USSR and homosexuality

[thriller]

In the trash (for obvious reasons) is a post by NoMasters that reads:
"However absurd this sounds, but I think things like homosexuality and abortion are representations of the social ills created by capitalism and government in general."
Obviously this is just absurd, however I have HEARD from people that the USSR did ban homosexuality because they felt it represented 'bourgeois' society. However I can't find this WRITTEN anywhere. Is this true? I know that the USSR was the first state to allow gay marriage, but I know a lot changed for social life between Lenin and Stalin, so I'm unclear about his.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I have no source, but read in another thread that the USSR actually was one of the first countries to legallise homosexuality. This was reversed, however, IIRC

[Искра]

Only thing I know that Alexandra Kollontai made a law regarding merige, abortion and other women related issues. Law passed, but when Stalin took the power he rejected that law. So, women didn't have right for an abortion etc. Someone told me that Kollontai also raised a question of homosexuals, but I don't have any sources or other information.

Anyhow, USSR was conservative society with obvious racist, sexist and other tendecies. All these are protuct of bourgeois nationalism...

USSR wasn't alone in that. For example, until 1973 in Yugoslavia you would go to prison for being gay.

[Zulu]

In the trash (for obvious reasons) is a post by NoMasters that reads:
"However absurd this sounds, but I think things like homosexuality and abortion are representations of the social ills created by capitalism and government in general."
Obviously this is just absurd, however I have HEARD from people that the USSR did ban homosexuality because they felt it represented 'bourgeois' society. However I can't find this WRITTEN anywhere. Is this true? I know that the USSR was the first state to allow gay marriage, but I know a lot changed for social life between Lenin and Stalin, so I'm unclear about his.

Male homosexual acts were criminal offense, since the late 1920s onwards. However, people were rarely incriminated with it unless they were already under scrutiny for political dissent, or some economic crimes. Sometimes police operatives pressed known gays to become informants.

Female homosexuality was not even socially recognized as a deviation separate from frigidity, so lesbians were left alone by the authorities.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Male homosexual acts were criminal offense, since the late 1920s onwards.

Does this mean that right after the revolution it was legallised? That's what I've heard, at least.

[Zulu]

when Stalin took the power he rejected that law. So, women didn't have right for an abortion etc.
Stalin's law only restricted abortions, so that women needed to obtain medical recommendation from a special commission. However, the abortion rate in the USSR remained higher than in other countries, and punishment for illegal abortions (and for corruption associated with the medical approvals) was not very tough, compared to everything else.

[Zulu]

Does this mean that right after the revolution it was legallised? That's what I've heard, at least.
Well, if it's not punishable by law, it's legal, right? But there was no special recognition of "gay rights" or something. Naturally though, the situation improved for gays (and remained so even after Stalin's legislation), compared to the Russian Empire where the Church had a lot of say in the matter.

[thriller]

Well, if it's not punishable by law, it's legal, right? But there was no special recognition of "gay rights" or something. Naturally though, the situation improved for gays (and remained so even after Stalin's legislation), compared to the Russian Empire where the Church had a lot of say in the matter.

I'm interested in the USSR's policies towards homosexuality (and LGBTQ in general), do you have any sources I can read up on?

[thälmann]

right after the octoberrevolution there was not some kind of law for sexuality, so homosexuality and so on were legal. as far as i know, it was illegal since 36, when some regressive laws were past. a lot of historians think that was kind of an compromise with religious and conservative people. which, of course was a failure and reactionary.
but it should be remembered, that to the 80s in western countries it was illegal too, as far as i know.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I refer ye to the all knowing WikiGod

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia


Pre-Stalin Soviet Russia

The Russian Communist Inessa Armand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inessa_Armand) publicly endorsed both feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism) and free love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love), but never directly dealt with LGBT rights.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-5) The Russian Communist Party effectively legalized no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality, when they abolished all the old Tsarist laws and the initial Soviet criminal code kept these liberal-libertarian sexual polices in place.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-6)
Yet, the legalization of private, adult and consensual homosexual relations only applied to Russia itself. Homosexuality or sodomy remained a crime in Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan) (1923), Soviet Georgia, and Central Asia throughout the 1920s.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-7) Similar criminal laws were enacted in Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) (1926) and Turkmenistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan) (1927).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-8) Why homosexuality was legal and illegal in different parts of the Soviet Union is not altogether clear.
The Soviet Union sent delegates were the German Institute for Sexual Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Sexual_Science), and to some international conferences on human sexuality, who expressed support for the legalization of adult, private and consensual homosexual relations. However, in the 1930s, along with increased repression of political dissidents and non-Russian nationalities under Stalin, LGBT themes faced official government censorship, and a uniformly harsher policy across the entire Soviet Union.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_history_in_Russia&action=edit&section=4)] Stalin

In 1933, Article 121 was added to the criminal code, for the entire Soviet Union, that expressly prohibited male homosexuality, with up to five years of hard labor in prison. The precise reason for the new law is still in some dispute.
Some historians have suggested that Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)'s enactment of the anti-gay law was, like his prohibition on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), an attempt to increase the Russian birthrate and build a better relationship with the socially conservative Eastern Orthodox Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church). Some historians have noted that it was during this time that Soviet propaganda began to depict homosexuality as a sign of fascism, and that Article 121 may have a simple political tool to use against dissidents, irrespective of their true sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation), and to solidify Russian opposition to Nazi Germany, who had broken its treaty with Russia.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-Dub89-362-9)
More recently, a third possible reason for the anti-gay law has emerged from declassified Soviet documents and transcripts. Beyond expressed fears of a vast "counterrevolutionary" or fascist homosexual conspiracy, there were several high profile arrests of Russian men accused of being pederasts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasts).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-workers-10) In 1933, 130 men "were accused of being 'pederasts' – adult males who have sex with boys. Since no records of men having sex with boys at that time are available, it is possible this term was used broadly and crudely to label homosexuality."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-workers-10) Whatever the precise reason, homosexuality remained a serious criminal offense until it was repealed in 1993.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-workers-10)
The Soviet government itself said very little publicly about the change in the law, and few people seemed to be aware that it existed. In 1934, the British Communist Harry Whyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Whyte&action=edit&redlink=1) wrote a long letter to Stalin condemning the law, and its prejudicial motivations. He laid out a Marxist position against the oppression of homosexuals, as a social minority, and compared homophobia to racism, xenophobia and sexism.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-11)
While the letter was not formally replied to, Soviet cultural writer Maxim Gorky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Gorky) authored an article, published in both Pravda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda) and Izvestia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izvestia) titled "Proletarian Humanism", that seemed to reject Whyte's arguments point by point. He rejected the notion that homosexuals were a social minority, and argued that the Soviet Union needed to combat them in order to protect the youth and battle fascism.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-12)
A few years later, 1936, Justice Commissar Nikolai Krylenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Krylenko) publicly stated that the anti-gay criminal law was correctly aimed at the decadent and effete old ruling classes, thus further linking homosexuality to a right-wing conspiracy, i.e. tsarist aristocracy and German fascists.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-workers-10)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_history_in_Russia&action=edit&section=5)] 1950s – 1960s

When Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) came to power, homosexuality became a topic unfit for public depiction, defense or discussion. Homosexual or bisexual Russians who wanted a position within the Communist Party, were expected to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of their actual sexual orientation. A notable example was the Russian film director Sergei Eisenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Eisenstein), who despite his homosexuality managed to survive by leading a double life, having affairs with men while married to a woman, producing films that were politically pleasing to Stalin.
After Stalin died in 1953, he was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev), who proceeded to liberalize the Stalin era laws regarding marriage, divorce, and abortion, but the anti-gay law remained.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_history_in_Russia&action=edit&section=6)] 1970s – Glasnost

In the 1970s – 1980s censorship rules regarding homosexuality slowly began to change. Russian gay author Yevgeny Kharitonov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Kharitonov_%28poet%29) illegally circulated some gay fiction before he died of heart failure in 1981. Author Gennady Trifonov (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gennady_Trifonov&action=edit&redlink=1) served four years of hard labor for circulating his gay poems and, upon his release, was allowed to write and publish only if he avoided depicting or making reference to homosexuality.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-13) Vicktor Sosnora (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vicktor_Sosnora&action=edit&redlink=1) was allowed to write about witnessing an elderly gay actor being brutally murdered in a Leningrad bar in The Flying Dutchman (1979), but the book was published in Eastern Germany. Kozlovsky was permitted to include a brief interior monologue about homosexuality in Moscow to the End of the Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_to_the_End_of_the_Line) (1973). Perhaps the first public endorsement of gay rights since Stalin was a brief statement, critical of Article 121 and calling for its repeal, made in the Textbook of Soviet Criminal Law (1973).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-Dub89-362-9) In 1984, a group of Russian gay men met and attempted to organize an official gay rights organization, only to be quickly shut down by the KGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB). In the late Glasnost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost) period, some public discussion was permitted about re-legalizing private, consensual adult homosexual relations. In 1989–1990 a Moscow gay rights organization led by Yevgeniya Debryanskaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgeniya_Debryanskaya&action=edit&redlink=1) was permitted to exist, with Roman Kalinin (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Kalinin&action=edit&redlink=1) given permission to publish a gay newspaper, "Tema".[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#cite_note-14)
The most telling fact is that the fucking KGB shut down a gay rights group as late as the 80s ... to think it was illegal for 50-60 years ... the lame excuse usually given for Stalin's decision to ban it in the first place is that being gay was a trait brought by lumpen or bourgeois culture (laughable at face value), or a liberal capitalist or fascist conspiracy (laughable at face value, since liberal capitalists said it was a communist or fascist conspiracy and fascists said it was a liberal capitalist or communist conspiracy). Ultimately, there is no excuse for the decision and it is more evidence that the USSR began to tread down the road of abandoning the kinds of democratic freedoms which most on the Western Left take for granted today. It should serve as evidence that Leftists should not be so quick to abandon particular values, rights, privileges or ideas simply because someone of authority decides that they are too "bourgeois" or "liberal".

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, if it's not punishable by law, it's legal, right? But there was no special recognition of "gay rights" or something. Naturally though, the situation improved for gays (and remained so even after Stalin's legislation), compared to the Russian Empire where the Church had a lot of say in the matter.

Going from "shitty" to simply "horrible" is still not much of an improvement, in my opinion.



I'm interested in the USSR's policies towards homosexuality (and LGBTQ in general), do you have any sources I can read up on?

I know of very few sources and am pressed for time right now but you might want to look around the various leftist bookstores.

http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Homosexual-DesireRevolutionary-Russia

[Soseloshvili]

It is my understanding that homosexuality was, in fact, legalized shortly after the Russian revolution. I believe the scientific community viewed it as something of medical interest - a disorder that someone was born with, that society had to cope with. It wasn't exactly a progressive view by modern standards - they treated homosexuality like schizophrenia, something that was bad, but that nothing could be done about it and it was to be accommodated for in society.

However, I would say that by the standards of the time (when the common scientific understanding around the world was devoid of any theory of gender / sexuality) this view was fairly progressive.

What I would be more concerned about, as opposed to what happened a century ago in the USSR, is why some Capitalist nations continue to oppress LGBT people while most Socialist openly embrace them - like how Cuba (a Catholic nation) was the first country to illegalize discrimination based on sexuality in the workplace in the world, but it took the U.S.A. until 2003 to end all sodomy laws?

[Ostrinski]

What I would be more concerned about, as opposed to what happened a century ago in the USSR, is why some Capitalist nations continue to oppress LGBT people while most Socialist openly embrace them - like how Cuba (a Catholic nation) was the first country to illegalize discrimination based on sexuality in the workplace in the world, but it took the U.S.A. until 2003 to end all sodomy laws?Especially considering Cuba's anti-lgbt history.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Especially considering Cuba's anti-lgbt history.

could you elaborate?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

could you elaborate?

If I remember correctly after the revolution homosexuals were nearly rounded up and put into concentration camps.I think may of them were in hard labor camps and prisons before this almost happened.

I am not expert so someone else could probably tell you more but the situation was pretty bad for queers there and many gay solders who fought with Fidel and Che during the revolution fled to America.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In concerns to Russian queer history though I believe that Lenin legalized homosexual marriage.

[Soseloshvili]

If I remember correctly after the revolution homosexuals were nearly rounded up and put into concentration camps.I think may of them were in hard labor camps and prisons before this almost happened.

It's true, early after the revolution gays were one of the groups rounded up and imprisoned in the UMAPs, which were essentially hard labour camps. However, they didn't last long (3 years, to be exact). In 1968, Fidel Castro himself entered one of the UMAPs in disguise to experience the treatment there and immediately ended their existence.

Homophobia did persist in early revolutionary Cuba. In 1971, the Cuban Educational and Cultural Congress called it an abomination. However, by the mid-70s, attitudes began to change and legal reforms ensued. By 1975, Cuba had illegalized discrimination in the workplace based on sexuality. By 1979, homosexuality was decriminalized at all levels. In 1981, the Ministry of Education started making educational materials promoting homosexuality as a normal form of relationship.

I do not believe it is important that in 1965, the government was homophobic. What I believe is important is that the moment the queer community chose to raise its voice (1975, when several queer artists went to the courts to garauntee they wouldn't lose their jobs over their sexuality), the Cuban government actually listened. It's a microcosm for the democracy of Socialist Cuba.

Even there, we have to look at what the revolution did for queer people. Prior to 1959, Havana was the largest gay brothel in the world. Sodomy laws existed in Batista's Cuba, and queers experienced a heluva lot of trouble meeting publically. However, they were valuable to the regime as workers. They were, however, valuable because they accommodated for the influx of American tourist capital (which, mind you, went straight to Batista and his amigos) if they were sold as prostitutes. Mafia circles recruited queer street kids and pimped them out to American tourists.

Abolishing the tourist brothels set queer people free from the slavery of prostitution. It was, in fact, intentional of the government - they put in place staunch policies to prevent male prostitution in the capital. Which, I'd say, is something.

Here's some good things to read into on that subject:

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/faqdocs/Cuba-sexual-diversity.pdf

http://www.thestar.com/article/955719--pink-planet-cuba-s-gay-oasis (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/faqdocs/Cuba-sexual-diversity.pdf)

[Lucretia]

There was no legalization of homosexual marriage in Russia. This sounds like an attempt to project contemporary political sensibilities and issues onto the past. (Were Russian homosexuals lobbying for this to allow their partners to receive health care from their employer?!) There was, however, a decriminalization of homosexual sex. The book Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia does a nice job of discussing all this. http://www.amazon.com/Homosexual-Desire-Revolutionary-Russia-Regulation/dp/0226322343

[Bostana]

Let's see how the U.S. treats Gays:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/burned-gay-man-beaten-to-death-was-on-way-to-grandmothers-80th-birthday/news/2011/10/24/29136

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/iowa-teen-beaten-to-death-by-mob-in-anti-gay-attack-video.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

[artanis17]

In the trash (for obvious reasons) is a post by NoMasters that reads:
"However absurd this sounds, but I think things like homosexuality and abortion are representations of the social ills created by capitalism and government in general."
Obviously this is just absurd, however I have HEARD from people that the USSR did ban homosexuality because they felt it represented 'bourgeois' society. However I can't find this WRITTEN anywhere. Is this true? I know that the USSR was the first state to allow gay marriage, but I know a lot changed for social life between Lenin and Stalin, so I'm unclear about his.

NoMasters was an honest guy he was banned in the name of nonsense.. He just wanted to discuss homosexuality.

I think he had right points.

It is stupid to say homosexuality is caused by biology solely it is but mostly dependent on dominant mentality and system (which is patriarchal, man dominant etc. praising manhood) so NoMasters is right <---- (ban me please someone report this)

[Rooster]

Let's see how the U.S. treats Gays:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/burned-gay-man-beaten-to-death-was-on-way-to-grandmothers-80th-birthday/news/2011/10/24/29136

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/iowa-teen-beaten-to-death-by-mob-in-anti-gay-attack-video.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Yes because that's an excellent way to argue. Never mind the fact that homosexuals in America can lead normal lives, not go to jail, aren't liable to legal persecution or imprisonment for expressing their sexuality and that there's even legislation in place to help curb homophobic attacks. Something that I believe was lacking in the USSR.

[Bostana]

Yes because that's an excellent way to argue. Never mind the fact that homosexuals in America can lead normal lives, not go to jail, aren't liable to legal persecution or imprisonment for expressing their sexuality and that there's even legislation in place to help curb homophobic attacks. Something that I believe was lacking in the USSR.

Am I saying the U.S. Government doesn't treat them right? No, but the American people treat them like shit.
I fully agree with you Gays weren't treated the best in the USSR but I am sure the Communist society advanced over time.

[Rooster]

Am I saying the U.S. Government doesn't treat them right? No, but the American people treat them like shit.
I fully agree with you Gays weren't treated the best in the USSR but I am sure the Communist society advanced over time.

The point of the thread is that it didn't advance, it regressed. Have you not been paying attention or something?

[Bostana]

The point of the thread is that it didn't advance, it regressed. Have you not been paying attention or something?

I just said that it has advanced over time

[RedAnarchist]

NoMasters was an honest guy he was banned in the name of nonsense.. He just wanted to discuss homosexuality.

I think he had right points.

It is stupid to say homosexuality is caused by biology solely it is but mostly dependent on dominant mentality and system (which is patriarchal, man dominant etc. praising manhood) so NoMasters is right <---- (ban me please someone report this)

If it is not caused solely by biology, how does it occur in other animals?

[artanis17]

If it is not caused solely by biology, how does it occur in other animals?

Show me please evidence of male animals having sex with each other (<---- ban is coming soon :D)

[Bostana]

Show me please evidence of male animals having sex with each other (<---- ban is coming soon :D)

I got this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Show me please evidence of male animals having sex with each other (<---- ban is coming soon :D)

Troll somewhere else, no one is going to feed you a video of animals having sex.

[RedAnarchist]

Show me please evidence of male animals having sex with each other (<---- ban is coming soon :D)

Do you just want a ban? I can quite easily provide a ban for you, so long as you stop making sockpuppets.

It's not just male animals, it is also female animals.

[artanis17]

I also have perfect evidences from real life that some people have just become homosexuals because of family taboos disordered family life etc. And all these have materialistic grounds too (economical-cultural-system dependent). These people were completely healthy and after getting rid of some problems they have become again heterosexual and found their matches in opposite sex.

However I do not regret the truth that biological homosexuality exists... But applying this to all cases of homosexuality is just not scientific thinking.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Just ban him, obvious troll.

[RedAnarchist]

Before I give you your much-requested ban -


I also have perfect evidences from real life that some people have just become homosexuals because of family taboos disordered family life etc. And all these have materialistic grounds too (economical-cultural-system dependent). These people were completely healthy and after getting rid of some problems they have become again heterosexual and found their matches in opposite sex.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence, and human sexuality is far more complex than homosexuality and heterosexuality.


However I do not regret the truth that biological homosexuality exists... But applying this to all cases of homosexuality is just not scientific thinking.

Actually, it is, when you don't let ignorance and bigotry get in the way.

[Pustelnik]

Before this sockpuppet of me gets banned too. I wish every revleft user peace & love. You can ban me but I still love you.

-artanis17 sockpuppet

[Bostana]

Someone got banned you guys know what this means:

hMenB9Ywh2Q

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If it is not caused solely by biology, how does it occur in other animals?

Just a minor quibble, I wouldn't rule out social factors completely, even if its largely "biological" (I guess by this you mean genetic/hormonal/neurological) it does seem that there is some plasticity about that kind of thing. This doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong of course ... why would homosexuality even be wrong if it was socially conditioned in a particular person?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Just a minor quibble, I wouldn't rule out social factors completely, even if its largely "biological" (I guess by this you mean genetic/hormonal/neurological) it does seem that there is some plasticity about that kind of thing. This doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong of course ... why would homosexuality even be wrong if it was socially conditioned in a particular person?

Proof or its bullshit. Far too many people here would like to believe this fantasy that homosexuality is caused in part of social conditions yet such people offer no "proof" other than anecdotes and pseudo-scientific claims.

It is completely biological. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are innate causes: it happens in animals and humans alike-simple as that.

[thriller]

NoMasters was an honest guy he was banned in the name of nonsense.. He just wanted to discuss homosexuality.

I think he had right points.

It is stupid to say homosexuality is caused by biology solely it is but mostly dependent on dominant mentality and system (which is patriarchal, man dominant etc. praising manhood) so NoMasters is right <---- (ban me please someone report this)

He may have been a 'nice guy' but I like coming to a forum where LGBTQ's are not only tolerated but supported by the users. People need to read 'Terms and Conditions' before clicking 'I agree'.

The only thing about homosexuality that is socially defined is the different names for it since language is socially defined.

[Deicide]

I have no source, but read in another thread that the USSR actually was one of the first countries to legallise homosexuality. This was reversed, however, IIRC

Bollocks. At least in the bolshevik colony, the Lithuanian SSR. If, you were found to be gay you'd be imprisoned. You'd also be beaten to a pulp. In fact.. ''Gayness'' wasn't even in most people's consciousness. My mum, who's now 53, didn't even know there was such a thing as ''gay'' until she was 21. Guess how she found out... There was a massive uproar inside the local ''Palace of culture'' caused by two men having sex in the restroom. The militia immediatelly arrested them, and she never saw them again. Homosexuality was profoundly suppressed, with violence. It was the same story in the Belorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, etc, etc.

(Note, this is not aimed at you.) This is one of the reasons why I consider USSR fanboys from western countries, with no family or direct experience of living in the USSR, to be deluded clowns worthy of upmost contempt.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Proof or its bullshit. Far too many people here would like to believe this fantasy that homosexuality is caused in part of social conditions yet such people offer no "proof" other than anecdotes and pseudo-scientific claims.

It is completely biological. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are innate causes: it happens in animals and humans alike-simple as that.

You seem to be making a much bigger bunch of assumptions than I am. It seems all the causes of homosexuality are in fact, largely unknown, but it is accurate to say that there seems to be genetic or in-utero hormonal causes. However it is also accurate to say that there is no single explanatory hypothesis which satisfies all the conditions. On the contrary, I see no science proving that there is a single universal cause for homosexuality which has been identified, even if there are some promising leads.


First, we also know that human sexuality is definitely influenced by one's social conditions and that all of our biological tendencies have some level of plasticity to them based on how people grow and age.

Second, why give primacy to biological causes over social causes? Since when were they in any way mutually exclusive? On the contrary, biology and social conditioning go together ... "nature vs nurture" is an exceedingly old-fashioned debate when it comes to humanity

Third, how does the fact that there are gay animals in any way, shape or form prove that there are not social factors in people's sexuality? Gay penguins may have purely biological causation for their sexuality, but people have more complicated brains and social relations thus there is more room for plasticity among people.

Fourth, since when did animals not have any kind of social conditioning whatsoever? Again, there are gay animals but animals are themselves clearly impacted by conditioning.

Fifth, who ever said that there had to be a single, universal cause for all gay men to be gay or all lesbian women to be lesbian? This seems to be a huge generalization. Some maybe purely genetic, some maybe purely hormonal, some maybe purely social ... why assume one kind has to be the basis of all?


IMO you seem to be buying into the argument that things are wrong if they are somehow not biologically "natural". Thus you feel the need to attribute homosexuality to the most "concrete" cause which most people think of as determining personality - "biology". All things which people do by definition are within the range of biological natural human behavior. That's not the question. Answer me this-would you think homosexuality would somehow become wrong if it is purely socially conditioned? Of course not. The issue of biology is only useful when debating folks, particularly fundamentalist religious people, who believe in natural kinds created by God (for instance, man/woman) with a predetermined essence, since they claim that all men are "naturally" attracted to women and all women are "naturally" attracted to men. That is clearly a false line of argument on their part. But outside of that particular debate it seems more than reasonable to say well, there are biological impacts on sexuality, but that does not rule out social impacts as well.

Don't think I'm using this to argue against gay rights, I'm on the same side of the fight regarding that, and I agree that genetic or in utero hormonal factors play a major role in determining human sexuality, I just think it's too simplistic to assume, from what we know right now, that homosexuality is necessarily determined at birth in all people who are homosexuals as adults. I also think that it should not even be an issue, and that people have a right to be gay regardless of how they came to be so.

[gorillafuck]

homosexuality and abortion were both legalized during Lenin's time as leader of the USSR. Stalin reversed both of these policies.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It seems all the causes of homosexuality are in fact, largely unknown, but it is accurate to say that there seems to be genetic or in-utero hormonal causes. However it is also accurate to say that there is no single explanatory hypothesis which satisfies all the conditions. On the contrary, I see no science proving that there is a single universal cause for homosexuality which has been identified, even if there are some promising leads.

