Your opinion of gay people?

[RHIZOMES]

Noone has problems with gays here. if they do they're usually restricted.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 29, 2007 04:12 am
Noone has problems with gays here. if they do they're usually restricted.
At least in theory, homophobes are always restricted.

Also, for the OP, this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60895) is a link to an index of frequently discussed topics in discrimination (where this thread really belongs) and if you scroll down the first post, there's a list of queer-related threads where you can see what people think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:41 am
I was wondering what the general opinion of homosexuals in the movement. Just about every nation had in its laws that it was a mental disease.

Until they learnt better. Some of them are still a little behind the curve, but eventually they will come round.


They had it down as this until the homosexuals started to fund activism.

Which taught everyone who isn't a hateful bigot that queer people are human beings too.


I just wonder what the truth is. I know that in the USSR it was illegal and considered a mental disorder and could even lead to prison time.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, and anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you.

[Eleftherios]

I think that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors should not be the state's business.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:41 am
I was wondering what the general opinion of homosexuals in the movement. Just about every nation had in its laws that it was a mental disease. They had it down as this until the homosexuals started to fund activism. I just wonder what the truth is. I know that in the USSR it was illegal and considered a mental disorder and could even lead to prison time.
I think any homophobic elements of communist asia were down to cultural attitudes inherited from the previous systems before they learnt about marxism. I dont know about the USSR, but I know that homosexuality was illegal in China as recently as the mid nineties because they regarded it as a product of 'western decadence'. It is legal in Cuba, but is often reacted against with hostility by sections of the local society. Such is the machismo nature of Latin American society. I dont know what the attitudes are like in countries claiming to be communist, like Vietnam, Laos or the DPRK but it would be interesting to know.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Slavija_Bogu+August 29, 2007 10:18 pm--> (Slavija_Bogu @ August 29, 2007 10:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:27 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 03:41 am
I was wondering what the general opinion of homosexuals in the movement. Just about every nation had in its laws that it was a mental disease.

Until they learnt better. Some of them are still a little behind the curve, but eventually they will come round.


They had it down as this until the homosexuals started to fund activism.

Which taught everyone who isn't a hateful bigot that queer people are human beings too.


I just wonder what the truth is. I know that in the USSR it was illegal and considered a mental disorder and could even lead to prison time.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, and anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you.
Your post is full of emotion. You should not be over powered by your emotions. Just let people discuss things without becoming angry ;) [/b]
I reckon it's perfectly acceptable, even useful, to get angry about homophobia (and any other oppression/discrimination). I think it was Audre Lorde who wrote stuff about allowing ourselves to be angry, and to put that anger to good use in struggle.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist
I think any homophobic elements of communist asia were down to cultural attitudes inherited from the previous systems before they learnt about marxism.

Given that homophobia was common place in the western left after the 'advent of marxism' the pre-marx 'backwardness' thing doesn't really add up. The fact is homophobia and marxism (or revolutionary leftism generally) went very well together for the majority of the 20th century.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Slavija_Bogu+August 30, 2007 08:18 am--> (Slavija_Bogu @ August 30, 2007 08:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:27 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 03:41 am
I was wondering what the general opinion of homosexuals in the movement. Just about every nation had in its laws that it was a mental disease.

Until they learnt better. Some of them are still a little behind the curve, but eventually they will come round.


They had it down as this until the homosexuals started to fund activism.

Which taught everyone who isn't a hateful bigot that queer people are human beings too.


I just wonder what the truth is. I know that in the USSR it was illegal and considered a mental disorder and could even lead to prison time.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, and anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you.
Your post is full of emotion. You should not be over powered by your emotions. Just let people discuss things without becoming angry ;) [/b]
Are implying that what he's saying is wrong? Because it's (in your opinion) emotional?

If you disagree with what he said, then you should explain why.

Also, Slavija_Bogu - what is your avatar of/about?

[Rollo]

Why do I need an opinion on gay people? Having a seperate opinion on them over other people just minoritises them and adds to the segregation, they are people like everybody else are they not?

[Red_Pride]

Homosexuals are just another group the great big White Christian Male world puts down on a regular basis. :(

[Cencus]

I really don't care what people do in thier bedrooms as long as it is between those who can make an informed decision of consent. Gays are people too :wub: :wub:


Not much else need to be said on the subject tbh :D

[Faux Real]

They're just regular people, as has been said. No more, no less. Thusly, I like them. :)

[Red Scare]

I have nothing against gay people (i am bisexual myself) , and have many gay friends. I like them a lot :) , and hate people who use the term "fag" or say "that's so gay", why do deragatory terms have to be so popular in america? :hammer: :star: :banner:

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I don't care if you're gay or not.

[R_P_A_S]

My parents had always had gay friends. so as a kid and growing up I never really thought much of it.

[black magick hustla]

people who dislike gay for just being gay are fucking scum.

[An archist]

So, slavija, what do you think of gays?

[Slavija_Bogu]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 30, 2007 08:48 pm
So, slavija, what do you think of gays?
Personally, I think it is a mental disease but I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I lived in Key West for awhile and their actions made me think less of them.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:49 pm
Personally, I think it is a mental disease but I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I lived in Key West for awhile and their actions made me think less of them.
The idea that it's a mental disease has been proven incorrect time and time again.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Slavija_Bogu+August 30, 2007 05:07 pm--> (Slavija_Bogu @ August 30, 2007 05:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:02 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 04:49 pm
Personally, I think it is a mental disease but I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I lived in Key West for awhile and their actions made me think less of them.
The idea that it's a mental disease has been proven incorrect time and time again.
Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.[/b]
Pleasure, bonding, etc.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My opinion is that homosexuals are people who like to have sex with others of the same gender.

What, you want more than that? But what could I possibly say that would apply to all gay people, other than the obvious fact that they are gay? Some of them are working class, some of them are bourgeois. Some of them are nice people, some of them are assholes, some of them are smart, some of them are stupid, some of them are attractive, some of them are ugly, some of them are... well, you get the point. Asking for one's opinion of gay people in general is like asking for one's opinion of straight people in general. There is simply too much variation within each group.


Originally posted by Slavija_Bogu+--> (Slavija_Bogu)Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.[/b]
There are no such things as "malfunctions" or "purposes" in biology, for the simple reason that "nature" is not intelligent and doesn't really care what happens to you. Reproduction of the species is not a purpose; survival of the species is not a purpose; there are no purposes in nature.

