I've given this quite a bit of thought, but still have come to the conclusion I'm quite confused regarding a Communist's stance towards homosexuality.
It's okay from a working class point of view. But, as we need to recruit for the "Commie Cause," having children and rearing them up correctly with the correct mindset would be best as opposed to two Communist homosexuals who simply won't, becuase two males or females can't, have children.
I think, its quite hilarious that most people in this thread had a knee jerk reaction that this guy must be homophobic when in fact he is just monumentally stupid...accusing people of homophobia though, is apparently more fun then accusing them of asking an incredibly stupid question.
Read what he actually said, he said “It’s okay from a working class point of view”, and in context, the “It’s” can only be “homosexuality” so he was saying that it was okay, not that it wasn’t.
His comment that “we need to recruit for the ‘Commie Cause’”by “having children and rearing them up correctly with the correct mindset” (which is by the way, hilarious), was not a suggestion that gay people can’t raise children with “the correct mindset”, but that they can’t have biological children, and while its true that gay couples (or, single people of any sexual orientation for that matter) can adopt children, its fair to say being gay significantly reduces your chances of raising kids then being straight, just like being straight but infertile would significantly reduce your chances of raising kids. That’s not the same as saying that gay people shouldn’t have kids or adopt kids, only that they probably wont, which is probably true (there are simply fewer kids up for adoption than there are people who want them).
Now, clearly this is an incredibly stupid thing to point out, because 1. proposing reproduction as a means of political recruitment is not only ridiculously stupid, it would be ridiculously inefficient, compared to say, recruiting people the conventional way by convincing them of your politics 2. you can’t just raise kids to believe what you do and its creepily controlling and paternalistic to want to 3. not being gay doesn’t mean you’re gonna have kids; that should be pretty obvious
Originally posted by Rybin+--> (Rybin) You have to understand that even if two 'communists' have a child, that child will not necessarily be a Communist, as if this were true, the same would go for capitalism, therefore Communism would not exist.
[/b]
No, its different, because communism is a diesese transmittable through precious bodily fluids...thats why communists support fluoridation.
Originally posted by in_motion+--> (in_motion)In a communist society won't be the same as we have here.
Think about it.
No material possessions [/b]
Lol a Communist society doesn’t entail “no material possessions”, it would mean more material possessions for everyone...the only type of property that Communism (and socialism) abolishes is private investment property, not personal property or communal property.
It seems that what your thinking about isn’t communism, its monastic Buddhism...or extreme poverty. :P
Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta
the focus of communists should not be on whom is having sex with whom or in what way,
If we can’t gossip about who is having sex with whom its not my revolution.
Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta
'homosexual' or otherwise.
I love how you consistently put the word homosexual in quotation marks...its so deranged.
Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta
If its because heteros can produce kids? Then what about adoption? IVF etc.?
Um, you realize that IVF is only for couples who have difficulty conceiving, it refers to laboratory fertilization and involves invasive surgery and heavy medication...
So uh, you’d think a lesbian who wanted biological kids would just get sperm donated instead. :P
in
[email protected]
As in, everyone raises children. Children only know their mothers.
Lol how would that possibly work? Why wouldn’t a mother be able to identify the father? Do you want a pre-marxist utopian socialist enforced “community of women” or something equally fucked up?
Tommy-K
Homosexuality is not always a lifestyle choice. Research has shown that it is genetic. Just like some people are born with brown hair or blue eyes, some people are born homosexual. This is why it must be tolerated.
That’s extraordinarily stupid.
Whether or not homosexuality is genetic (and there’s plenty of research to suggest that it has to do with fetal environment not strictly genetics like a lot of things, although there has also been research that suggests a recessive genetic trait, so it could have multiple origins that simply present similarly; in any case lots of traits are based on many different genes and/or environmental factors) is totally irrelevant. You can’t say that whether or not people are simply born that way is the determining factor of whether or not something should be tolerated. The issue is not whether or not something is “natural” or genetic but whether or not something is harmful to non-consenting people, and clearly homosexuality is not, and would not be even if it had no biological basis.
Likewise, I think its reasonable to assume that some people are born predisposed to being cruel that shouldn’t make anyone feel more inclined to tolerate them.
People need to get out of the mindset that personal behavior is excusable if and only if it has a ‘biological component’ of some sort, it’s the same type of psudo-scientific political expression that leads the prevailing bourgeois liberal ideology to cast every behavior it doesn’t like as sick or mentally unwell rather than simply undesirable to them.
One of the more realistic approaches to the nature behind Homosexuality is the evolutaniary survival of the fittest explanation. This example says that humans are evolutaniary/genetically born with a certain degree of attraction to both sexes and that this helps humans work-out who is their competion, when it comes to finding a mate. In order to re-produce the man atleast must have some sexual attraction towards women, if he had none what so ever homosexuality would of been evolutinarialy/geneticaly weeded out of existence.
I'm sorry but, thats just so far from how biological evolution and genetics actually work.
I mean think about what you just said. If that were true, then Tay-Sachs would be gone in one generation because no one with Tay-Sachs ever reproduces because they all die before puberty.
In fact, physical traits are determined by multiple genes in different combinations, and because people pass on half their genes to their children, and their partners pass on another half, but it isn't the same half every time, its very possible for genes that prevent reproduction either due to death or infertility to survive in the gene pool.
This is especially true when the same genes in different combinations have selective advantages. For instance, people with one beta-globin gene producing hemoglobin S and one producing hemoglobin A is more likely to reproduce than someone with two genes hemoglobin A (as most people have) because they're less likely to get malaria for complicated reasons, but someone with two beta-globin genes producing hemoglobin S is less likely to reproduce because they would be likely to develop sickle cell disease...so the selective advance of having one gene from this mutation but not a pair, keeps the gene in the genetic pool at a higher than otherwise expected rate. Its been suggested by at least one study that some of the genes potentially responsible for male homosexuality increase reproductive rates in women with the same genes. Whether thats true or not, you can still see why having a trait preventing reproduction would not imply that that trait couldn't be genetic in origin.