Many scientific leads are much better than pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.



First, we also know that human sexuality is definitely influenced by one's social conditions and that all of our biological tendencies have some level of plasticity to them based on how people grow and age. Sexuality or sexual orientation?


Second, why give primacy to biological causes over social causes? Since when were they in any way mutually exclusive? On the contrary, biology and social conditioning go together ... "nature vs nurture" is an exceedingly old-fashioned debate when it comes to humanityHumanity perhaps (pending on your definition) but we are talking about sexual orientation, not "humanity."

Why give primacy? Because I think giving primacy to the only established leads is far better than indulging the petite homophobes on their asinine theories.

They were exclusive when no evidence was discovered which gave credence to social conditions being relevant.


Third, how does the fact that there are gay animals in any way, shape or form prove that there are not social factors in people's sexuality? Gay penguins may have purely biological causation for their sexuality, but people have more complicated brains and social relations thus there is more room for plasticity among people.Until you offer proof this is mute: animals cannot be shaped by social conditioning as they have no social conditioning. Humans are more advanced but this does not influence sexuality as it is conceived in the womb.

Sexual orientation is very simple in both humans and animals... I find it odd you openly admit that animals are not affected by social conditions but humans supposedly are... because we have more developed brains?


Fourth, since when did animals not have any kind of social conditioning whatsoever? Again, there are gay animals but animals are themselves clearly impacted by conditioning.Spoke too soon.... do tell, what sort of social conditioning do animals have that factor into developing their sexual orientation?


Fifth, who ever said that there had to be a single, universal cause for all gay men to be gay or all lesbian women to be lesbian? This seems to be a huge generalization. Some maybe purely genetic, some maybe purely hormonal, some maybe purely social ... why assume one kind has to be the basis of all?Because it is the truth, and if you were gay you would fucking know this.

Why does social factors have to be included? Because you can't imagine that innate factors are the sole cause?



IMO you seem to be buying into the argument that things are wrong if they are somehow not biologically "natural". Thus you feel the need to attribute homosexuality to the most "concrete" cause which most people think of as determining personality - "biology".No, I simply get frustrated when people use nonsense which propagates the hatemongers agenda. The truth is really simple, yet people seem inclined to cling to their pseudoscience.


All things which people do by definition are within the range of biological natural human behavior.Behavior and development are two different things.


That's not the question. Answer me this-would you think homosexuality would somehow become wrong if it is purely socially conditioned? Of course not. The issue of biology is only useful when debating folks, particularly fundamentalist religious people, who believe in natural kinds created by God (for instance, man/woman) with a predetermined essence, since they claim that all men are "naturally" attracted to women and all women are "naturally" attracted to men. That is clearly a false line of argument on their part. But outside of that particular debate it seems more than reasonable to say well, there are biological impacts on sexuality, but that does not rule out social impacts as well.It only excludes it when you offer proof that social conditions have a part to play.... which no one hasn't so far.


Don't think I'm using this to argue against gay rights, I'm on the same side of the fight regarding that, and I agree that genetic or in utero hormonal factors play a major role in determining human sexuality, I just think it's too simplistic to assume, from what we know right now, that homosexuality is necessarily determined at birth in all people who are homosexuals as adults. I also think that it should not even be an issue, and that people have a right to be gay regardless of how they came to be so.The truth is often simplistic: you and the other deniers around here always use the same argument when fighting against the innate route: "It can't be true because it is too simple!" Yet none of you actually offer proof for what you say. Meanwhile, me along with every single bisexual, gay and lesbian individual I have ever talked to, will tell you the exact same: it is innate and was with them since as far back as they could remember.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Many scientific leads are much better than pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.


What pseudo science? It seems twin studies are pretty good evidence that factors after the womb may have an effect, even if what happens in the womb is a major factor.

I also refer you to the American Psychological Association:


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx (page 4)
Meh ... I guess it's just bourgeois pseudoscience? You seem to be equating the negative judgement of homosexuality or the notion of homosexuality as a choice with the fact that it might possibly sometimes have environmental factors after the birth.



Why give primacy? Because I think giving primacy to the only established leads is far better than indulging the petite homophobes on their asinine theories.

They were exclusive when no evidence was discovered which gave credence to social conditions being relevant.
How dare you accuse me of "indulging the petite homophobes", how have I done such a thing? It is logically absurd at face value and also offensive to try to pin me for being homophobic for disagreeing with you on this.

There is no proof either that genetics or hormones en utero are the only cause.



Until you offer proof this is mute: animals cannot be shaped by social conditioning as they have no social conditioning. Humans are more advanced but this does not influence sexuality as it is conceived in the womb.
Sexuality is conceived in the womb? People sexually mature over a long period of time. But I've been pretty consistent this whole time that the evidence proves that the conditions in the womb play an important role.



Sexual orientation is very simple in both humans and animals... I find it odd you openly admit that animals are not affected by social conditions but humans supposedly are... because we have more developed brains?
Who said it is "simple"? Without more backup your argument is pseudoscientific ... it is true however that the brain is a very complex organ, and human sexuality is an equally complex phenomenon.



Spoke too soon.... do tell, what sort of social conditioning do animals have that factor into developing their sexual orientation?
Did I say there was? The point is that, like for people, we don't know the precise explanation for homosexuality in animals, however animal behavior is clearly influenced by their interaction with other animals, especially ones which exist in large social groups. Call me when they find the gay penguin gene ...



Because it is the truth, and if you were gay you would fucking know this.
No need to get all fucking emo about this ... what, you think straight people don't know about sexuality too? It's not like being gay somehow makes you epistemologically privileged about sex ... heterosexuals have sexuality too you know. Also, why assume I'm straight? I've never said anything either way.

As for pseudoscience, you should avoid basing your beliefs on the objective world on innate internal knowledge about your own character and not experimental research.



No, I simply get frustrated when people use nonsense which propagates the hatemongers agenda. The truth is really simple, yet people seem inclined to cling to their pseudoscience.
Where have I cited pseudoscience? Where have you cited real science? Where have I once said anything which "propagates" the agenda of hatemongers? If you even bothered to read what I was saying honestly you'd see that, on the opposite, what I said goes directly against those hatemongers, so you should retract that.



It only excludes it when you offer proof that social conditions have a part to play.... which no one hasn't so far.

