Gays Banned From Military Service in Venezuela?

[Agnapostate]

I know it's just Wikipedia, but that's what's indicated by this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/LGBT_military_laws.png

Blue: Homosexuals allowed to serve in the military
Orange: Homosexuals banned from serving; repeal of policy underway
Red: Homosexuals banned from serving (or homosexuality illegal)
Gray: Data not available

Has there been any effort to change this? What is the position of the administration there, and of the majority party, the PSUV? And...I don't know if Leninists can say anything as to Cuba, China, and North Korea?

[El Chuncho]

Banning homosexuals is something I, as a Marxist-Leninist, do take issue with, actually. Banning homosexuals from the military is as bad as banning women from anything. Sexualism is as bad as Sexism and I long for a day when the whole populace of bisexual, homosexual or transsexual people can be free from sexual bigotry from capitalists and even some socialists.

[Patchd]

Who the fuck cares? So what if we can't serve in the violent wing of our bosses' state? If we need military training we'll get it somewhere else.

[El Chuncho]

Who the fuck cares? So what if we can't serve in the violent wing of our bosses' state? If we need military training we'll get it somewhere else.

Because it is discrimination all the same. They should have the same rights as heterosexuals, even if they should not fight for the state.

[Sword and Shield]

North Korea's stance on gays: http://www.korea-dpr.com/forum/?page_id=39#20 I think banning gays from the military would be considered discrimination and is probably not the case.



Due to tradition in Korean culture, it is not customary for individuals of any sexual orientation to engage in public displays of affection. As a country that has embraced science and rationalism, the DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect.

Homosexuals in the DPRK have never been subject to repression, as in many capitalist regimes around the world. However, North Koreans also place a lot of emphasis on social harmony and morals. Therefore, the DPRK rejects many characteristics of the popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity.


I also know that Mariela Castro, Raúl Castro's daughter, has been campaigning for gay rights in Cuba, but I don't know what the current status is.

[El Chuncho]

Things are improving in Cuba, in no small part due to Mariela Castro. I think it'll be free of sexual discrimination completely in at least the next ten years, as most of the Cuban people are not homophobic.

[agnixie]

North Korea's stance on gays: http://www.korea-dpr.com/forum/?page_id=39#20 I think banning gays from the military would be considered discrimination and is probably not the case.



I also know that Mariela Castro, Raúl Castro's daughter, has been campaigning for gay rights in Cuba, but I don't know what the current status is.

Reformist when it's not about you, I see. :rolleyes:

[Sword and Shield]

Reformist when it's not about you, I see. :rolleyes:

Do you want Cubans to start waging a war against their socialist system because gays aren't yet allowed to serve in the military? :laugh:

[Jose Gracchus]

It would be nice if they could at least use the tactics activists here have available to pressure the state and public opinion. No one said anything about "war".

[tachosomoza]

Simply because a country embraces some aspects of socialism doesn't necessarily mean that it automatically gets rid of the social attitudes that defined its colonial/fascist past. As the people who lived through those times die off and the younger generation of revolutionaries takes over, things will progress socially. This applies for non-socialist countries as well. Look at the United States. Did anyone outside of the radical left think that we'd allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military in the 1960s or 70s?

[Sword and Shield]

It would be nice if they could at least use the tactics activists here have available to pressure the state and public opinion. No one said anything about "war".

Like gay parades? That's what they just did.

In other words what agnixie would call "reformist"...

[Patchd]

Because it is discrimination all the same. They should have the same rights as heterosexuals, even if they should not fight for the state.
I just don't think we should be concerned with this, it is not capitalism with equal rights that we fight for surely? Its communism and well-being for all. Now in what way does allowing LGBTQ people to fight in armed forces a step towards this? It is similar to the argument for gay marriage, when did Marxists and Anarchists become so much in favour of the institution of marriage and the requirement for the State to recognise your relationship?

[agnixie]

I just don't think we should be concerned with this, it is not capitalism with equal rights that we fight for surely? Its communism and well-being for all. Now in what way does allowing LGBTQ people to fight in armed forces a step towards this? It is similar to the argument for gay marriage, when did Marxists and Anarchists become so much in favour of the institution of marriage and the requirement for the State to recognise your relationship?

I don't know, you tell me. It seems like every wannabe marxist power that gets its glories sung here can't seem to stop propping up hierarchies and the state, and in fact has historically ditched socialist and progressive ideas when survival of the state became paramount.

Sorry if in this context we at least try to do anti-oppression work, which, hey, includes class too. It's sort of hard to do much when we seem to be given the choice between capitalists, fascists and stalinists.

[El Chuncho]

I just don't think we should be concerned with this, it is not capitalism with equal rights that we fight for surely? Its communism and well-being for all. Now in what way does allowing LGBTQ people to fight in armed forces a step towards this? It is similar to the argument for gay marriage, when did Marxists and Anarchists become so much in favour of the institution of marriage and the requirement for the State to recognise your relationship?

We do indeed fight for communism and well being for all...which is why we fight for it in society, even if the society we live in is not yet communist. In other words we are progressives who believe that society should progress.

Marxists support gay marriage because they believe that same sex partners deserve and equal right as opposite sex partners to marry. Same with the military, as it is an issue of anti-discrimination. We might disagree with the use of the military (but as a Marxist-Leninists I know the military does have a place in a post revolutionary society), we believe that people of any sexuality should have equal rights in all things, including serving in the military.

It does not mean that fighting homophobia or sexism should be our main priority, that is the class struggle, but we should still look at discrimination in all fields with contempt.

[Manic Impressive]

I wish they would ban heterosexuals from serving in the military

[Aspiring Humanist]

Cuba threw homosexuals in jail up until 1970 something, so banning them from the military shouldn't come as a surprise. However in Venezuela the amount of rhetoric spewed out of Chavez's bourgeois mouth makes him even more of a hypocrite if he refuses to let homosexuals be in the military.

You know its bad when the United States of America has you beat on civil rights...

[Patchd]

Equal rights under capitalism is a farce, you know that, so why give effort propping up the illusion that by campaigning for LGBTQ people to be allowed to get married at a religious institution or to join the military is actually doing something significant for us? Because let's face it, having some of us join the military or get married does absolutely nothing to improve the conditions of LGBTQ people.

The matter is a class issue, so class politics should be at the forefront of the debate. There are more pressing issues for our community, the marketisation of what we once saw as safe spaces or of our pride marches taking control away from working class LGBTQ and placing it in the hands of gay businessmen/women, homophobic attacks being on the increase, heterocentric or outright homophobic education (notably in sex education classes, but also can be seen in some schools as a trend in throughout departments), LGBTQ losing their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender presentation etc...


Sorry if in this context we at least try to do anti-oppression work, which, hey, includes class too. It's sort of hard to do much when we seem to be given the choice between capitalists, fascists and stalinists.All I'm arguing is that the whole marriage and let's get into the military thing is just lame and missing the point if you are actually seeking to do 'anti-oppression work'.

[El Chuncho]

Equal rights under capitalism is a farce, you know that, so why give effort propping up the illusion that by campaigning for LGBTQ people to be allowed to get married at a religious institution or to join the military is actually doing something significant for us? Because let's face it, having some of us join the military or get married does absolutely nothing to improve the conditions of LGBTQ people.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with your more ''anarchist'' viewpoint. The capitalist system is a farce, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't want to help LGBT people in their struggle within the capitalist society. Revolution has not come yet and isn't going to meet with success any time very soon (unfortunately), which means LGBT people have to suffer in the capitalist system. Campaigning for their rights makes progression, we are after all progressives, which means society is a step closer to freedom, especially for LGBTs.


The matter is a class issue, so class politics should be at the forefront of the debate. There are more pressing issues for our community, the marketisation of what we once saw as safe spaces or of our pride marches taking control away from working class LGBTQ and placing it in the hands of gay businessmen/women, homophobic attacks being on the increase, heterocentric or outright homophobic education (notably in sex education classes, but also can be seen in some schools as a trend in throughout departments), LGBTQ losing their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender presentation etc...

And how does that negate our right to be rightfully angered at intolerance to LGBTs in the military or in marriage? No one is saying that it should be in the forefront of our campaigns, but they do makeup a component of gay rights.


All I'm arguing is that the whole marriage and let's get into the military thing is just lame and missing the point if you are actually seeking to do 'anti-oppression work'.

No it isn't. Society should allow all jobs to be open to all sexualities, to campaign for LGBTs to have jobs in nurseries etc. whilst ignoring another field is problematic. Yes, the military is used for imperialistic wars (which it wouldn't in a socialist society, as it would be for defense), however, it is still a job in society and should be treated like any other in the issue of equality between sexualities.

[Coggeh]

Too right. I don't want any gays next to me when im killing kids!

