Why homosexual relationships was banned in USSR? Because of the reactionary Russian society maybe...

...

The idea that people will want less that or more that in scarcity or abundance reminds me of the soviets criminalizing abortion again because they thought people didn't need it anymore.

Its restriction was actually portrayed as a fulfillment of Lenin-era policy. To quote one author (Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy, 1937, pp. 125-126):

Needless to say, the notion that Soviet women had no more need to recourse to abortion was erroneous (plenty continued to do so illegally), and abortion was thus relegalized after Stalin's death.

probably the most in recorded history no i cannot back that up with stats but its pretty obvious this is a time when being gay is extremely accepted

truth of the matter is it was part of a broader social conservatism brought in under Stalin, and the one guy who could've gotten rid of it, Khrushchev, chose to keep it in place

homosexuality as a category is a modern invention, but the socio-sexual relationship of the same sex has always kinda been around in the same frequency. The proceeding bigotry of Christianity made being gay or bi a closeted thing for a while afterwards so today it may seem like people are "turning gay" or whatever.

Homosexuality is not a leftist issue.

The USSR did what it could to defend proletariat society, homosexuality has several aspects that are quite damaging. The Communist party clearly saw this and did what it needed to to stop the damage

and?

obviously…..

Stalin did a number of things wrong and in many ways Stalinism was severely flawed and you can be critical of them without believing western propaganda about a gorillian kulaks personally murdered by him or being a Tr*t.

This is a good article about it:
marxist.com/bolshevik-decriminalisation-of-homosexuality-intentional-or-oversight.htm

most criticisms of stalin are ahistorical - his great work defeated the fascists, he is a European hero.

Pagans were just as bigoted

pagans have never had the institutional power of the Christians.
neo-paganism has a very queer slant these days anyhow, but Christianity remains reactionary.

Pagans executed homosexuals
Read Tacitus
the acceptance of it only occurred in Rome during the decline.
liberals Christians today accept homos.
neo pagans are irrelevant to the subject

neo pagans are the contemporary development of the pagan tradition: new-agers, wiccans, satanists, occultists and so on.

and like i said, institutional power is what is heavily important here. why are you defending Christianity so much? they have been nothing but a detriment to most of society throughout history: Killing scientists and revolutionaries.

Fair enough but in that case it isn’t gotten rid of “for necessity to make babies” if it’s mostly been the same throughout all the various need to make babies periods

5% of seven billion people is a lot.

yes, if you twist it on a relativistic scale, sure, maybe.

babies = future workers

That's not twisting, it's how proportions work.

Call him a hero if you want idrc I think he did some good things and don't hate him but he has a lot of the revolution's blood on his hands from the show trials and purges of the old Bolsheviks. Baffles me the way people think the way to be the most radical committed Bolshevik is to support the guy who basically declared that all of them were traitors and sabatoeurs besides himself and Lenin.

so contrary to the theory which says that necessity dictates the banning of homosexuality due to adverse economic conditions, in fact it was banned even though the economy was better

right but show me any actual evidence that this is why the decision was made specifically and not just a knock on effect

this is incorrect. Neo Paganism is a recreation, reinvented movement. it uses the aesthetics of ancient paganism however the old religion has been lost.

I'm not sure what you are meaning here by "institutional power"
Pagan treatment of homosexuals was very similar to christian treatment

I'm not. You said something that was incorrect.

this is a different topic

Attached: 8fa757_5882557.jpg (1200x901, 275.67K)

the idea of statistics is to fix something to a proportional scale, reverting it back to raw numbers is silly.

Was homosexuality legal under the Tsar?

how are you telling us this if

no

The economy still needed improvement. The USSR needed to build up the defend the revolution from the rise of fascism.

idk specifically about the soviet union, but the historical and material reality is that children will grow up to become exploited, unless they develop in a bourgeois environment.

also to add to this, the Soviet Union did not have a population problem, it has a growing population.