Nor is there any proof that it is exclusively genetic or hormonal! And no gay penguins aren't proof.



The truth is often simplistic: you and the other deniers around here always use the same argument when fighting against the innate route: "It can't be true because it is too simple!" Yet none of you actually offer proof for what you say. Meanwhile, me along with every single bisexual, gay and lesbian individual I have ever talked to, will tell you the exact same: it is innate and was with them since as far back as they could remember.(1) Again, why the fuck are gay people the only people who know about sexuality? Straight people have innate feelings about where their sexuality comes from too.

(2) Many of my friends are Gay men too, some think that environmental and social factors can influence sexuality. Anybody can talk to a bunch of people about where it comes from, but now you're confusing anecdotal evidence with science.

(3) It is rarely the case that various psychological phenomena have a "simple" cause. PTSD doesn't have any one simple cause, and implicitly, straightness doesn't necessarily have any one simple cause either.

(4) You're totally confusing the issue, this has nothing to do with whether gay people can remember not being gay. That's a completely different issue.

(5) What the fuck am I denying? You are the denier! I am in no way, shape or form, saying that genetic or in utero factors don't play a primary or dominant role in many or even most cases, only that all the science I have seen points to multiple possible causes for various people, depending on their own individual conditions, and that includes conditions after birth.

[gorillafuck]

why does it matter whether homosexuality is biological or not? or even if it was a choice. I know it's not, but if it was, would that somehow make it bad?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

why does it matter whether homosexuality is biological or not? or even if it was a choice. I know it's not, but if it was, would that somehow make it bad?

I agree, although the issue is not whether it's biological or a choice, the issue is whether it's "biological" as in determined at birth by genetics/hormones or that social and environmental factors play a role after birth. Anybody who says it is a choice hasn't really "tried" themselves ... but either way, it's all irrelevant, gay people and people of all orientations have rights to equality no matter how their sexuality came to be.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What pseudo science? It seems twin studies are pretty good evidence that factors after the womb may have an effect, even if what happens in the womb is a major factor.

I also refer you to the American Psychological Association:

What factors "after the womb"?




Meh ... I guess it's just bourgeois pseudoscience? You seem to be equating the negative judgement of homosexuality or the notion of homosexuality as a choice with the fact that it might possibly sometimes have environmental factors after the birth.Don't make the mistake of bringing economics into this.

Again, what possibilities?


How dare you accuse me of "indulging the petite homophobes", how have I done such a thing? It is logically absurd at face value and also offensive to try to pin me for being homophobic for disagreeing with you on this.It is easy to accuse you of doing so when you repeat their shit hook, line and sinker.


There is no proof either that genetics or hormones en utero are the only cause. Still a lot better than what you are claiming though.






Did I say there was? The point is that, like for people, we don't know the precise explanation for homosexuality in animals, however animal behavior is clearly influenced by their interaction with other animals, especially ones which exist in large social groups. Call me when they find the gay penguin gene ... Can't say I care about the penguins.


what, you think straight people don't know about sexuality too? It's not like being gay somehow makes you epistemologically privileged about sex ... heterosexuals have sexuality too you know. Also, why assume I'm straight? I've never said anything either way.Your words and accusations more than say your assumed sexual orientation.


As for pseudoscience, you should avoid basing your beliefs on the objective world on innate internal knowledge about your own character and not experimental research.I trust my own feelings, and those of my community, far more than I trust the judgment of scientists.


Where have I once said anything which "propagates" the agenda of hatemongers?When you repeat the lies of the right- wing (social conditions factor into the process thus making it a choice).




(1) Again, why the fuck are gay people the only people who know about sexuality? Straight people have innate feelings about where their sexuality comes from too.I never said as much, so do not put words in my mouth.


(2) Many of my friends are Gay men too, some think that environmental and social factors can influence sexuality. Anybody can talk to a bunch of people about where it comes from, but now you're confusing anecdotal evidence with science.Than your friends have obtuse ideas.

...and yes I was, so I apologize.





(5) What the fuck am I denying? You are the denier! I am in no way, shape or form, saying that genetic or in utero factors don't play a primary or dominant role in many or even most cases, only that all the science I have seen points to multiple possible causes for various people, depending on their own individual conditions, and that includes conditions after birth.What sort of conditions after birth?
- - -

PM me if you want to continue this.

[Lucretia]

The extent to which the gender-oriented or gender-directed nature of a person's sexual desire (same with the eye-color-directed, height-directed, or weight-directed characteristics of a person's sexual desire) is determined by biology or society is unknown and is unlikely ever to be known.

What we can say with a high degree of certainty is that homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom, especially as you move up to the higher primates, and that in most societies has been considered a normal, even expected, component of male sexuality.

I would also like to note that the search for a "gay gene" - as though there were a one-to-one correspondence between identifying as a person who likes people of the same gender and a particular genetic mechanism - is reductionist and highly improbable.

[Ostrinski]

I don't see the problem with the idea that homosexuality has some social foundation. Quite surely there would be an increase in homosexuality under a post-capitalist mode of production.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't see the problem with the idea that homosexuality has some social foundation. Quite surely there would be an increase in homosexuality under a post-capitalist mode of production.

How would it increase? :rolleyes: ...you mean that more people would feel free to come out of the closet and be who they were born to be?

[Ostrinski]

How would it increase? :rolleyes: ...you mean that more people would feel free to come out of the closet and be who they were born to be?I mean that I don't think of straightness as the neuronormative sexual orientation, nor do I view homosexuality as some kind of deformity. Heteronormativity is a bourgeois social construct ingrained within bourgeois society. Dismantle bourgeois society and you have no heteronormativity.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I mean that I don't think of straightness as the neuronormative sexual orientation, nor do I view homosexuality as some kind of deformity. Heteronormativity is a bourgeois social construct ingrained within bourgeois society. Dismantle bourgeois society and you have no heteronormativity.

Yes, but that doesn't mean an orientation-i.e someone's feelings of sexual attraction-will change or differ.

[Ostrinski]

Yes, but that doesn't mean an orientation-i.e someone's feelings of sexual attraction-will change or differ.On an individual scale no, but on a mass scale, over time, perhaps. The whole idea of orientation is a construct as far as I'm concerned.