Only intelligence can create purpose, not mindless chemistry. Nature did not give us a purpose - we must look for our purpose elsewhere.

But I would like to point out that if homosexuality was genetic, and if indeed it did not promote the survival of the species, then it would disappear in a single generation. Gay people don't have children, after all. So we must conclude that either (a) homosexuality is not genetic, or (b) homosexuality is genetic, but it does serve the species somehow.



Just about every nation had in its laws that it was a mental disease.
Until they learnt better. Some of them are still a little behind the curve, but eventually they will come round.
No, not until "they learnt better." They did it until it was no longer convenient for the ruling class to oppress homosexuals by law. Bourgeois states don't change their policy because they learn better, they change their policy to defend the interests of the bourgeoisie (which may involve passing a few progressive measures to diffuse social tensions).


bleeding gums malatesta
Also, Slavija_Bogu - what is your avatar of/about?
If I may interject - it looks like an Orthodox cross with a Christogram: the letters IC XC, which are meant to represent the first and last letters of the Greek Ιησούς Χριστος ("Jesus Christ").

In other words, it looks elaborate but carries no additional meaning beyond your average Christian cross. :)

[chimx]

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.

There are numerous species of animal that exhibit homosexual behavior; humans are not unique to this. There are gay sheep, gay frogs, gay insects, etc.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+August 30, 2007 06:17 am--> (Mujer Libre @ August 30, 2007 06:17 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:18 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:27 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 03:41 am
I was wondering what the general opinion of homosexuals in the movement. Just about every nation had in its laws that it was a mental disease.

Until they learnt better. Some of them are still a little behind the curve, but eventually they will come round.


They had it down as this until the homosexuals started to fund activism.

Which taught everyone who isn't a hateful bigot that queer people are human beings too.


I just wonder what the truth is. I know that in the USSR it was illegal and considered a mental disorder and could even lead to prison time.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, and anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you.
Your post is full of emotion. You should not be over powered by your emotions. Just let people discuss things without becoming angry ;)
I reckon it's perfectly acceptable, even useful, to get angry about homophobia (and any other oppression/discrimination). I think it was Audre Lorde who wrote stuff about allowing ourselves to be angry, and to put that anger to good use in struggle. [/b]
I am seriously disturbed. Does'nt get angry at anything I see happening in society. I does'nt get happy either. I am totally emotionally detached from everything.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:35 am

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.

There are numerous species of animal that exhibit homosexual behavior; humans are not unique to this. There are gay sheep, gay frogs, gay insects, etc.
lesbian rabbits.

[Oswy]

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction. Slavija_Bogu.

There is no 'purpose' in nature from a scientific perspective. Evolutionary theory posits a process which is entirely unthinking and purposeless. It is no more the 'purpose' of animals to have sex and reproduce than it is the 'purpose' of water to roll down hill. In both cases there is merely a tendency towards such action by virtue of laws of physics, chemistry and so on (in the case of biological entities acting in a highly complex, though still unthinking, way). Biologists do sometimes use terms like 'purpose' and 'function' but do so metaphorically, if they aren't doing so metaphorically then they are slipping into bad reason, and it happens.

I'd also draw your attention to the 'is/ought fallacy' or more specifically the 'naturalistic fallacy' (the latter being a version of the former). Facts of nature do not of themselves provide premises on which value judgements can be made. As others have said, homosexuality is widely observed in nature and I'd draw your attention especially to a closely related species, the Bonobo Chimps - they indulge in highly regular sexual stimulation, male-female, male-male and female-female. Bonobo sexuality is believed to have a highly social dimension, that is to say it has 'function' beyond mere reproduction. They probably also have sex because it's pleasurable! At the very least we can regard homosexuality as 'natural' though this is an easily misused and problematic term.

In any event, regardless of whether homosexuality is observed in other species or not, it is not grounds for determining whether it is acceptable in human society. Homosexuality in human society should be regarded acceptable in the same way any other human behaviour should be: by reason. Why would I object to two men playing golf together? Golf isn't exactly 'natural'.

[BobKKKindle$]

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction. Slavija_Bogu.

There is no 'biological function' of having protected heterosexual sex - that is, sex that is not conducted with the intention of having children, simply for the pleasure and possibly emotional bond. The implication of your position is that this (or, rather, the desire to engage in heterosexual sex for pleasure) should be considered a 'mental disease' as well, because it does not fit within the narrow confines of what you would consider 'biologically' rational. This is an absurd position to take - sex of any kind is one of the most enjoyable and exciting components of the human experience.

Frankly, it does not matter whether homosexuality is a choice, or biological, or determined by conditions in the womb etc. It does not harm anyone in society, and homosexuals are well-adjusted and competent beings. Therefore I have no problem with it.

[Coprolal1an]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:55 pm

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction. Slavija_Bogu.
I was going to take it from the scientific perspective, but it looks as though this has been covered already. I'm assuming by 'purpose' you mean 'what is best the others' or 'what is best for society'. In that case, I would say that we'd be better off with more homosexuals, since the world is already overpopulated as is, and we certainly don't need any more people, at least for the time being.

[Herman]

Why should I have an opinion about them? It's like having an opinion about blacks or blind people.

No, I base my judgement on their actions.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:16 am
Why should I have an opinion about them? It's like having an opinion about blacks or blind people.

No, I base my judgement on their actions.
I agree. Why should a person be seen as a model of a certain group, to be used as an example of how that group behaves? If I was lazy, would that mean all men were lazy, or all white people were lazy or all English people were lazy? Of course it wouldn't, because I as an individual do not represent all men, or all white people or all English people.

[counterblast]

Of course I've got to quote Emma Goldman on this topic:


Censorship came from some of my own comrades because I was treating such "unnatural" themes as homosexuality. Anarchism was alreadly enough misunderstood, and anarchists considered depraved; it was inadvisable to add to the misconceptions by taking up perverted sex-forms, they argued. Beliving in freedom of opinion, even if it went against me, I minded the censors in my own ranks as little as I did those in the enemy's camp. In fact, censorship from my comrades had the same effect on me as police persecution; it made me surer of myself, more determined to plead for every victim, be it one of social wrong or of moral prejudice.