Anyway, the point about it is that whether or not its the military is a non issue its the fact that homosexuals are not allowed based on the fact that there homosexuals. The real policy should read in the words of bill hicks:" anyone...dumb enough... to want to be in the military should be allowed in."

[caramelpence]

Because it is discrimination all the same. They should have the same rights as heterosexuals, even if they should not fight for the state

Simply shouting "it's discrimination!" is not an argument. In its most fundamental sense, when used in a political context, to discriminate simply means to make decisions or distribute resources differently due to a group or individual having a certain characteristic, and in this sense, without giving it any specific normative content, discrimination is something that communists accept as totally valid in many instances - as when we call for the bourgeoisie to be deprived of voting and other political rights in a post-revolutionary society on account of their (ex-)class membership. A further though more immediate example is how communists accept that some forms of racial discrimination are acceptable but not others - we should recognize that it's important for a support centre for battered Asian women to be able to hire only Asian women (for example) whereas we would not support the right of an institution to restrict its hiring practices to white people, because we don't accept that there would ever be relevant reasons for only wanting to hire white people, whereas there are definitely relevant reasons for only wanting to hire women or only wanting to hire people of an oppressed ethnicity. So clearly discrimination as such is not intolerable, what matters is whether specific forms of discrimination are acceptable, and especially whether discrimination in individual instances supports broader structures of oppression - and keeping in mind that when the term "discrimination" is used in political language, it's normally used in that sense, in an accusatory form, to refer to differential treatment that is seen as unjust. In other words, our analysis of discrimination has to be concrete, not metaphysical. In this instance, being barred from the military is not an important part of the oppression of LGBT people at all, and it's hard to see how the cause of human liberation would ever be advanced by winning the "right" for LGBT to serve either voluntarily or be forced into the military.

Also - and I can't believe noone has pointed this out yet - LGBT people being barred from the military gives straight comrades a way of getting out if they find themselves a situation where they might be forced in. It's not like straight men can pretend to be women, after all, and shooting off your hand isn't fun, but pretending to be gay is a decent way of getting out. Me? Apart from being bi, my eyesight is shit.

[Ocean Seal]

Who the fuck cares? So what if we can't serve in the violent wing of our bosses' state? If we need military training we'll get it somewhere else.
It doesn't matter if its our boss' military. Discrimination on any level hurts our movement for social equality. I look forward to a day where workers in every capitalist country, both homosexual and heterosexual, can burn their draft cards together.

[Coggeh]

Simply shouting "it's discrimination!" is not an argument. In its most fundamental sense, when used in a political context, to discriminate simply means to make decisions or distribute resources differently due to a group or individual having a certain characteristic, and in this sense, without giving it any specific normative content, discrimination is something that communists accept as totally valid in many instances - as when we call for the bourgeoisie to be deprived of voting and other political rights in a post-revolutionary society on account of their (ex-)class membership.
No we don't. Not on the count of them having an ex- class membership anyway. The only reason the bourgeois are restricted is because a post revolutionary society is usually a society strife with class war between the organised domestic and international bourgeois and the new workers state, those who held a past upper class position but supported the workers state would have the same rights as any other in society.



A further though more immediate example is how communists accept that some forms of racial discrimination are acceptable but not others - we should recognize that it's important for a support centre for battered Asian women to be able to hire only Asian women (for example) whereas we would not support the right of an institution to restrict its hiring practices to white people, because we don't accept that there would ever be relevant reasons for only wanting to hire white people, whereas there are definitely relevant reasons for only wanting to hire women or only wanting to hire people of an oppressed ethnicity.
I disagree that Asian women or a specific ethnicity of women who go to support centers for abuse or rape should only be cared for by corresponding women of the same ethnicity or the fact that it should always be women? In fact having men working in those centers alongside women would be a good thing but its understandable for a rape victim or a victim of a abuse only being able to disclose personal accounts or opening up with another woman or another man if its the man who's a victim. Thats not an argument for discrimination as both genders of any ethnicity would be able to work in those centres and should be encouraged to do so.



So clearly discrimination as such is not intolerable, what matters is whether specific forms of discrimination are acceptable, and especially whether discrimination in individual instances supports broader structures of oppression - and keeping in mind that when the term "discrimination" is used in political language, it's normally used in that sense, in an accusatory form, to refer to differential treatment that is seen as unjust. In other words, our analysis of discrimination has to be concrete, not metaphysical.
Which it is, yours on the other hand is a type of pro-discrimination based on political opportunism such as the example you listed below.



In this instance, being barred from the military is not an important part of the oppression of LGBT people at all, and it's hard to see how the cause of human liberation would ever be advanced by winning the "right" for LGBT to serve either voluntarily or be forced into the military.
Its discrimination based on sexual orientation and on gender. It should be opposed at every instance and you have to take the view of society into account, being in the army in society is seen as another job its not seen as being a tool of imperialist oppression and to say that its not ok for lgbt persons to be in the military is saying there is something lacking in them based on there gender or sexual orientation that makes them unfit for this line of work. Which is bullshit.


Also - and I can't believe noone has pointed this out yet - LGBT people being barred from the military gives straight comrades a way of getting out if they find themselves a situation where they might be forced in. It's not like straight men can pretend to be women, after all, and shooting off your hand isn't fun, but pretending to be gay is a decent way of getting out. Me? Apart from being bi, my eyesight is shit.
If a comrade should ever be drafted to be in the military or if that situation should arise they should not pretend to be gay but ally with other anti war voices and fight against the draft like what was done during the vietnam war. Again this is your political opportunism argument, it still does not make it ok for discrimination.

[caramelpence]

No we don't. Not on the count of them having an ex- class membership anyway. The only reason the bourgeois are restricted is...

You're missing the point - you can have whatever reasons you want for thinking that it is appropriate for former members of the bourgeoisie to sometimes be deprived of their political rights, it might be for simple reasons of political expediency or you might see it more in terms of the requirements of justice, but the point is that revolutionary socialists in general accept that it is valid to have a differential distribution of political rights, and some would argue that should be the case even when ex-members of the bourgeoisie commit themselves to the building of a new society, in which case the differential distribution is based on characteristics that the individual is not at liberty to change through their own will. The point being, socialists do support discrimination in the normatively neutral sense of people being treated differently due to some aspect of their being or life experience, and so the issue is not discrimination as such, it is how socialists respond to different forms of differential treatment.


I disagree that Asian women or a specific ethnicity of women who go to support centers for abuse or rape should only be cared for by corresponding women of the same ethnicity or the fact that it should always be women

Again, you miss the point. Personally I do think it's understandable why the organizers of such a centre or the people who use it would prefer to be treated only by women in the same way that health facilities allow women to only be served by female doctors, but the issue here is not whether you personally think having women-only crisis centers is a good thing, or whether there should be a low preventing men from working in crisis centers that are designed for women - rather, the issue is how socialists distinguish between different forms of differential treatment. Broadly speaking, socialists would accept that the case in point is acceptable in a way that a landlord only accepting white tenants ("only whites need apply") for example, is not. Both instances are similar insofar as they take ethnicity and/or sex as the basis for differential treatment, ethnicity and sex being categories that people cannot freely move in and out of, but it seems obvious that they cannot be reduced to one another or both placed under the same category of unjustified discriminatory practice - and one is justified by virtue of the fact that wanting only women to work in crisis centers for women does not hamper the cause of human liberation and actually springs from the oppressed position that women occupy in contemporary capitalist societies, whereas a landlord only leasing to white tenants would reinforce existing structures of oppression. A further example involving discrimination (again, in the normatively neutral sense - part of the difficulty of debates like this is the ambiguities in the way the term discrimination is used in political and ordinary language) on the basis of sex that is directly relevant to the internal dynamics of progressive movements is the right of women activists to caucus separately as women and deny men participation in their caucuses - something that some men have historically objected to by shouting "discrimination!" but something that I think socialists should acknowledge as an important way for women to discuss their concerns as women and the possible existence of sexist oppression within progressive movements. If you ignore these differences then you end up accepting a liberal view that merges all differential practice based on categories like sex and ethnicity with unjustified discrimination without any concern for the specificities of individual cases and the ways they link to broader social, cultural, and political structures.


Which it is, yours on the other hand is a type of pro-discrimination based on political opportunism such as the example you listed below.

Less sloganeering, more decent arguments please.


Its discrimination based on sexual orientation and on gender.

Which socialists otherwise accept - see the examples above, and also see the fact that gay clubs frequently bar straight couples. Again, it's the importance of distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate forms of differential treatment, which you can't do by objecting to any and all forms of differential treatment based on sex or ethnicity or sexuality. Concrete analysis is what is needed. What you need to tell me is why being barred from the military is an important part of the oppression of LGBT people and why allowing LGBT people to join voluntarily or be conscripted would be a meaningful step forward in their liberation and the liberation of society as a whole. You haven't done this. Your argument thus far consists of alternating between shouting "discrimination!" and "political opportunism!".