If someone who we would identify as straight has a sexual encounter with someone of the same gender, and they enjoy it, what do you see wrong with that? Furthermore, if someone who we would identify as homosexual has a sexual encounter with someone of the opposite gender, and they enjoy it, what do you see wrong with that?

[9]

On an individual scale no

I am not so sure that even that is true.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If someone who we would identify as straight has a sexual encounter with someone of the same gender, and they enjoy it, what do you see wrong with that? Furthermore, if someone who we would identify as homosexual has a sexual encounter with someone of the opposite gender, and they enjoy it, what do you see wrong with that?

Such a position is pure contradiction: if you are homosexual than you are not sexually attracted to women and hence would not have enjoyment from a sexual encounter; same for the heterosexual. Labels are pointless in themselves but they serve a purpose: to remind people that things are static, one cannot enjoy something if they have never enjoyed it to begin with.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am not so sure that even that is true.

Impossible (jesus christ...honestly people, this is fucking ridiculous...are any of you actually queer or are you just pulling shit out of your ass in regards to this nonsense? Do any of you have any semblance of the crap you are talking about? Do you believe your orientation can change over time?)

[NewLeft]

Such a position is pure contradiction: if you are homosexual than you are not sexually attracted to women and hence would not have enjoyment from a sexual encounter; same for the heterosexual. Labels are pointless in themselves but they serve a purpose: to remind people that things are static, one cannot enjoy something if they have never enjoyed it to begin with.

I have to disagree, I think you could have "enjoyment" even if you're homosexual. Enjoyment like sexuality, is not static.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have to disagree, I think you could have "enjoyment" even if you're homosexual. Enjoyment like sexuality, is not static.

Perhaps enjoyment was the wrong word...you cannot have sexual gratification. One can feel good upon reaching orgasm but it is not the same as having sexual intercourse with somone whom you are attracted to sexually.

[9]

Impossible (jesus christ...honestly people, this is fucking ridiculous...are any of you actually queer or are you just pulling shit out of your ass in regards to this nonsense? Do any of you have any semblance of the crap you are talking about? Do you believe your orientation can change over time?)

Yes.

[Ostrinski]

Such a position is pure contradiction: if you are homosexual than you are not sexually attracted to women and hence would not have enjoyment from a sexual encounter; same for the heterosexual. Labels are pointless in themselves but they serve a purpose: to remind people that things are static, one cannot enjoy something if they have never enjoyed it to begin with.It would appear so, though, there are loopholes. There have been cases of both.

[9]

...to remind people that things are static, one cannot enjoy something if they have never enjoyed it to begin with.

I recently found that I really like dijon mustard, which is funny because it always disgusted me when I was younger.

[NewLeft]

I recently found that I really like dijon mustard, which is funny because it always disgusted me when I was younger.

Do you honestly think you can just one day try, say, the same sex and then just decide, okay, this isn't too bad, I like the same sex now? Or did it exist all along, but you just discovered it..

Nevermind the fact that taste buds develop very differently then sexuality..

I can't type, its 1 AM and I'm on my phone. Who cares if it's incoherent.

[9]

Do you honestly think you can just one day try, say, the same sex and then just decide, okay, this isn't too bad, I like the same sex now?

Yes.

[Ostrinski]

Do you honestly think you can just one day try, say, the same sex and then just decide, okay, this isn't too bad, I like the same sex now? Or did it exist all along, but you just discovered it..

Nevermind the fact that taste buds develop very differently then sexuality..

I can't type, its 1 AM and I'm on my phone. Who cares if it's incoherent.Your taste buds become less confined as your body develops. Why can't sexuality develop similarly?

[9]

My point really wasn't that 'sexual orientation' becomes "less confined" with age, but that a person's tastes and preferences can change over time, due to a huge number of different and interacting factors, and I think this can be true of sexual preferences and 'orientation' as well.

At any rate, I dont know if a mod would want to split this discussion into another thread? Its drifted pretty far from the original topic.

[Nox]

Yes.

That isn't really how it works

[9]

I think it certainly can work that way. Obviously it isnt how it works for everyone.

[gorillafuck]

I agree, although the issue is not whether it's biological or a choice, the issue is whether it's "biological" as in determined at birth by genetics/hormones or that social and environmental factors play a role after birth.I don't see why that's an issue either.

[Nox]

I think it certainly can work that way. Obviously it isnt how it works for everyone.

You can't just be straight one day then be gay the next

[Sasha]

You can't just be straight one day then be gay the next

While I'm extremely comfortable and out with my sexuality it still matters whether I'm intoxicated or not how "gay" I am, again this had nothing to with me being ashamed or such but everything with how I'm romanticly long term more interested in females and one night stand sex in males.
So for me there are all kinds of day to day changing factors that make my sexual orientation very fluid, whether I'm on the rebound of a LTR for example and again intoxication...
Genetics and hormones and such are a big factor, probably the biggest (for example a third son is way more likely to be gay that the first and second) but I'm pretty sure that if I was in a more rigid straight or gay social circles in stead of the very fluid queer squat scene my sexual identity would also be a lot more rigid.

But/and I have had also multiple friends going from 100% gay (mostly lesbians actually) to 100% straight identifying and visa versa...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

While I'm extremely comfortable and out with my sexuality it still matters whether I'm intoxicated or not how "gay" I am, again this had nothing to with me being ashamed or such but everything with how I'm romanticly long term more interested in females and one night stand sex in males.
So for me there are all kinds of day to day changing factors that make my sexual orientation very fluid, whether I'm on the rebound of a LTR for example and again intoxication...
Genetics and hormones and such are a big factor, probably the biggest (for example a third son is way more likely to be gay that the first and second) but I'm pretty sure that if I was in a more rigid straight or gay social circles in stead of the very fluid queer squat scene my sexual identity would also be a lot more rigid.

But/and I have had also multiple friends going from 100% gay (mostly lesbians actually) to 100% straight identifying and visa versa...

If yours is fluid (have attractions to men and women) wouldn't that make you a bisexual?


I think it certainly can work that way. Obviously it isnt how it works for everyone.

Speculation and nothing more, proof please.


Your taste buds become less confined as your body develops. Why can't sexuality develop similarly?

Did you honestly just compare sexual orientation to taste buds? :laugh:

Also, what loopholes are you speaking of?

[Nox]

Being gay isn't something you choose to do...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Being gay isn't something you choose to do...