The men and women who used to come to see me after my lectures on homosexuality, and who confided to me their anguish and their isolation, were often of finer grain than those who had cast them out. Most of them had reached an adequate understanding of their differentiation only after years of struggle to stifle what they had considered a disease and a shameful affliction. One young woman confessed to me that in the twenty-five years of her life she had never known a day when the nearness of a man, her own father and brothers even, did not make her ill. The more she had tried to respond to sexual approach, the more repugnant men became to her. She had hated herself, she said, because she could not love her father and her brothers as she loved her mother. She suffered excruciating remorse, but her revulsion only increased. At the age of eighteen she had accepted an offer of marriage in the hope that a long engagement might help her grow accustomed to a man and cure her of her "disease." It turned out a ghastly failure and nearly drove her insane. She could not face marriage, and she dared not confide in her fiance or friends. She had never met anyone, she told me, who suffered from a similar affliction, nor had she ever read books dealing with the subject. My lecture had set her free; I had given her back her self-respect.

This woman was only one of the many who sought me out. Their pitiful stories made the social ostracism of the invert seem more dreadful than I had ever realized before. To me anarchism was not a mere theory for a distant future; it was a living influence to free us from inhibitions, internal no less than external, and from the destructive barriers that seperate man from man.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+September 03, 2007 02:24 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ September 03, 2007 02:24 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:16 am
Why should I have an opinion about them? It's like having an opinion about blacks or blind people.

No, I base my judgement on their actions.
I agree. Why should a person be seen as a model of a certain group, to be used as an example of how that group behaves? If I was lazy, would that mean all men were lazy, or all white people were lazy or all English people were lazy? Of course it wouldn't, because I as an individual do not represent all men, or all white people or all English people. [/b]
Although the world would be a far better place if you did!

[synthesis]

These are issues that really get at people so I apologize if I offend anyone.

Like a lot of people, I see traditional taboos about homosexuality and promiscuity as enormous double standards, but unlike a lot of people, I see specific reasons why these characteristics evolved from pre-scientific societies.

Think about it. Homosexual activities have not always necessarily been considered "wrong" - but receptive sex almost always is, from the Greeks to modern-day prisons. To be "taking it" is bad. Why? STDs.

The receptive partner in sex is always many, many times more likely to contract a disease than one who inserts. For every kind of STD there is.

It seems readily apparent to me that social regulations arose as a method of controlling venereal disease before the condoms and the penicillin came along. It was probably taken for granted that effeminate men were more likely to be receptive during intercourse, so that's why accepted social roles for those types of people were usually confined to religious activities that prohibited sex.

I also see this as the reason of the double standard in heterosexual promiscuity - and why these roles started to dissipate after the condom was invented.

What I'm really getting at here is that a lot of the world is still behind on these sorts of things, and a cultural meme based on maintaining health that is thousands of years old, though now unnecessary, is going to need a lot of work to overcome it.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by rev0lt+August 30, 2007 07:49 pm--> (rev0lt @ August 30, 2007 07:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:07 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:02 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 04:49 pm
Personally, I think it is a mental disease but I don't really care what they do behind closed doors. I lived in Key West for awhile and their actions made me think less of them.
The idea that it's a mental disease has been proven incorrect time and time again.
Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.
Pleasure, bonding, etc. [/b]
i am bisexual not as much for the sexual or the reproductive reasons as companionship and bonding, and I think men are good looking of course

[Social Scum]

There's no reason for this thread to exist on a Revolutionary leftist forum. We're obviously accepting and embracing to all gays and bisexual individuals.

[Social Scum]

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.

Understandable, I suppose. You call it a biological malfunction, it is actually a biological mismatch and coincidence. When the fetus is growing it is flushed with levels of testosterone and estrogen to determine it's bodily traits and it's sexual attractions in its mind (being gay or transgendered is a biological function, you simply realize it around puberty when you find yourself attracted to men), and sometimes the mind is dominantly estrogenic and the body dominantly male, which would create a gay male, vice versa for lesbian women.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 13, 2007 01:36 am

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.

Understandable, I suppose. You call it a biological malfunction, it is actually a biological mismatch and coincidence. When the fetus is growing it is flushed with levels of testosterone and estrogen to determine it's bodily traits and it's sexual attractions in its mind (being gay or transgendered is a biological function, you simply realize it around puberty when you find yourself attracted to men), and sometimes the mind is dominantly estrogenic and the body dominantly male, which would create a gay male, vice versa for lesbian women.
It could just as easily be a biological evolution; to help cope with the damaging effects massive heterosexual reproduction is having on the environment and the Earth's resources..

But of course all of these suggestions are just speculations, that have little to no scientific backing.

[Coprolal1an]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 13, 2007 08:18 am--> (counterblast @ September 13, 2007 08:18 am)
Social [email protected] 13, 2007 01:36 am

Well, What is the biological function of being homosexual? I know heterosexual relationships are for one purpose only and that is reproduction of the species. It seems that one would have sexual desires for the same sex it would be a biological malfunction.

Understandable, I suppose. You call it a biological malfunction, it is actually a biological mismatch and coincidence. When the fetus is growing it is flushed with levels of testosterone and estrogen to determine it's bodily traits and it's sexual attractions in its mind (being gay or transgendered is a biological function, you simply realize it around puberty when you find yourself attracted to men), and sometimes the mind is dominantly estrogenic and the body dominantly male, which would create a gay male, vice versa for lesbian women.
It could just as easily be a biological evolution; to help cope with the damaging effects massive heterosexual reproduction is having on the environment and the Earth's resources..

But of course all of these suggestions are just speculations, that have little to no scientific backing. [/b]
Interesting idea, however I don't think that it could work--evolution is a blind process of random changes which may or may not help an organism to spread its genes... Having a gene for a homosexual individual would most likely stop at that individual, for obvious reasons.

[MarxSchmarx]

It could just as easily be a biological evolution; to help cope with the damaging effects massive heterosexual reproduction is having on the environment and the Earth's resources..

But of course all of these suggestions are just speculations, that have little to no scientific backing.

Au contraire. There is now a theory in evolutionary biology called "social heterosis."

The idea is that groups of organisms composed of diverse individuals allow the genes of individuals in the group to perform better than individuals outside of the group. This is (impressively!) true even if there is no strong genetic relationship between individuals. The argument is rather technical (http://iussi.confex.com/iussi/2006/techprogram/P1602.HTM) but gives a plausible mechanism for why a trait like homosexuality can persist in the gene pool. For details, see Nonacs and Kapheim, Journal of Evol. Biology., 2007.