If a comrade should ever be drafted to be in the military or if that situation should arise they should not pretend to be gay but ally with other anti war voices

A fair point, but, in the absence of broader forces, pretending to be gay would be a useful way of avoiding service - and if large numbers of young men were to claim to be gay in order to avoid military service, that could become a new point in the struggle against homophobia more generally. I wasn't actually saying that being able to get out of military service by claiming to be gay is a reason to support LGBT people being excluded from the military (I'm not saying it's something that socialists should actively campaign for!) only that it's an additional point as to why letting LGBT people into the military should not be a major concern for LGBT struggle.

[El Chuncho]

Simply shouting "it's discrimination!" is not an argument.

Neither is mindlessly pointing out that the military is (currently) imperialist in nature. The fact remains that a job in the military is still a job, and to allow prejudice to homosexuals in that field is not progressive.

And, I certainly didn't shout ''discrimination!'' but gave reasoning. You are completely missing the point that I, and others are trying to make. The fact that the job in question is a military job is irrelevant.


A further though more immediate example is how communists accept that some forms of racial discrimination are acceptable but not others - we should recognize that it's important for a support centre for battered Asian women to be able to hire only Asian women (for example) whereas we would not support the right of an institution to restrict its hiring practices to white people, because we don't accept that there would ever be relevant reasons for only wanting to hire white people, whereas there are definitely relevant reasons for only wanting to hire women or only wanting to hire people of an oppressed ethnicity.

Do not lump all communists together. I am against racial segregation and discrimination in all forms. I would rail against the racism of yellows, blacks or whites. In my mind there is no excuse for racism in any situation.


In this instance, being barred from the military is not an important part of the oppression of LGBT people at all, and it's hard to see how the cause of human liberation would ever be advanced by winning the "right" for LGBT to serve either voluntarily or be forced into the military.

Being barred from any job is an important part of the oppression of LGBT people. Homosexuals should be free to choose any job they wish, it helps their struggle.

[caramelpence]

Neither is mindlessly pointing out that the military is (currently) imperialist in nature

That's great, because I didn't even point that out or use the word "imperialist" in either of my two previous posts. Nonetheless, the role of the military is relevant for this thread, because soldiers are not part of the ruling class, and the military as well as other bodies such as the police force and prison service tend to be home to some of the most reactionary and oppressive attitudes in capitalist society - largely because of the nature and purpose of the occupations themselves, which is to carry out the enforcement and disciplinary mechanisms of the capitalist state. What you and other liberals in this thread need to show is that LGBT people (and especially LGBT workers) being allowed to serve in the military is important for their liberation. You can't show that, because it's not important, in much the same way that the number of women serving as CEOs should not really be a concern for socialists because it has nothing to do with the conditions of the vast majority of working women.


Do not lump all communists together. I am against racial segregation and discrimination in all forms. I would rail against the racism of yellows, blacks or whites. In my mind there is no excuse for racism in any situation.

This is a liberal analysis, not a socialist one, because it abstracts from the concrete reality and historicity of racism, and assumes that all forms of differential treatment based on "race" are synonymous with racism. There is no such thing as racism against white people on the basis of them being white (I say this because it is of course possible for white people to be subject to racism due to something about them other than their whiteness or when there are localized conceptions of whiteness that prevent them from being seen as white - for example, the experience of Quebecois in Canada) and whether something is racism in the full pejorative sense can only be determined through an analysis of whether certain practices or procedures for the allocation of resources serve to enhance the oppressed condition of certain groups in society - white people cannot be the victims of racism because they do not have the condition of being racially oppressed, and that's why no communist would ever support the limitation of employment to white people (to pick out a highly overt form of differential treatment) whereas we should accept its validity in the case of non-white ethnic groups, when it's relevant, as in the case of the crisis centre for Asian women that I've used as an example in this thread.

Based on your conception of racism (racism = any form of differential treatment based on "race") and its implications for our understanding of oppression in general, would you say that when white men are barred from working in a crisis centre for Asian women, they are the victims of intersecting racism and sexism? Do you think that, within progressive movements, women/people of colour/LGBT people/the disabled should not be allowed to caucus separately because it involves barring access to people who do not fit into the category in question, in which case those people are being oppressed, based on your view?


Being barred from any job is an important part of the oppression of LGBT people

Why? Is women not being able to become CEOs or judges or leading politicians with the same ease as men an important part of the oppression of the vast majority of women?