Historical events and theology are two different things entirely

Catholic church had power over many institutions in society and still do today -pagans have never come close to this type of influence.

true i was just wondering if you had some source material of how pagans treated homosexuals.
which part is this in response to?

okay sure but can you link this specifically to the banning of homosexuality with evidence that is beyond circumstantial

Pagan tradition acted in the same way though

i fucked up my post, which part is this in response to ?

Taictus's Book: Germania.
One of the best primary sources on Germanic pagans

gays tend to be weak and frail and too afraid to fight fascists

it is not about tradition, it is about money and property. An evil man is not as bad as an evil collective. Marxists attempt to analyse the "bigger picture" rather than specific evils and such.

babies being workers

ok but what does that matter in this case?

homosexuality is objectively unhealthy. fags always end up losing anal continence. you don't even have to get into aids. it's an objectively unhealthy activity and degenerate in the literal sense of the word.

most casual gay sex is blowjobs, anal takes time to prepare unless you like shit on your dick.

idek what we're supposed to be talking about anymore

citation needed. Also this doesn't connect any of these things to specific soviet policy.

yeh but is there any evidence that is the reason

i said that idk about the soviet union's policy on "making babies". Babies as raw potential resources offer work, so i assume so.

Banning romantic homosexual relationships to support population growth was probably a good idea. But why the ban of sex between friends? Guess sexuality was more rigid back then.

The USSR was state-athist though. And Christians were at most 30% of the population.

No, neopaganism is mostly a bunch of radlibs who don’t like Christianity but think Atheism is a “silicone valley cult” or some stupid shit. The exception is the fascist neopagans which are ultra-reactionary and want to murder gays.

it's an objectively unhealthy activity

maybe this was once so, when people were also objectively dirtier, material conditions have however changed, the level of cleanliness is higher, there are condoms, you can get preventative aids medication etc.

The resources it takes to ban and enforce ban of being gay outweigh how dangerous it is.

Trials are expensive, prisons are very expensive (and also wont change anything). Most likely you'd have more school shootings etc

aids is a cia plot to stigmatize homosexuals

No it sin’t. The ICA gives zero fucks if your gay or straight. All they care about is if your willing to kill communists. If you say yes the CIA will give you with a six digit salary job.

homophobia is an extension of the stigma to create divide in the working class and to promote reactionary ideologies.

its not needed actually
the soviets needed strong men not twinks

casual sex is bad for social cohesion

yet this still happens at rates much higher than hetros

you can't really put a price on the damage it does.

But school shootings happen the most after we allowed homos to roam free

homo acceptance is an extension to create divide in the working class and to promote reactionary ideologies.

Only if their are STDs. Which can be gotten rid of in a generation via quarantining of infected indiviudals.

so stupid

Homosexuality is the creator of Fascism. All Fascist socties were made by Homosexuals. Greeks were Homosexuals, Romans were Homosexual, Nazis did their beer hall in a gay bar.

smh

This.

Attached: 1495773372969.jpg (1600x900, 215.69K)

Fascism is based off of gay culture. I mean, think of it. You have a sugar daddy who gives you inconditional love who makes you feel ashamed for being inferior and if you break his heart you're get tortured or killed, you spend all your time with other guys in good old tight uniforms, you have a bunch of young men follow you and ready to die for you, and when you die in battle you die in the arms of another man and out there on the battlefield you can be free to do what you want away from it all. If you despise fun you can get away with it because of your connections and if you fall out of line you get mad fun of, it's not a surprise that some great intelligence officers were Homosexuals because of how much they had to hide the fact they were gay. Because of how many men are made if you are gay you want the best of the best to fuck with because you have the pick of the barrel, which ties into the whole eugenics thing.

schizo

It is funny how this thread is going on and yet /leftytrash/ is the gayest place I have ever seen.
Is this legit or are you joyboys trolling?

Is this the only way one could make Fascism appealing?

fuck meant to reply to

samefag

ok but with the same logic we can get rid of homosexuals

homosexuals come from hetero parents, it is a phenomenon which will occur beyond any form social engineering.

but it is that social engineering that has created the modern homosexual
with counter social engineering and a change in material conditions we can reverse the effects

what factors do you believe cause homosexuality?

