come a time when all marriage is reactionary. We should support people's desire for gay marriage so as to improve gay rights, gay tolerance in society and social equality. However, we must not forget that marriage is fundamentally an act of property. It has traditionally been a way of securing property rights and inheritance and remains so to this day. Under communism, such property aspects will be completely redundant so the only reason to get married will likely be for religious reasons (assuming people still believe in being married "in the eyes of god" etc by then).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 00:36
Quote:
You're supposing that getting married may require a straight couple.

What I mean is that according to the law, every citizen has the right to get married as long as he found someone to get married, and provided that this someone is from the other sex. Therefore there is equality in rights.
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: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 01:42
I'd argue that while gay marriage is nominally irrelevant in regards to class struggle, we should pay attention in so far as it is used as a fear tactic by reactionaries, backed by religious organizations that will traditionally support the capitalist class.

Hence, at this point in time, gay marriage is progressive. In some future time, we'll no longer "own" each other, and it will be irrelevant.
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: 3826
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Nov 2012, 03:47
OP-Bagration wrote:
What I mean is that according to the law, every citizen has the right to get married as long as he found someone to get married, and provided that this someone is from the other sex. Therefore there is equality in rights.

That's exactly how our law is. But that's not common around the world. Most laws clearly say it must be a man and a woman. Hence, the need of reform.

Right now, it's very progressive. Of course it won't be in the future... but we're not there yet.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 14 Nov 2012, 07:10
OP-Bagration wrote:
What I mean is that according to the law, every citizen has the right to get married as long as he found someone to get married, and provided that this someone is from the other sex. Therefore there is equality in rights.

That's just sophistry, on the lines of the KKK's arguments of racial segregation based on "We don't have anything against negroes, we just want everyone to stick to their own race!", or the "american-dream" about anyone being able to go from being a hobo to riches (and therefore the oppresive economic system being justified). The truth of the matter is that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is discriminating them, insofar they're not allowed to reap the benefits that straight couples would get (and no, saying "they could just become straight and reap them" is no argument at all),
Back in white
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Nov 2012, 08:58
OP-Bagration wrote:
What I mean is that according to the law, every citizen has the right to get married as long as he found someone to get married, and provided that this someone is from the other sex. Therefore there is equality in rights.


Yeah, but as the above poster said, this is just sophistry. Marriage is restricted, and thus, restricts everyone "the same", but what these restrictions entail and who these restrictions apply to are the real life concerns that are in discussion. Otherwise we could say the same of any law at all.

Considering that, in a bourgeois state, marriage is a contract that establishes things like property, decision making and similar stuff, what is the argument that it should be restricted to opposite sexes? I don't think you'll find any that's justifiable.

You can have sex with whomever and live with whomever, so what's exactly being prevented here? "official" recognition?

Adopting kids is something different, I believe. Being married doesn't "entitle" you to adopt a kid. You have to be screened and so on. If the experts think you're fit, then you get approved. I assume that with a homosexual couple it would be the same. I'm no expert, it's not up to me to say if x or y couple can get an adopted child.

-------------
More in general, we have to keep in mind that this is a bourgeois issue, in that it is about "rights" and so on. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't support it, only that we musn't be nearsighted about it.

We can perhaps make a historical comparison to women's rights, which also was a bourgeois affair (the right to participate in contracts, elect officials, be exploited), and which had Marxists supporters and detractors, depending on whether, in their opinion, it aided or harmed the worker's movement.

I personally would have sided with supporters, like Kollontai, who argued in favor of taking up these causes and uniting them with the general cause, instead of letting them be taken up by bourgeois actors.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Nov 2012, 10:05
I support gay marriage because i want their endless nagging about it to stop.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 15:52
The problem is that you have to define a form of family. The capitalist society believe that family should be base on "free love" and "free sex". Therefore, why not accepting situations like incest, polygamy, "trouple", or even bestiality, as long as the participants are willing to participate?

Also if it is a "bourgeois" issue, we can't support it. Yet equality for women wasn't a bourgeois issue. Lenin said about it: "Scratch a communist and find a philistine".
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: 3826
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Nov 2012, 15:59
Why is it a bourgeois issue? You don't think there are homosexual comrades that want to get married and have equal rights under the law?


"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 14 Nov 2012, 16:27
OP-Bagration wrote:
The problem is that you have to define a form of family. The capitalist society believe that family should be base on "free love" and "free sex". Therefore, why not accepting situations like incest, polygamy, "trouple", or even bestiality, as long as the participants are willing to participate?

Also if it is a "bourgeois" issue, we can't support it. Yet equality for women wasn't a bourgeois issue. Lenin said about it: "Scratch a communist and find a philistine".


Children and animals can't provide consent in a meaningfull way. Polygamy is fine in theory.
The modern ideal of the family is tired inherently to property rights, hence we shouldn't support the "classic" family any longer than we'll have to.
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: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Nov 2012, 21:42
Polygamy is more reactionary than normal marriage though. OPB is clearly wrong in that the bourgeoisie view of the family is based on free-love. Free-love destroys the Family.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 21:54
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Polygamy is more reactionary than normal marriage though. OPB is clearly wrong in that the bourgeoisie view of the family is based on free-love. Free-love destroys the Family.


Explain, comrade.
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: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Nov 2012, 22:18
Polygamy is the ownership of many people rather than just one. It's hoarding to say the least.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 14 Nov 2012, 22:24
I would like to think that the old times' concept of marriage (of ownership) doesn't really apply anymore, and that today it signifies a mutually agreed contract.
Back in white
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Nov 2012, 22:26
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Polygamy is the ownership of many people rather than just one. It's hoarding to say the least.


Wouldn't that only apply if it was one person having multiple partners. If every person was free to so choose, it wouldn't be ownership as we understand it today
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
Soviet cogitations: 1011
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 06:15
Party Member
Post 14 Nov 2012, 22:38
It's true that it lends itself more easily to abuse, though.
Back in white
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron