Portuguese Comunist Party (Marxist-Leninist) rejects homosexual child adoption

[Dogs On Acid]

All the Communist Party MP's voted against the two proposals by the Left-Bloc (a left wing coalition) and the Greens.

Their argument: "this situation hasn't been debated and sedimented enough in society yet".

Link (http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Politica/Interior.aspx?content_id=2324212)(in portuguese)

[Q]

How incredibly backward of a "communist" party.

Having said that, I know fairly little about this party, other than that they have 58k members (out of a population of 10.5 million), that they have 14 seats in a 230 seat parliament and are a "Marxist-Leninist" party.

What does this mean in the context of wider Portuguese society? Is the gay movement strong? How influential is the Catholic church still?

[Dogs On Acid]

How incredibly backward of a "communist" party.
I'm very disappointed.


Having said that, I know fairly little about this party, other than that they have 58k members (out of a population of 10.5 million), that they have 14 seats in a 230 seat parliament and are a "Marxist-Leninist" party.
Second strongest communist party in the European Union, behind KKE, if I'm not mistaken.


What does this mean in the context of wider Portuguese society?
Portuguese society is quite reactionary as a general rule. The newer generations are a lot more open minded though.


Is the gay movement strong?
Not very, unfortunately.


How influential is the Catholic church still?
As an institution, not very, although the right-wing parties are very Christian, as is most of the Portuguese population, but as I said before, the newer generations are more open-minded, and most youngsters don't give a toss about religion.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Do you know whether the Portuguese Social Democratic party and the PSP support the PCP position? Since the Social Democrats are in the government I would surmise that they share the reactionary policy of the PCP on this issue, but what is the position of the PSP? I would hope that the Left Bloc does not support the reactionary position of the PCP?

[l'Enfermé]

Historically, Communist Parties don't really have a long tradition of supporting homosexual child adoption, especially "Marxist-Leninist" parties. Or a short tradition. Or any tradition. Especially in Portugal. I'm not sure if it's good for the mental health of the child myself, though one can't deny that gay parents is much better than no parents at all.

[Dogs On Acid]

Do you know whether the Portuguese Social Democratic party and the PSP support the PCP position? Since the Social Democrats are in the government I would surmise that they share the reactionary policy of the PCP on this issue, but what is the position of the PSP? I would hope that the Left Bloc does not support the reactionary position of the PCP?

PSP? Did you mean PS? Partido Socialista (Socialist Party), a Social Democratic party that has 2nd most seats in parliment?

If so, then they nearly unanimously supported gay adoption (!), along with the Left Bloc and the Greens.

The PSD, Partido Social Democrata (Social Democrat Party), a Neo-Liberal party, nearly unanimously rejected it.

I know the names are confusing, but the Socialist Party is not Socialist, it is Social Democratic, and the Social Democratic Party is Neoliberal, not Social Democratic :mellow:

I found the PCP's decision very reactionary, and the PS's very progressive for the party they are.

[Dogs On Acid]

Historically, Communist Parties don't really have a long tradition of supporting homosexual child adoption, especially "Marxist-Leninist" parties. Or a short tradition. Or any tradition. Especially in Portugal. I'm not sure if it's good for the mental health of the child myself, though one can't deny that gay parents is much better than no parents at all.

Are you serious?

Do you think that communal upbringing of children is bad for their mental health, just because it doesn't respect the instituted Male/Female upbringing? Because that's what most communists aim for.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I can't imagine why being adopted by gay parents would jeopardize the child's mental health. I spent ten years working with people living with mental illnesses and to my experience dysfunctionality in the family may be an issue but not the sexual orientation of the parents. To my experience real problems exist in the foster family system and allowing gay couples to adopt would clearly be in the best interests of the potential adoptees. Then there is also the fact that gay couples have IMO a basic human right to adopt children.

[Sasha]

PSP? Did you mean PS? Partido Socialista (Socialist Party), a Social Democratic party that has 2nd most seats in parliment?

If so, then they nearly unanimously supported gay adoption (!), along with the Left Bloc and the Greens.

The PSD, Partido Social Democrata (Social Democrat Party), a Neo-Liberal party, nearly unanimously rejected it.

I know the names are confusing, but the Socialist Party is not Socialist, it is Social Democratic, and the Social Democratic Party is Neoliberal, not Social Democratic :mellow:



here it is exactly the same, the Socialistische Partij is social dem, the PvdA (labour party) lefter to the center-right than the conservative-liberal neo-liberal

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Not surprising that a ML party would take that stance. Part of Stalin's political baggage was making homosexuality illegal in the USSR after the Bolsheviks had done away with such reactionary laws. Stalinism and it's ML kin, often have reactionary views on the nuclear family and homosexuality. It is most unfortunate. And Comrade Borz, there is research that strongly suggests there is no significant difference in mental health outcomes for children reared by heterosexual or homosexual parents.

[Dogs On Acid]

here it is exactly the same, the Socialistische Partij is social dem, the PvdA (labour party) lefter to the center-right than the conservative-liberal neo-liberal

I've always thought "left-wing themed" party names are a way of gaining popularity from the working class.

[GoddessCleoLover]

DogsonAcid; Thanks for your response. I was aware that the Social Democrats were a neo-liberal party, and therefore am disappointed but not surprised at their position. The fact that the PSP is to the left of the PCP on this issue indicates IMO that the PCP is trying to pander to cultural conservatism. Apparently the Left Bloc did poorly in the last parliamentary elections, but I hope that they take a progressive position on this issue.

[Dogs On Acid]

Not surprising that a ML party would take that stance. Part of Stalin's political baggage was making homosexuality illegal in the USSR after the Bolsheviks had done away with such reactionary laws. Stalinism and it's ML kin, often have reactionary views on the nuclear family and homosexuality. It is most unfortunate. And Comrade Borz, there is research that strongly suggests there is no significant difference in mental health outcomes for children reared by heterosexual or homosexual parents.

Well they did support gay marriage, and there was me believing the Central Committee was progressive and all...

[Q]

Well they did support gay marriage, and there was me believing the Central Committee was progressive and all...

So, why the difference in regards to child adoption?

[Dogs On Acid]

DogsonAcid; Thanks for your response. I was aware that the Social Democrats were a neo-liberal party, and therefore am disappointed but not surprised at their position. The fact that the PSP is to the left of the PCP on this issue indicates IMO that the PCP is trying to pander to cultural conservatism. Apparently the Left Bloc did poorly in the last parliamentary elections, but I hope that they take a progressive position on this issue.

It's PS, not PSP :) PSP is the name for police in Portugal.

The Left-Bloc did poorly partially because many of their voters saw the right-wing as a threat and voted on the centre-left PS to counterbalance the situation. I find this instinctive tactic quite futile and sometimes counterproductive to be honest.

[Connolly Was There1916]

That is an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

[Dogs On Acid]

So, why the difference in regards to child adoption?

I spoke to one of my "higher ranking" (one of the reasons I hate Democratic Centralism) comrades in the party, he said that "we can't just throw these ideas into society and expect acceptance, we need to take it slowly".

I find that either:

- A bullshit reformist tactic by a so called "revolutionary" party.
- Or just bullshit.

[Sasha]

I've always thought "left-wing themed" party names are a way of gaining popularity from the working class.

nah, its just that as originally really radical social democratic parties become more centrist/less radical/more bourgeois they leave a void that its only natural for ML parties who are trying to become a mass party to fill.
the PvdA back in the day when they where still called the SDAP (social democratic workers party) even attempted to pull a revolution in 1918.
at least in europe the recipe is pretty much the same i guess, in the netherlands it went:
socialist movement conected to the first international splits in parlementairy faction (SDAP) and anti-parlementairy free socialists/anarchist (SDB-domela nieuwenhuis) social-democrats are then still radical until sooner or later the marxists split off (SDP = future CPN), then after WW2 they merge with progresive christians and democrats into Labour (PvdA).
over time the party drifts further and further away from social democracy the void is then filled by (splinters of) the CP thats also through their parlemtairism are drifting to the center/right in the same speed but since they started more to the left it takes longer to get there. (here the CPN and later its remnants/splinters Green Left and Socialist Party, the latter being the maoist splinter of the CP)