[The-Spark]

free love! thats all i have to say

[Entrails Konfetti]

I just hate people who make me have to work, and then suspend me for being insubordinate. It doesn't matter what anyone is or isn't-- just read above!

[Entrails Konfetti]

On another note, I heard that gay people have huge cocks!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

It really pisses me off. I have friends who are bi and gay/lesbian. They are people just like everyone else. A lot of people in america hate the idea of gay marriage - I don't think they have any right to be opposed to it- it shouldn't matter your sexual orientation marriage is marriage, love is love, that should be all that matters. As I said, I know many people who are bi, gay or lesbian and it doesn't bother me at all. regardless, I don't think any straight male or female (especially in government) should criticise it. they are human beings just as everyone else and it shouldn't necessarily make a difference.

[Marxist]

I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:45 pm
I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative
Then your view of this issue contrasts sharply with the opinions of those who apply a Marxist analysis and overthrow their reactionary baggage.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+October 07, 2007 04:19 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ October 07, 2007 04:19 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 03:45 pm
I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative
Then your view of this issue contrasts sharply with the opinions of those who apply a Marxist analysis and overthrow their reactionary baggage. [/b]
I believe it's a bit naive to believe that all Marxists do not have at least some reactionary baggage.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:45 pm
I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative
Well, it's something that you're ashamed I suppose, most people are unapologetic arseholes about it.

Is there a reason for your negative feelings towards homosexuals (christ I sound like a psychiatrist :P)? It's difficult for me to understand :wacko:

[Herman]

(christ I sound like a psychiatrist

That is very unbecoming of you Jazzrat!

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:45 am
I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative
Why are you homophobic?

[Great Helmsman]

If homosexuality is normal and acceptable, doesn't that mean other sexual persuasions like inces t, pedo, or bestiality are normal and acceptable too? Before you accuse me of trying to employ a slippery-slope fallacy, let me point out that I understand there is a big difference between two mutually consenting adults of the same sex engaging in intercourse, and the same between a grown up and a young child.

We can easily tell which of these two sexual acts is consensual, so that's obviously not the issue. Ignoring whether they have intercourse, can we say that a man who is only 'turned on' by young children is any less normal than one that is turned on by other men his age? Just because homosexuality appears to be relatively common today, doesn't discount the fact that ephebo philia and pedo philia have been common in history as well.

edit: jesus christ why doesn't this site let me use words like that!?

[Cult of Reason]

Incest should be opposed for one simple reason: inbreeding often produces mentally and/or physically retarded offspring. Just look at Charles II of Spain! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain)

Note: by oppose, I mean that it should be considered socially unacceptable. Likely nothing else is necessary.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:42 am
Incest should be opposed for one simple reason: inbreeding often produces mentally and/or physically retarded offspring. Just look at Charles II of Spain! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain)

Wrong.

Incest is completely harmless for one or two generations. Some studys say it is beneficial to the gene pool occasionally.

[Cult of Reason]

Silly as this may sound, Wikipedia says that you are wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression


nbreeding may result in a far higher expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

* reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.



The taboo of incest has been discussed by many social scientists. Anthropologists attest that it exists in most cultures. As inbreeding within the first generation often produces expression of recessive traits, the prohibition has been discussed as a possible functional response to the requirement of culling those born deformed, or with undesirable traits.

Where could I find support for your claim that "Incest is completely harmless for one or two generations."?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:18 am
Silly as this may sound, Wikipedia says that you are wrong:

"Moderate inbreeding may also produce biological benefits. Contrary to lore, cousin marriages may do even better than ordinary marriages by the standard Darwinian measure of success, which is reproduction. A 1960 study of first-cousin marriages in 19th-century England done by C. D. Darlington, a geneticist at Oxford University, found that inbred couples produced twice as many great-grandchildren as did their outbred counterparts.

Consider, for example, the marriage of Albert and Bettina Rothschild. Their children were descended from a genetic pool of just 24 people (beginning with family founders Mayer Amschel and Gutle Rothschild), and more than three-fifths of them were born Rothschilds. In a family that had not inbred, the same children would have 38 ancestors. Because of inbreeding, they were directly descended no fewer than six times each from Mayer and Gutle Rothschild. If our subconscious Darwinian agenda is to get as much of our genome as possible into future generations, then inbreeding clearly provided a genetic benefit for Mayer and Gutle."

I found this extract from Discover Magasine (http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss) after a 5 second google search.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Yeah, beneficial if you're some freak concerned about a compact genome.

WE suggests if its between cousins, and moderate there isn't a likelihood of mental-retardation, but Haraldur suggests there is.

So there must be a probability of mental retardation/ no mental retardation.

[Cult of Reason]

I was talking more of brother + sister rather than cousins.

Regardless, I am not too enthused about this subject, since I have little to say on it.

[Pawn Power]

I would tend to think that there is a increase in genetic dissorders, though probably only of rare delaterious recessive desieses, in breeding of close relitives.

Does this mean that those people should not breed because of this...? Should people over 40 not breed because of an increase risk of producing a child with trisomy 21?...

[Organic Revolution]

Sexual prefference does not change a person. Being gay/lesbian/bi/trans ect. does not make you a better or worse person.

[Knight of Cydonia]

what's wrong with gay people? there's nothing wrong with them!they just like us, they're our friends. i have a gay friend,he's so kind and cute :wub: that's what i like from them, they were so friendly and was just like family when they were very close to you.

NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM!

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by blackstone+October 08, 2007 01:05 pm--> (blackstone @ October 08, 2007 01:05 pm)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 07, 2007 04:19 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 03:45 pm
I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative
Then your view of this issue contrasts sharply with the opinions of those who apply a Marxist analysis and overthrow their reactionary baggage.
I believe it's a bit naive to believe that all Marxists do not have at least some reactionary baggage. [/b]
this gives me an idea, maybe we should have a 'reactionary baggage amnesty -sticky thread' where people can post their issues with a view to learning as opposed to being consigned to the OI bin.

[Gadfly]

Who actually gives a rats ass about gays? I don't. They are just gay. The people who sit and fret about gays need a better life, and I am talking about Pat Robertson and all them, but those gay rights activists too. Why does their need to be gay culture? Why can't that just be a thing some people are?

[Vanguard1917]

Why does their need to be gay culture?