Fascism isn't based off gay culture you mong. It was drafted up by Mussolini as an attempt for capitalism to preserve itself by trying to make the bourgousie and the proles unified in class colleberation. I have no idea why a predominently catholic country in the 1910's-1940's would be at all accepting of homosexuality.
You're an idiot and are just trying to hipster justify your need to condemn the morons of Zig Forums by making them out to be gay as hell, which they are but that is mostly because this iteration of fascism needs to wear a mask that is somewhat more accepting of the gays than it is now.

STD rates for lesbians are actually lower than that of heterosexual couples, let alone homosexual men.
Correlation =/= causation.

lack of decent healthcare
modern homosexuality: capitalist alienation

Lesbians don't have intercourse

holy heck BTFO

So the anti-gay guy was just one person samefagging. 5/10 you baited me but you could've tried harder to get in some real clicks.

can you be specific?

not that guy but he's right lesbians don't ACTUALLY participate in any kind of real intercouse therefore their std rates are non existent

how dumb r u

no that's not me

Are you unfamiliar with Marx's theory on alienation or do you not understand how it could result in mental illness?

Yeah no shit. Are you saying that female homosexual relationships are fine for some reason while male ones aren't?

Looking at the time that you posted that might be the case. Although honestly this all comes off as trying to be contrarian to whatever liberals think without actually understanding that not everything that comes from capitalism is evil.

retard
Celts were notorious as having lots of gays, and if anything Early Rome/Greece were when it was most accepted so I'm baffled how you got it backwards.
Also hilarious since Romans did not give a flying fuck if you were the guy fucking a man, only if you were the bottom were you ostracized.
This also fails to take into account the rest of the world, where boyfucking was rampant.
I mean for fucks sake Tokugawa era Japan had Manjushri popularly known as the patron saint of homos. Japan did not actually persecute gays until the Meiji Reforms when they felt they had to act like the West in everything, and even that wasn't around long.

I'm a bit surprised no one called you out on this earlier honestly

don't you think it's ableist to discriminate against homos then? it woud be like bullying a depressed person. if they are the product of their environment then you should have sympathty, right?

I haven't even mentioned liberals

You said that homosexuality was caused by capitalist alienation.

I'm sure there was a subset of Romans who felt that homosexuality was gross when Tacitus was written, but I don't know how reliable of a source Tacitus is, since he was a Roman and not a German. I just assumed it was the same as it was in Rome. Where catching was unmanly but not illegal.

no u

funny because Tacitus mentions none of this
[citation needed]

In greece it was only pederasty, homosexuality was only accepted toward the end of the their society signifying a decline

This was only during the end when things were collapsing. Same with the acceptance of mass prostitution

we're talking about pagans here.

I don't really care that wasn't the topic

well you haven't been correct in the slightest so…. yeah

Yes lots of mental disorders are a result of capitalist alienation

Tacitus is the most reliable source we have
Also Romans killed fags too, they just got more relaxed toward their end

Is Tacitus the sole authority on the subject?
The Sacred Band of Thebes would like to have a word with you, to say nothing of your idiocy assuming pederasty signals the decline of a civilization, considering it was a thing throughout Greco-Roman society even in the early years

bullshit, source me where the hell you're getting this idea from
what is "pagan" to you? because it's normal definition would be anyone unchristian (and since we're talking about homosexuality I'll say nonabrahamic).
you're wrong on the other topic in any case, but again you seem to have a retarded notion of what "pagan" is

Just to add this grafitti was from Pompeii in 79AD, would you consider that the era of decline for Rome?

These mean the same thing

What planet are you on? A minimum wage job today provides an ability to buy a Kia on finance – personal transportation that is more comfortable than any Rolls Royce built in the 70's.

You're fucking deluded, stop LARPing as a theorist

but that's all this board is