[Dogs On Acid]

nah, its just that as originally really radical social democratic parties become more centrist/less radical/more bourgeois they leave a void that its only natural for ML parties who are trying to become a mass party to fill.
the PvdA back in the day when they where still called the SDAP (social democratic workers party) even attempted to pull a revolution in 1918.
at least in europe the recipe is pretty much the same i guess, in the netherlands it went:
socialist movement conected to the first international splits in parlementairy faction (SDAP) and anti-parlementairy free socialists/anarchist (SDB-domela nieuwenhuis) social-democrats are then still radical until sooner or later the marxists split off (SDP = future CPN), then after WW2 they merge with progresive christians and democrats into Labour (PvdA).
over time the party drifts further and further away from social democracy the void is then filled by (splinters of) the CP thats also through their parlemtairism are drifting to the center/right in the same speed but since they started more to the left it takes longer to get there. (here the CPN and later its remnants/splinters Green Left and Socialist Party, the latter being the maoist splinter of the CP)

So basically they change their ideas as they drift to the right, but don't bother to change their name?

[X5N]

Ah, one of those old guard communist parties, like the KKE.

[Tommy4ever]

So basically they change their ideas as they drift to the right, but don't bother to change their name?

Yeah, this is a general trend for the various parties of the old left across Europe. Although most of the Eurocommunist parties did actually rebrand themselves after 1991, taking the rare step to actually bother changing the name to something vaguely more accurate.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Whenever I think of "old guard" CPs these days I imagine an old apparatchik like Gennady Zyuganov and how he has become a perennial losing candidate who serves as a foil for Putin and before him Yeltsin. Zyuganov's limited appeal in Russia allowed Yeltsin and now Putin to garner votes by scaring Russian citizens with the possibilities of what would happen if Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky ever attained state power. Most Russians are of course horrified by such a prospect and some buy into the notion of voting for the incumbent as the lesser evil.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I spoke to one of my "higher ranking" (one of the reasons I hate Democratic Centralism) comrades in the party, he said that "we can't just throw these ideas into society and expect acceptance, we need to take it slowly".

I find that either:

- A bullshit reformist tactic by a so called "revolutionary" party.
- Or just bullshit.

Both, I would say. Democratic centralism is useful only if the party is revolutionary. If it is not, then one is just bound to carry out a reformist or worse program. Oh yeah, and maybe in a hundred years we can tell them how we feel about religion and private property. . . .

[Dogs On Acid]

The PCP does not oppose child adoption by homosexual couples and has in fact called for a larger debate about the issue many times. What they defend is that we should analyse the possible consequences this could have on the children before adopting it as a law. It is easy to support it and pose as "revolutionary" but how many of us would have really liked to have been through school and admit in front of your colleagues that you have two parents of the same gender? Not many, I would venture to say. Children don't think like adults. I'm not saying this law is a bad idea or that it should not be passed in the future but I personally agree with the PCP's position that there are certain conditions that should be met first, like ensuring these children cannot be discriminated against. It's not a reactionary position, it's a realistic and responsible position.

Then why didn't they abstain from voting in parliament instead of voting against? By voting against you are in fact opposing, by abstaining you are, as the PCP claims, not ready to make a decision. Their argument is not congruent with their decision, and at the end of the day, is at least conservative if not reactionary.

Actions speak louder than words, the party can say what it pleases, if it doesn't practice what it preaches, it simply becomes rhetoric.

[Crux]

The PCP does not oppose child adoption by homosexual couples and has in fact called for a larger debate about the issue many times. What they defend is that we should analyse the possible consequences this could have on the children before adopting it as a law. It is easy to support it and pose as "revolutionary" but how many of us would have really liked to have been through school and admit in front of your colleagues that you have two parents of the same gender? Not many, I would venture to say. Children don't think like adults. I'm not saying this law is a bad idea or that it should not be passed in the future but I personally agree with the PCP's position that there are certain conditions that should be met first, like ensuring these children cannot be discriminated against. It's not a reactionary position, it's a realistic and responsible position.
So in other words a cautiosly conservative position of "What about the children?". Quelle suprise. Also, what DOA said.

[Tim Cornelis]

So basically they change their ideas as they drift to the right, but don't bother to change their name?