I think a lot of people here are confusing denial and later realizations with spontaneous changes which is obstructive to the truth. They can talk about material and social conditions all they want in the same way I can talk about how the sky is actually made of stone... doesn't mean its any bit true.

[Sasha]

If yours is fluid (have attractions to men and women) wouldn't that make you a bisexual?

I prefer queer or bent...

[Shakey_Jake33]

Sidestepping this whole conversation for a moment, attitudes must be viewed in context. I certainly would never defend the supposed homophobia within certain Communist nations (if this was the case), but we must also view this within the context of a structure that was still getting to grips with the concept (revolutionary or otherwise).

Socialism is progressive, and the clue is in the definition - if we have a better understanding and respect for homosexuality today that others did 75 years ago, it is because socialism has progressed, precisely because socialism (and hell, the left in general) is progressive in nature. We've shaken off the shackles and preconceptions that plagued the world that used to exist, and are thus able to examine these issues from a more rational, progressive perspective.

This isn't really answering the topic creator's question, but I suppose I am questioning the present day relevence - the Soviet Union existed in an era when such issues were new and misunderstood, and also quite low on the agenda. If the left of the past didn't grasp homosexuality in their era, the left of today does. Progress in motion.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What factors "after the womb"?


Social and environmental factors. Heteronormative notions, chemicals and hormones in our environment, individual experiences, etc ... all of these things can impact a person's neurology. There's no one universal cause for any number of human conditions. Why think that all gay people are gay for the same reason?



It is easy to accuse you of doing so when you repeat their shit hook, line and sinker.
I'm not repeating anything from any homophobic pseudoscientific sources, unless you think the American Psychological Association is controlled by homophobic ideologues.


Your words and accusations more than say your assumed sexual orientation.
?? You know nothing about me, and what have I accused anybody of?



I trust my own feelings, and those of my community, far more than I trust the judgment of scientists.
And you were accusing me of pseudoscience? Anyway, here you're not getting off any better than all the straight homophobes who intuitively feel that they chose to be straight and that gay people can make that choice to. To appeal to intuitive personal conviction is fine, but it's good to back it up, especially when you have accused others of "pseudoscience"



When you repeat the lies of the right- wing (social conditions factor into the process thus making it a choice).
Social conditions =/= Choice. I was socially conditioned to know the English language, but I never chose to know it.



I never said as much, so do not put words in my mouth.
It is implicit when you say that the "homosexual community" knows that sexual orientation was not conditioned, therefore it must be the case. What about all the straight people? If gay people have inherent knowledge about how their sexual orientation came to be, can't straight people have innate knowledge about where their sexuality came from too?



Than your friends have obtuse ideas.
They might say say the same about your ideas, but neither side is an argument. At that point we're just trading insults, which isn't the point of a dialogue at all.



What sort of conditions after birth?
Well, anything that can effect brain development, on a social level or on the level of our bodies interacting directly with our environment.



PM me if you want to continue this.I would have but it seems this discussion kind of took off ... anyways, there's no real debate here as far as gay rights are concerned, I am and will remain a firm advocate on behalf of gay rights no matter how it comes about.


I think a lot of people here are confusing denial and later realizations with spontaneous changes which is obstructive to the truth. They can talk about material and social conditions all they want in the same way I can talk about how the sky is actually made of stone... doesn't mean its any bit true. Here's the thing, you're asserting that sexuality is concrete based on your own experience with your sexuality, and then assuming that those who say that their sexuality is plastic are being irrational. That's a huge assumption.

Nor is anybody saying that these changes are spontaneous. People's sexuality is a complex phenomena that cannot be thought of in such terms. These changes don't happen overnight, it's a systemic process.


If yours is fluid (have attractions to men and women) wouldn't that make you a bisexual?

Bisexuality is about more than just a little fluidity. I think the question is whether or not there is a spectrum of human attraction, and whether or not our place on that spectrum is fixed, or reducible to singular either/or concepts like homo/bi/hetereosexuality. Certainly, there are more than a few cases of "straight" people becoming attracted to people of the same gender in certain contexts, even if not for extended periods of time.

[blake 3:17]

@GU


In concerns to Russian queer history though I believe that Lenin legalized homosexual marriage.

Maybe maybe. The Bolsheviks did decriminalize many forms of sexual discrimination, not on the basis of sexual liberation but in the process of getting rid of a whole bunch of bad laws en masse.


Proof or its bullshit. Far too many people here would like to believe this fantasy that homosexuality is caused in part of social conditions yet such people offer no "proof" other than anecdotes and pseudo-scientific claims.

It is completely biological. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are innate causes: it happens in animals and humans alike-simple as that.

The mainstream Gay & Lesbian movement has been arguing a bio-essentialist line for a long time, and won some successes with it. Socialists should challenge this. This isn't to deny that some people have felt same sex sexual desires for their entire lives. Certain desires may be innate -- that doesn't mean that desire isn't socially conditioned or that desires aren't fluid.

I heard Dean Spade speak at an anti-prisons workshop last week. Would be worth checking out: http://www.deanspade.net/ & http://www.southendpress.org/2010/items/87965

Radical Queer politics argue for much more fluid sexual identities.

The basis of a politics of sexual liberation needs to meet a politics of general human emancipation. We don't all fall into box X, Y or Z.

[Deicide]

"We have no gay people in Russia — there are homosexuals but they are not allowed to be gay about it. The punishment is seven years locked in prison with other men and there is a three-year waiting list for that."

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Human sexuality and sexual orientations are complex issues. While I don't believe that you can choose your orientation, I also don't believe there's one and only one cause for the diversity of orientations that exist. Some people have the same orientation throughout their lives, while others have a fluid and evolving orientation.

[Babeufist]

I believe that Lenin legalized homosexual marriage

No. Lenin de-penalized homosexual acts - but nothing about marriages. And Stalin re-penalized homosexuality in 1934. About 12.000 were punished. In this period Soviet Marxists believed in social conditions only, never biological ones (BTW: do you remember Lysenko, who promotes Lamarck against Darwin?). They believed that homosexuality is "bourgeoisie deviation" because hard work "immunize" against homosexuality.

Am I saying the U.S. Government doesn't treat them right? No, but the American people treat them like shit.
Are you against the state (capitalist system) or against society (i.e. people)? Is it revolutionary?