[black magick hustla]

gay people cant defend the workers state from imperialism

[Queercommie Girl]

Simply shouting "it's discrimination!" is not an argument. In its most fundamental sense, when used in a political context, to discriminate simply means to make decisions or distribute resources differently due to a group or individual having a certain characteristic, and in this sense, without giving it any specific normative content, discrimination is something that communists accept as totally valid in many instances - as when we call for the bourgeoisie to be deprived of voting and other political rights in a post-revolutionary society on account of their (ex-)class membership. A further though more immediate example is how communists accept that some forms of racial discrimination are acceptable but not others - we should recognize that it's important for a support centre for battered Asian women to be able to hire only Asian women (for example) whereas we would not support the right of an institution to restrict its hiring practices to white people, because we don't accept that there would ever be relevant reasons for only wanting to hire white people, whereas there are definitely relevant reasons for only wanting to hire women or only wanting to hire people of an oppressed ethnicity. So clearly discrimination as such is not intolerable, what matters is whether specific forms of discrimination are acceptable, and especially whether discrimination in individual instances supports broader structures of oppression - and keeping in mind that when the term "discrimination" is used in political language, it's normally used in that sense, in an accusatory form, to refer to differential treatment that is seen as unjust. In other words, our analysis of discrimination has to be concrete, not metaphysical.


What does all this have to do with the issue at hand? None of the examples you've raised here has anything to do with the topic in this thread. No-one is making a metaphysical statement about "discrimination" in general, people are just talking about a specific form of discrimination in the concrete sense.



In this instance, being barred from the military is not an important part of the oppression of LGBT people at all, and it's hard to see how the cause of human liberation would ever be advanced by winning the "right" for LGBT to serve either voluntarily or be forced into the military.


Not an important part, but it is still a part of the oppression of LGBT people.

Another factor is that you might have a point if we are just talking about joining the military in a bourgeois state here, since the army of a capitalist state is an intrinsically reactionary institution. (Even then, I would still raise certain objections, as the rank-and-file soldiers of a bourgeois army aren't wholly reactionary at all and can actually be won over to the side of the revolutionary movement)

However, we are dealing with Venezuela here, who many leftists consider to be a semi-socialist state. In principle, to not allow LGBT people to serve in the army of a socialist state would indeed be explicit discrimination, and there is no way around it.

[Queercommie Girl]

gay people cant defend the workers state from imperialism

WTF? :confused:

[Queercommie Girl]

Neither is mindlessly pointing out that the military is (currently) imperialist in nature.


Nope there is nothing "mindless" about this at all. All military organisations of bourgeois states are completely reactionary in the institutional sense, there are no exceptions, period.



The fact remains that a job in the military is still a job, and to allow prejudice to homosexuals in that field is not progressive.


This is technically true however, since although the institution of the bourgeois army is completely reactionary, the rank-and-file troops aren't.

However, it is also clear that a job in the bourgeois military isn't just like "any other job".

Note though that this thread is talking about Venezuela, who many leftists actually consider to be a semi-socialist state. This changes the whole debate completely, since the army of a socialist state is actually a progressive institution, and not allowing queer people to serve in such an army would be complete and explicit discrimination.

[Dr Mindbender]

Sir Hugh Maharggs explains why gays can't join the Navy.

3icDB3kRKPg

[Trigonometry]

The real source with LGBT's campaigns problems lies in the campaigns themselves.
Its often excessive for the sake of being so to show that they can, for example provocative marches to show that 'they can' - all it really does is create a mind set in witnesses that whether they can/can't was a question in the first place and combined with the inherent disgust any normal person would feel towards such lewd/promiscuous displays in public it simply lures people into judging them negatively.

[Queercommie Girl]

The real source with LGBT's campaigns problems lies in the campaigns themselves.
Its often excessive for the sake of being so to show that they can, for example provocative marches to show that 'they can' - all it really does is create a mind set in witnesses that whether they can/can't was a question in the first place and combined with the inherent disgust any normal person would feel towards such lewd/promiscuous displays in public it simply lures people into judging them negatively.

I think your comment is getting quite queerphobic actually.

Why would heterosexual displays of promiscuous behaviour be "normal" but non-heterosexual forms of such displays be "abnormal" and "disgusting"?

The mainstream LGBT movement is getting too commercialised, but in principle showing that queer people can be queer is indeed a major goal in the LGBT liberation movement, which I take very seriously.