Gay people are encouraged to pigeonhole themselves into this artificial, media-created 'gay culture' which the vast majority of gay people have never actually identified with. In the past, oppressed 'minority groups' would fight for the right to be treated the same as everyone else. This meant emphasising commonality over difference. Today, more and more, with the emergence of the politics of multiculturalism, and the politics of identity which goes hand in hand with it, 'minority goups' (racial and eithnic minorities, religious minorities. gays, lesbians and so on) are encouraged to emphasise their 'diversity' - i.e. just how different they are from the rest of 'us', the diversity of their culture, identity, way of life, and so on. Hence the various 'different cultures' which are recently emerging in Western societies.

[Pink Moon]

Haha, if it's a disease then I should probably get a doctor to check it out for me..
We're people, just like you.

[spartan]

The title of this topic is "Your opinion of gay people?".

Well the first thing that comes into my mind when asked that ridiculous question is "Why should people have to an opinion on gay people? Do people have opinions on straight people because of their sexuality? Very unlikely! So why should people have to have an opinion on gay people?".

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:10 pm

Why does their need to be gay culture?

Gay people are encouraged to pigeonhole themselves into this artificial, media-created 'gay culture' which the vast majority of gay people have never actually identified with. In the past, oppressed 'minority groups' would fight for the right to be treated the same as everyone else. This meant emphasising commonality over difference. Today, more and more, with the emergence of the politics of multiculturalism, and the politics of identity which goes hand in hand with it, 'minority goups' (racial and eithnic minorities, religious minorities. gays, lesbians and so on) are encouraged to emphasise their 'diversity' - i.e. just how different they are from the rest of 'us', the diversity of their culture, identity, way of life, and so on. Hence the various 'different cultures' which are recently emerging in Western societies.
Well thats a gross generalization. <_<

You know what happends when "culture" is rejected as superfluous?...the dominate culture emerges alone.

This means that the existing hegemonic culutre is seen as the only "legitmate" form and that it alone is practiced, upholding the corosponding hegemonic polical and social institutions.

[leftace53]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:09 pm
The title of this topic is "Your opinion of gay people?".

Well the first thing that comes into my mind when asked that ridiculous question is "Why should people have to an opinion on gay people? Do people have opinions on straight people because of their sexuality? Very unlikely&#33; So why should people have to have an opinion on gay people?".
This is exactly what I thought too.

In any case, to me gay people = straight people = people.

[Held van Arbeid]

I don&#39;t think people are born gay.

But hell, who gives a fuck what you are. Gay people are gay, for whatever reason their gay, it doesn&#39;t make them less than a person. Damn, it makes them brave for coming out into such a machismo culture.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+October 11, 2007 10:21 am--> (Pawn Power @ October 11, 2007 10:21 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 04:10 pm

Why does their need to be gay culture?

Gay people are encouraged to pigeonhole themselves into this artificial, media-created &#39;gay culture&#39; which the vast majority of gay people have never actually identified with. In the past, oppressed &#39;minority groups&#39; would fight for the right to be treated the same as everyone else. This meant emphasising commonality over difference. Today, more and more, with the emergence of the politics of multiculturalism, and the politics of identity which goes hand in hand with it, &#39;minority goups&#39; (racial and eithnic minorities, religious minorities. gays, lesbians and so on) are encouraged to emphasise their &#39;diversity&#39; - i.e. just how different they are from the rest of &#39;us&#39;, the diversity of their culture, identity, way of life, and so on. Hence the various &#39;different cultures&#39; which are recently emerging in Western societies.
Well thats a gross generalization. <_<

You know what happends when "culture" is rejected as superfluous?...the dominate culture emerges alone.

This means that the existing hegemonic culutre is seen as the only "legitmate" form and that it alone is practiced, upholding the corosponding hegemonic polical and social institutions. [/b]
QFT

[Led Zeppelin]

My opinion is the same as my opinion of any person&#39;s personal life; indifference.

EDIT: actually that&#39;s not true, only of strangers, I care about the personal lives of friends and the people I know. :wub:

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 11, 2007 06:21 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 11, 2007 06:21 am)
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 11, 2007 10:21 am

[email protected] 10, 2007 04:10 pm

Why does their need to be gay culture?

Gay people are encouraged to pigeonhole themselves into this artificial, media-created &#39;gay culture&#39; which the vast majority of gay people have never actually identified with. In the past, oppressed &#39;minority groups&#39; would fight for the right to be treated the same as everyone else. This meant emphasising commonality over difference. Today, more and more, with the emergence of the politics of multiculturalism, and the politics of identity which goes hand in hand with it, &#39;minority goups&#39; (racial and eithnic minorities, religious minorities. gays, lesbians and so on) are encouraged to emphasise their &#39;diversity&#39; - i.e. just how different they are from the rest of &#39;us&#39;, the diversity of their culture, identity, way of life, and so on. Hence the various &#39;different cultures&#39; which are recently emerging in Western societies.
Well thats a gross generalization. <_<

You know what happends when "culture" is rejected as superfluous?...the dominate culture emerges alone.

This means that the existing hegemonic culutre is seen as the only "legitmate" form and that it alone is practiced, upholding the corosponding hegemonic polical and social institutions.
QFT [/b]
Exactly. In order to change culture you need to have an analysis of it and to suggest possible alternatives.

With regards to struggles of "minority" groups this means autonomy, so that these struggles are not dominated by hegemonic groups in society. (For example, when men take it upon themselves to direct actions that should be led by women).

It&#39;s not about separatism- it&#39;s about allowing the space for an alternative vision of society.

[Vanguard1917]

This means that the existing hegemonic culutre is seen as the only "legitmate" form and that it alone is practiced, upholding the corosponding hegemonic polical and social institutions.

We should challenge the dominant, &#39;hegemonic&#39; culture, but this should not mean the promotion of the fragmentation and ghettoisation of people by celebrating our &#39;differences&#39;. Instead, it should be a universalist project, which unifies men and women by highlighting our similarities and our common interests, thus creating the gounds for solidarity.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 10, 2007 05:45 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 10, 2007 05:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:05 pm

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 07, 2007 04:19 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 03:45 pm
I´m a bit shamed as a leftist but i am quite a homophobic. My opinion on homosexual people is very negative
Then your view of this issue contrasts sharply with the opinions of those who apply a Marxist analysis and overthrow their reactionary baggage.
I believe it&#39;s a bit naive to believe that all Marxists do not have at least some reactionary baggage.
this gives me an idea, maybe we should have a &#39;reactionary baggage amnesty -sticky thread&#39; where people can post their issues with a view to learning as opposed to being consigned to the OI bin. [/b]
I concur. As long as it&#39;s kept in bounds.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:28 am

This means that the existing hegemonic culutre is seen as the only "legitmate" form and that it alone is practiced, upholding the corosponding hegemonic polical and social institutions.