I once suggested they ought to change "Socialist Party" to "Red Capitalist Party" or something alike as to not confuse people in thinking they were actually socialist. They replied "thanks for the suggestion, we will submit it to the parliamentary caucus for review", lol.

[Luís Henrique]

Actions speak louder than words, the party can say what it pleases, if it doesn't practice what it preaches, it simply becomes rhetoric.

To be honest, I very much doubt a Stalinist party like the PCP preaches in favour of gay rights.

Luís Henrique

[Dogs On Acid]

To be honest, I very much doubt a Stalinist party like the PCP preaches in favour of gay rights.

Luís Henrique

They voted in favor of gay marriage.

[Dogs On Acid]

Because no such debate or analysis have taken place.

So they can't make their own analysis? They can't make their own debate? If they can, then why are they waiting so long? Homosexual adoption isn't something new on the block, so why are their ideas not founded on the subject beforehand, instead of waiting for a proposition and then saying "lets talk about this first!". And what's worse is that they proposed to debate with PS, a Capitalist party.

Either they support it, or they don't. What's the point of saying "we are voting no but personally we support gay adoption.".

[Aurora]

It's a shitty appeal to popular opinion, socialists should have principles, things we support even if they are temporarily unpopular. The point isn't to lower ourselves to the capitalist level but to raise workers to a socialist understanding.

[Dogs On Acid]

If they want certain conditions to be met this could mean additional laws so the debate would have to take place in the parliament because that is where laws are made. For example, in order to assure these conditions, additional anti-discrimination laws may have to be created.

So you rather have no law and completely discriminate homosexuals that have a law that is a step foward with the possibility of discrimination?


And so what if they debate with a capitalist party? Get real, negotiating with PS is the only way their proposals will ever be approved in the parliament.

Because communists shouldn't have any interest in bourgeois parliament outside showing what they fight for to the public eye.

[bcbm]

i don't think it thats complex. gay couples should be allowed to adopt. full stop. i mean 50 years ago would they have opposed mixed-race marriage? come on

[Blake's Baby]

So basically they change their ideas as they drift to the right, but don't bother to change their name?



Once upon a time, the 'Socialist' parties were socialist. Then they became 'reformist', ie they espoused the view that capitalism could be 'reformed' into socialism. Then they abandoned socialism and just believed in managing capitalism. When they lined up behind 'their own' bourgeoisies and nations to fight in WWI they were integrated into capitalism. But they didn't change their names. And this is why many people think that 'socialism' means 'capitalism with a bloated state machinery'.



i don't think it thats complex. gay couples should be allowed to adopt. full stop. i mean 50 years ago would they have opposed mixed-race marriage? come on

No, they'd have been in favour of mixed-race marriages. Consenting adults and all that. They'd have opposed adoption by mixed-race couples.

[Dogs On Acid]

Once upon a time, the 'Socialist' parties were socialist. Then they became 'reformist', ie they espoused the view that capitalism could be 'reformed' into socialism. Then they abandoned socialism and just believed in managing capitalism. When they lined up behind 'their own' bourgeoisies and nations to fight in WWI they were integrated into capitalism.

The Socialist Party (Social-Democratic) of Portugal is only 38 years old, and was founded just before the Carnation Revolution. So it didn't actually go through the "Reformist Socialism" and eventual transition to Capitalism that many early XX century European parties did, like the Labour Party (UK, now Social-Democratic).

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I'm mostly wagging my fingers at France and Germany here. If the SP in Portugal founded itself as a Portuguese version of the French Socialist Party, it was in '74, what with the end of the Salazar regime and whatnot, with the legalisation of Leftist parties I suppose. By that time, the Socialist Party in France had 60 years of being a pro-capitalist party behind it.

[~Spectre]

Historically, Communist Parties don't really have a long tradition of supporting homosexual child adoption, especially "Marxist-Leninist" parties. Or a short tradition. Or any tradition. Especially in Portugal. I'm not sure if it's good for the mental health of the child myself, though one can't deny that gay parents is much better than no parents at all.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

[OCMO]

I'm in favor of the adoption by gay couples, since the argument is about the children and adoption doesn't prevent gay's to have children, they are gay not sterile. The law is a stupid desperate attempt from conservatives to feel that the world isn't progressing. That said, i can understand the stand of the PCP. Portuguese society is in large scale rather conservative, and that affects the members of the party, usually the older who couldn't get a decent education (fascism and all) who make a big part of the membership. It isn't a fully resolved issue within the party, as such, the members who voted couldn't take a stand that isn't the reflection of the base of the party. I really think this is something that needs discussion in the whole country, and in some years, the large majority of portuguese are in favor of the adoption.

