Marxist-Leninists on gays and gay rights?

Marxist-Leninists do make mistakes. When homosexuality was outlawed in the various Socialist states, it followed trends in psychiatry. Up until the 1970s the medical consensus was that homosexuality was a form of deviant behaviour.

Of course this was and is incorrect. The homophobia in the CPRF is inexcusable, but most Communist Parties today demand LGBT rights. Cuba and Venezuela have made great efforts to protect LGBT comrades from reactionary attacks.

Exactly. Until the 70's families would make their gay relatives go under shock therapy to "make them straight."

Its very strange to think of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence. it has no ties whatsoever to a persons relation to productive forces and is a cross class phenomenon.

I think it is just leftovers form 19th century thought. Marxism Leninism is great politics and economics but not very great in the social sphere outside economics and class relations.

Leninism today MUST be socially liberal.

Its very strange to think of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence. it has no ties whatsoever to a persons relation to productive forces and is a cross class phenomenon.

I think it is just leftovers form 19th century thought. Marxism Leninism is great politics and economics but not very great in the social sphere outside economics and class relations.

Leninism today MUST be socially liberal.

The only thing I can think of is the stereotype that gay men are fashionable and love glamor. I guess a lot of people thought that Truman Capote was the perfect example of an effeminate, glamor-seeking gay man. And I don't know if people might have thought that same-sex sexual relations were "decadent" because they couldn't produce children. Not sure, really.

I'm for pornography, yet very much against paedophilia! Even if we found out paedophilia was genetic, we should stand against it, because it still doesn't disregard the lack of consent amongst a child, and a lot of the time resorts to harming said child. So we'd have to find a way of containing such (possible) genetic thoughts (if genetic, that is). Either way, equal distribution of porn for all! hahaha

Yep, pornography is an industry like any other and should be socialized. And I have met and known a few people who performed in porn films, and they were usually progressive and friendly.

And the claim that pornography is inherently sexist is absolute nonsense. If it objectifies women, then it objectifies men too. And if people want to claim that it is men who hold dominance in pornography, what about dominatrix porn or homosexual porn (between lesbian or bay men)?

Paedophilia, however, is child abuse plain and simple.

A person who is deeply homophobic and supports a pro-gay cause for their own ends does'nt make them any less of a bigot.
The same applies to someone who is heterosexual who has gay sex for money it does'nt mean that person is gay.

As far as I see it economics does'nt have a role in whether you are truely gay or whether you honestly support/not support a LGBT cause.

We should all be in support of the LGBT community regardless of what someone said or wrote a hundred years or so ago.

But you just proved my point. Just because some one is sold into slaver, doe not mean that personed wished to be a slave. Same with you gay example. THe person sold there body for money. It does not cahnge the fact that person had gay sex. Just like how slave does not change when some one likes it. While some people would like the whole "sex slave" thing, it is wrong to still sale other person.

Its very strange to think of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence. it has no ties whatsoever to a persons relation to productive forces and is a cross class phenomenon.

I think it is just leftovers form 19th century thought. Marxism Leninism is great politics and economics but not very great in the social sphere outside economics and class relations.

Leninism today MUST be socially liberal.

While Stalinist politics only say that are social relations come form our economic relationships. For example a mercenary realtionship with the would is that he is paid for each person he kill. Mostly in cash. As you can see his social relationship comes from the fact that he gets soemthing out of it. If no one paid him to kill, then his social relationship with the other person on the other side would change.

But you just proved my point. Just because some one is sold into slaver, doe not mean that personed wished to be a slave. Same with you gay example. THe person sold there body for money. It does not cahnge the fact that person had gay sex. Just like how slave does not change when some one likes it. While some people would like the whole "sex slave" thing, it is wrong to still sale other person.

Except a heterosexual person choosing to have gay sex through prostitution,porn industry etc and seeing it as an opportunity to make themselves some quick money is still in control of their body and have some kind of a choice whether to do that or not,whereas someone being used as a sex slave isn't in the position to make that choice.

That earlier post of mine that you quoted from was meant as a reply to your question of "the economic reasons for someone being pro or anti gay",sex slavery or any kind of slavery is a whole different issue.

Except a heterosexual person choosing to have gay sex through prostitution,porn industry etc and seeing it as an opportunity to make themselves some quick money is still in control of their body and have some kind of a choice whether to do that or not,whereas someone being used as a sex slave isn't in the position to make that choice.

That earlier post of mine that you quoted from was meant as a reply to your question of "the economic reasons for someone being pro or anti gay",sex slavery or any kind of slavery is a whole different issue.

Yes , I did go off a little there but I still think there is a economic reasons for everthing we do. If we did not get something economic out of communism, we would all not be communist. I think it is the same for people who "wish" to be gay. I think that there is not "gay" gene out there, as much as there is no "worker" gene, or "evil" gene. I think thtat the reason why people become gay is not from gene, but from economic reason. I'm just trying to find out what they are.

Yes , I did go off a little there but I still think there is a economic reasons for everthing we do. If we did not get something economic out of communism, we would all not be communist. I think it is the same for people who "wish" to be gay. I think that there is not "gay" gene out there, as much as there is no "worker" gene, or "evil" gene. I think thtat the reason why people become gay is not from gene, but from economic reason. I'm just trying to find out what they are.

Then I would say you're absolutely wrong.

The idea of sexual orientation being nothing more than a choice allows too many homophobic and religious criticisms to be open as a legitimate discussion, somehow. Fact of the matter, though, is that there's tons of more evidence towards genetic predetermination (or possibly predisposition) of sexual orientation, rather than the odd idea that we simply chose to be either gay, straight, or bi.

In fact, there's been over 1500 animal species studied where none showed the absence of homosexual behavior:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality

So are we really going to logically state that animals actually "choose" to be homosexual or straight? lol

Want more?

"The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.abstract

"The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality."

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...ull.pdf%20html

"Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=5184312

"We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial. Homosexual females had an excess of homosexual brothers compared to heteroxual subjects, thus providing evidence that similar familial factors influence both male and female homosexuality. Furthermore, despite the large sample size, homosexual females and males did not differ significantly from each other in their proportions of either homosexual sisters or homosexual brothers. Thus, results were most consistent with the possibility that similar familial factors influence male and female sexual orientation.

We also examined whether some parental influences comprised shared environmental effects on sexual orientation. Scales attempting to measure such influences failed to distinguish subjects with homosexual siblings from subjects with only heterosexual siblings and, thus, did not appear to measure shared environmental determinants of sexual orientation."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7w03624953x255l/

Exactly. Sexual orientation is not a choice. I did not choose to be sexually attracted to males. I did look at the situations of my relationships to the people in my life to decide to tell them I am a homosexual and I have decided to generally be open about it, but the actual attraction was in no way a choice. I did not think it would be a good idea to decide to be gay and tell my friends only to have them tell other people behind my back who then proceeded to make my 4 years of high school a living hell.