We should challenge the dominant, &#39;hegemonic&#39; culture, but this should not mean the promotion of the fragmentation and ghettoisation of people by celebrating our &#39;differences&#39;. Instead, it should be a universalist project, which unifies men and women by highlighting our similarities and our common interests, thus creating the gounds for solidarity.
Alright, whitey.

See, the problem with "universalism" as you put it, is that it inevitably becomes "white universalism".

This is not to say that the project of "diversity" is without complications. Clearly it has been co-opted by liberals who want to celebrate every cultural difference without analyzing the shitty things that some cultural differences perpetuate.

Of course, the natural word choice here is that of "autonomy": the choice to associate or dissociate yourself with whatever culture you choose, to challenge fucked-up cultural dynamics without becoming an apologist for white cultural imperialism, to resist hegemony without creating an artificial culture (a la socialist realism).

[Sky]

Gay workers are our fellow brothers and sisters. But the gay bourgeoisie (e.g David Geffen) must be liquidated. Communists do not combat homophobia. They only combat the bourgeoisie in the interests of all working people, including gays.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:23 am
Gay workers are our fellow brothers and sisters. But the gay bourgeoisie (e.g David Geffen) must be liquidated. Communists do not combat homophobia. They only combat the bourgeoisie in the interests of all working people, including gays.
Why don&#39;t &#39;they&#39; combat homophobia?

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

So we should ignore working class racism, sexism and all discrimination...your logic is flawed

[Sky]

Why don&#39;t &#39;they&#39; combat homophobia?
Because combatting homophobia cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of homophobia.

[w0lf]

Gay people are people. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:49 pm
Because combatting homophobia cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of homophobia.
SO we should let this igronance continue until a statless society is established?

It must be combated by all seeking to rid the world of it.

[Pirate Utopian]

My opinion on gay people is that they are ALL gay. No exceptions.

Not that there&#39;s anything wrong with that.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:49 am

Why don&#39;t &#39;they&#39; combat homophobia?
Because combatting homophobia cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of homophobia.
That doesn&#39;t explain at all why &#39;they&#39;, or we, shouldn&#39;t combat homophobia. That just means that its linked with class oppression.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 29, 2007 04:11 am
Noone has problems with gays here. if they do they&#39;re usually restricted.
does any one actually give a shit anymore? gay, not gay, who actually cares? nobody i know.
this is such a non subject for discussion, the general populace don&#39;t give a shit about a persons sexuality, why would rev lefts care?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:49 pm

Why don&#39;t &#39;they&#39; combat homophobia?
Because combatting homophobia cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of homophobia.
How is combating homophobia abstract?

A bunch of people who are discriminated against actively resisting that oppression is not abstract.

As others have stated, all forms of institutional oppression are linked, and are linked to class struggle. Sorry, but to say that homophobia (as well as racism, sexism etc) will disappear post-revolution is nonsense. "Revolution" is not a magic word. People are the revolution, and as such we have to work to create the society we want and combat reactionary attitudes and actions where they occur.

If we want a society free of homophobia, we have to actively create and live that.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:36 pm

does any one actually give a shit anymore? gay, not gay, who actually cares? nobody i know.
this is such a non subject for discussion, the general populace don&#39;t give a shit about a persons sexuality
What world are you living in?

Homophobia is still alive...in Wales, Afganistan, the USA. It is something we "progresives" must combat.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:23 pm
Gay workers are our fellow brothers and sisters. But the gay bourgeoisie (e.g David Geffen) must be liquidated. Communists do not combat homophobia. They only combat the bourgeoisie in the interests of all working people, including gays.
Like many trotskyists, ultra-leftists, &#39;class war&#39; anarchists and others who take a vulgar reductionist view of Marx, you seem to confuse communism with workerism.


Communism is the ideological position in favour of human emancipation, of the elimination of all forms of alienation and exploitation, of the realization of what Marx described as people&#39;s &#39;species being.&#39;

Communists support workers revolution against the bourgeoises not for any particular affection for the working class or working class identity chauvinism, but because the liberation of the proletariat, which is to say the people who produce real capital (and not some identity politic &#39;working class&#39;) entails the liberation of all of humanity because all modern forms of oppression require the exploitation of the proletariat, so the emancipation of the proletariat is the aim of communism because it would entail general human emancipation.

Fighting all particular forms of oppression and alienation, whether homophobia or sexism or racism or paternalism or bigotry of any sort is necessarily part of the Communist agenda because it advances the aim of general emancipation (without necessarily accomplishing it at once as proletarian revolution does).

Because most people on revleft take the vulgar workerist line on Marxism here are some references to the above:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ipts/labour.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...mily/ch06_2.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_2.htm)

[Sky]

Like many trotskyists, ultra-leftists, &#39;class war&#39; anarchists and others who take a vulgar reductionist view of Marx, you seem to confuse communism with workerism.
To quote Lenin whose writings serve the basis of my thoughts. Just replace religion with homophobia.

A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could. A Marxist must be able to view the concrete situation as a whole, he must always be able to find the boundary between anarchism and opportunism (this boundary is relative, shifting and changeable, but it exists). And he must not succumb either to the abstract, verbal, but in reality empty “revolutionism’˜ of the anarchist, or to the philistinism and opportunism of the petty bourgeois or liberal intellectual, who boggles at the struggle against religion, forgets that this is his duty, reconciles himself to belief in God, and is guided not by the interests of the class struggle but by the petty and mean consideration of offending nobody, repelling nobody and scaring nobody—by the sage rule: “live and let live”, etc., etc.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

[dark fairy]

Why do I need an opinion on gay people? Having a seperate opinion on them over other people just minoritises them and adds to the segregation, they are people like everybody else are they not?


i like what you said, Rollo.
i don't really think that gay people go home and think/analyze straight people
so i don't see why i should have an opinion.
They're gay, the like/prefere the same sex. They are not coming at me with a shovel or threathing me in any way, so they're sexual preference really doesn't matter.
The fact that anyone is gay doesn't change how much they work, and how much they contribute to society. And if anyone was coming at me with a shovel, the first thing to come to mind wouldn't be if they were gay, it would be why are you attacking me with a shovel (for the record) ;)

I agree, but will still give an opinion since the thread is asking for it.
I think that if two people love, eachother, are attracted to eachother
let them do what they want.
:)

[Kitskits]

I have no opinion on gay people. I think they are brutally attacked by all the social reactionaries and this is awful. I also believe that their attacked by the status quo condition has made some of them a bit radical and that's good.