Now, you can disagree of the decision, but calling reactionary to a party who shows almost at the same level of the late secretary-general, the work of the poet of the party and one of it's grand faces who was openly homossexual, a party who always favored the minorities and the inclusion of them into society is a bit of a strecht. And as far as my circle, never a comrade was looked down for being homossexual, neither this is a concern to the party. From my experience, as long as you are militant, you can live your life as you please.

And as for the Stalinist slang, comrades with responsabilities within the organization openly disagree with Stalin and some even say they prefer Trotsky.

[Triple A]

BE is almost dead.
PCP is crazy.
PCTP is living in 1917.
Unions are fighting eachother.
The people is apathic and will put up with anything.

I lost all hope on my country, i dont expect anything good to happen here.

[Dogs On Acid]

BE is almost dead.
Was it ever alive? It's a cocktail of unpopular parties.


PCP is crazy.
Elaborate...


PCTP is living in 1917.
Supposedly CIA controlled. Also, they are Maoist, so 1917?


Unions are fighting eachother.
CGTP is the only Union that probably isn't controlled by Capital, it's obvious that they are aggressive towards other unions.


The people is apathic and will put up with anything.
True... :(

[Triple A]

Was it ever alive? It's a cocktail of unpopular parties.


Elaborate...


Supposedly CIA controlled. Also, they are Maoist, so 1917?


CGTP is the only Union that probably isn't controlled by Capital, it's obvious that they are aggressive towards other unions.


True... :(


PCP and PCTP dont seem do realise we are in 2012, parece que acabamos de sair do 25 de abril.

In my opinion CGTP is more attached to what marx wrote an hundread years ago than to the workers of today.

[Dogs On Acid]

PCP and PCTP dont seem do realise we are in 2012, parece que acabamos de sair do 25 de abril.

In my opinion CGTP is more attached to what marx wrote an hundread years ago than to the workers of today.

So how exactly is PCP an "outdated" party? I hear this all the time and yet I get no conclusive argument.

Sure, they bring up the Carnation Revolution a lot, which is totally irrelevant to younger workers and students because they weren't there, but it is still a great episode of Portuguese history and an example of success against fascism.

On the other hand, Bloco de Esquerda are very progressive, they have energy and put forward important problems in contemporary society that the PCP seems to ignore, such as drugs, prostitution, corruption, abortion, LGBT rights, etc... Unfortunately Bloco de Esquerda is controlled by Capital, unlike PCP who's funding is completely independent.

[Triple A]

So how exactly is PCP an "outdated" party? I hear this all the time and yet I get no conclusive argument.

Sure, they bring up the Carnation Revolution a lot, which is totally irrelevant to younger workers and students because they weren't there, but it is still a great episode of Portuguese history and an example of success against fascism.

On the other hand, Bloco de Esquerda are very progressive, they have energy and put forward important problems in contemporary society that the PCP seems to ignore, such as drugs, prostitution, corruption, abortion, LGBT rights, etc... Unfortunately Bloco de Esquerda is controlled by Capital, unlike PCP who's funding is completely independent.

Im realistic.
PCP has to adapt to portuguese society, portuguese society wont adapt to what Marx wrote 1 hundread years ago.
Until PCP doesnt realise that they are out of touch with the majority of portugal they wont grow.

[Dogs On Acid]

PCP has to adapt to portuguese society, portuguese society wont adapt to what Marx wrote 1 hundread years ago.
True, but that's is Marxism's scientific nature, any communist (or anarchist) should acknowledge this.


Until PCP doesnt realise that they are out of touch with the majority of portugal they wont grow.
And how exactly are they out of touch? This is what I want you to answer. Why are they outdated and why do you consider them out of touch? The only reasons I can think of is what I said before: drugs, abortion, etc.
And even by bringing up these topics, Bloco de Esquerda has less support than PCP.