I would like to see some stalinists' opinion on gay people.

[spartan]

I would like to see some stalinists' opinion on gay people.

Werent they discriminated against in the USSR?

I know they were discriminated against in the Capitalist west but i would come to expect better from a self described "Socialist" state.

Didnt Castro also forcibly place homosexuals in concentration camps?

[Pawn Power]

Bleeding gums posted this last year (a link a found with the new similar threads tool!) and i will re-post it here because i think it is interesting and some people in this thread should read it.


The Women's Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements
Speech given by Huey Newton, founder of the Black Panthers, August 15, 1970

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say " whatever your insecurities are" because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you're some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women's right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppresed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it's a phenomenon that I don't understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don't know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.
That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn't view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I'm now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that "even a homosexual can be a revolutionary." Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women's liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women's liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say "insecurities," I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms "faggot" and "punk" should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women's liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

[crimsonzephyr]

Gays are people too, i don't even think they should be given a name(gay) because the only difference between gays and straights is sexually preference. and who's to say straights are the normals ones? we're all equal in my view.

[Neutrino]

I have no opinion on gay people. I think they are brutally attacked by all the social reactionaries and this is awful. I also believe that their attacked by the status quo condition has made some of them a bit radical and that's good.

That's true. I'm gay and I was initially drawn to this place because of its hard-line stance against homophobia.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

My "view" on homosexuality is this [which is generally the same as with all issues regarding gender, race and orientation]: they should be treated the same as heterosexuals- but they cannot receive greater right for being "homosexual". They cannot be emancipated on the basis of being homosexual. It does not matter to me at all what someone's orientation is, however, they are not deserving of greater privilege than others because of it. That aside, no, if a proletarian is homosexual it should not matter- they are part of the revolutionary movement either way, however they cannot be emancipated as homosexuals - but as proletarians.

[Dimentio]

Noone has problems with gays here. if they do they're usually restricted.

My mood is quite gay now.

Necessary thread.

[Nathan_Morrison]

I have no opinion of them, it really doesn't bother me what a persons sexual preference is.

[LavenderMenace]

the general populace don't give a shit about a persons sexuality, why would rev lefts care?

Saying the general populace doesn't care about a person's sexuality is like saying racism doesn't exist; homophobia is prevalent in every society. For example: the army (US 'don't ask don't tell'), conservatives, christians (youtube 'god hates fags')...conservative christians ;)

Even public institutionalized education is allowed to discriminate against people who aren't straight. A college teacher (step below professor, not certain of title) of mine when interviewing at different colleges was asked if she could support the 'conservative lifestyle' class offered. 'Can I still sleep with my partner?' she asked. They then told her the interview was over.
This same teacher, after being awarded 'teacher of the year awards' etc. wrote an article on being 'out in the higher education system' (don't know title, will acquire if anyone is interested) She has now been told the department will not renew her contract - funny thing is, a conservative christian just took over as head of her department...

Anyway, what I am saying is that both the system and large groups of people (as well as individuals) discriminate against people's sexuality.

Sure generally, people don't ask one's sexuality upon meeting them - that's because it's assumed they're straight (unless one is in a place which has be designated otherwise) ...

Why should rev lefts care? Why should we care about any kind of discrimination? Because it's discrimination.

[tykecommie]

Saying the general populace doesn't care about a person's sexuality is like saying racism doesn't exist; homophobia is prevalent in every society. For example: the army (US 'don't ask don't tell'), conservatives, christians (youtube 'god hates fags')...conservative christians ;)

Even public institutionalized education is allowed to discriminate against people who aren't straight. A college teacher (step below professor, not certain of title) of mine when interviewing at different colleges was asked if she could support the 'conservative lifestyle' class offered. 'Can I still sleep with my partner?' she asked. They then told her the interview was over.
This same teacher, after being awarded 'teacher of the year awards' etc. wrote an article on being 'out in the higher education system' (don't know title, will acquire if anyone is interested) She has now been told the department will not renew her contract - funny thing is, a conservative christian just took over as head of her department...

Anyway, what I am saying is that both the system and large groups of people (as well as individuals) discriminate against people's sexuality.

Sure generally, people don't ask one's sexuality upon meeting them - that's because it's assumed they're straight (unless one is in a place which has be designated otherwise) ...

Why should rev lefts care? Why should we care about any kind of discrimination? Because it's discrimination.
I agree with all you are saying. As an openly bi-sexual man I regually get comments made. It is wrong for someone to use the "N" word to describe black people but it's ok to use the word "faggot" to describe gay/ Bi people. People don't blink when this word is used. When are the goverment going to make tougher laws and those uphold them use the powers they've got?

[Lector Malibu]

I have no problems with gay people or lesbians or any of that. I fully support their efforts for equality and civil rights no if' and's or but's about it in my book.

[LavenderMenace]

When are the goverment going to make tougher laws and those uphold them use the powers they've got?

The problem is in the government - the more people there are to discriminate against, the easier it is for those in power to gain more power...it's job security for them.

[Cubensis]

Nothing wrong with being homosexual. I love all people :)

[BuyOurEverything]

Werent they discriminated against in the USSR?

I know they were discriminated against in the Capitalist west but i would come to expect better from a self described "Socialist" state.

The USSR was the first country in the world to decriminalize homosexuality. That is pretty important. Although I do believe Stalin recriminalized it at some point, when the state started to degenerate.

[Sankofa]

Gay people are gay!

[Black Dagger]

An astute point, thank you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Homosexuality is clearly a mental disorder and should be dealt with by mental health professionals. Courts should be given new powers to remand homosexuals into mental health institutions. It is only if we take this kind of action that we will be able to begin tackling this social problem.

[F9]

its their personal choise and they are free to do whatever they want!For me ,even i cant really understand it, gay people are just like other common people,maybe a neighbour maybe a friend nothings wrong with them.The wrong they have it those who hate gay people!

Fuserg9:star:

[Lector Malibu]

Homosexuality is clearly a mental disorder and should be dealt with by mental health professionals. Courts should be given new powers to remand homosexuals into mental health institutions. It is only if we take this kind of action that we will be able to begin tackling this social problem.


Tell me your joking..

[apathy maybe]

TAT is so gay...

[Dystisis]

I don't care about gays or heteros. I am usually not interested in people sexually anyway (with the exception being a few female heteros). So what people do in their bedrooms (or wherever in private) doesn't concern me...

[Colonello Buendia]

A gay person is the same as a straight person but with different tastes. people that way inclined should therefore be treated no differently to straight people

[Gitfiddle Jim]

While I exactly fancy the idea of what they do, I've got no problem whatsoever with them. They're the same as us simply with different tastes.

[Red_Mackem]

Well if they came find sexual happiness being gay then what the f***, it's just sex after all. Why discriminate.

[RedAnarchist]

Tell me your joking..

He is, I think. If not, then hes being masochistic (although TAT would probably like that).

[RedAnarchist]

While I exactly fancy the idea of what they do, I've got no problem whatsoever with them. They're the same as us simply with different tastes.

"Us" as in straight people?

[RedAnarchist]

Well if they came find sexual happiness being gay then what the f***, it's just sex after all. Why discriminate.

Thats the problem, people do discriminate, usually because of socio-political or religious reasons.

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't like the idea of homosexuality myself, but I respect them its their choice and I condem any discrimination against them.

[Coggeh]

why don't you like the idea of it ?Whats wrong with it ?

[RedAnarchist]

I don't like the idea of homosexuality myself, but I respect them its their choice and I condem any discrimination against them.

So, you just tolerate rather than accept homosexuality as something that is perfectly natural?

[Coggeh]

or are you just saying your not gay yourself ?

[Mujer Libre]

I don't like the idea of homosexuality myself, but I respect them its their choice and I condem any discrimination against them.

What does that mean?

That you don't want to have sex with a man? If so, fine- but to have a problem with the "idea" of homosexuality- that's homophobia.

[BIG BROTHER]

What does that mean?

That you don't want to have sex with a man? If so, fine- but to have a problem with the "idea" of homosexuality- that's homophobia.

The first one.

[Lector Malibu]

The first one.

Well fair enough. I will say though that it has been my experience that gay and lesbian people in my life have seriously treated me with the up most respect. I'm confident enough in myself that I don't have a problem with that. I've never felt threatened or anything like that and I am pleased to refer to them as my brothers and sisters and comrades in arms

[The Feral Underclass]

Tell me your joking..

I am deadly serious!

[The Feral Underclass]

why don't you like the idea of it ?Whats wrong with it ?

Are you propositioning me?

[careyprice31]

I reckon it's perfectly acceptable, even useful, to get angry about homophobia (and any other oppression/discrimination). I think it was Audre Lorde who wrote stuff about allowing ourselves to be angry, and to put that anger to good use in struggle.

I used to have a right wing opinion about gay people, when i was a teen but that all changed when i went to university and actually met some gay people and talked to them, asked questions and educated myself. Now I support rights for them. in truth they arent any different from me except in the gender of the two people who love each other. And we should be encouraging them anyway. I mean what with war and theres enough hate in the world as it is. we need more love.

[The Feral Underclass]

http://74.52.59.146/~amk/invitations/dinosaur-printable-invitation.jpg

[Lector Malibu]

I am deadly serious!

Wow I didn't know England had so many closets

[RedAnarchist]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_04/dinosaurG2711_468x351.jpg

[Neutrino]

Oh, I get the point! Dinosaurs = gay.

:rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

what is your opinion on mexican people

on black people

on asians

on immigrants

this thread is retarded

[RedAnarchist]

No, dinosaurs = troll

[Neutrino]

what is your opinion on mexican people

on black people

on asians

on immigrants

this thread is retarded

What's your opinion on retarded people?

[Neutrino]

No, dinosaurs = troll

I didn't think anyone was trolling...

[RedAnarchist]

I didn't think anyone was trolling...

I meant spam rather than trolling.

[black magick hustla]

What's your opinion on retarded people?

people who are not retarded but like to pretend that are retarded are worthless, but real retards i dont really have an opinion on them :(

[Awful Reality]

I really don't care about your sexual preferences. Only shallow people would. To me, gay people are just people, and I'm fighting for everybody's rights.

[The Feral Underclass]

Wow I didn't know England had so many closets

That doesn't make any sense.

[The Feral Underclass]

http://www.razaodiada.orcon.net.nz/Stupid&#37;20thread.gif

[to the bearricades]

How is this serious?

[Neutrino]

http://www.razaodiada.orcon.net.nz/Stupid%20thread.gif

Why? I don't think this thread is stupid.

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you honestly think I should take the "Your opinion of gay people" thread more seriously?

[Neutrino]

Do you honestly think I should take the "Your opinion of gay people" thread more seriously?

If you don't see a reason to, I don't see why you should.

While this forum takes a stance against homophobia, most segments of society do not. To the more fully developed progressive, this thread's title reeks of absurdity and misplacement. To pretty much everyone else, the range of possible answers to the question is wider than the neutral-to-embracing range here. Not everyone who has posted in this thread even claims a lifelong positive view of gay people.

So, before we become complacent and think we have a perfectly insular and enlightened community, we have to think about exactly what we're here for in the first place. If all views and knowledge were shared, this place would be redundant; so we're here to debate and inform. What about the newcomers who aren't informed or enlightened or anything else? I can't think of single thing more retrograde to what the tremendously successful gay rights movement has always stood for than to do what passively-accepting heterosexuals seem to usually prefer and bottle up dialogue in favor of a mostly unspoken consensus that homosexuality is fine.

I mean, you can't pretend that homosexuality is positively perceived universally and that's it's basically no big deal when in most parts of the world this is emphatically not the case.

[black magick hustla]

what is your opinion on brown people

in my opinion brown people espécailly mexicans make good fertilizer

[Lead Headache]

I'm bisexual, so I don't have any bad feelings against gays.

I think anyone who does is an insecure, discriminating, idiotic, hating mother fucker.

[chimx]

what is your opinion on brown people

in my opinion brown people espécailly mexicans make good fertilizer



I can directly verify this as being true.

Unfortunately I don't know if this is true for gay people.

[anarchy666]

Homosexuals and Bisexuals have always been prominent in revolution, and they are finnaly getting rights in society. Although I won't vote for any presidents or anything (I call them temporary dictators) I will vote to allow gays to get married. No one on earth owns the term marriage. Sexual orentation is set in your blood, not in your mind.