[Kasu]

I don't know if this is the case for the majority of South American Marxists, but...

Basically, my teacher in martial arts is from Venezuela. I'm not entirely sure he's a socialist, but he always talks about how much he supports his President. He even made some hints saying "everyone is equal.. like in socialism" referencing to the members of the class..

But, he's also made anti-homosexual comments, even threatening to notify a certain lesbian's parents if he ever found out that she was gay.

He also made anti hippie comments, anti vegetarian comments, etc.


Now I'm not saying hippies and vegetarians should be associated with marxism, but aren't Marxists, leftists, supposed to be open towards these sort of things? Like maybe for instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of the profit motive would put an end to animal cruelty in the factory farms of KFC and what not? And that Marxists would be anti-racists and against discrimination against people based on their race, gender, or even sexual preference?


Is this a common opinion in south America, or is this just an isolated case?



Perhaps because there are strong catholic routes within the Latino community, there are also catholic opinions on certain issues?

[Dr House]

Is this a common opinion in south America, or is this just an isolated case

It's quite common.

Latin American people in general are very socially conservative, and quite homophobic.

[Dave]

1. Chavez is not a Marxist
2. Many people around the world, including many "bourgeois" persons, voice a belief in equality
3. He may by patriotic
4. Most people in Latin America have traditional morality
5. There is no reason socialism would not have animal cruelty
6. Most serious Marxists do not care for hippies at all, ask Potemkin to elaborate on why
7. Marxists are anti-racists and anti-sexists, but not necessarily in favor of homosexuality (see the history of the USSR on this)

and finally...why do you care about what your martial arts teacher thinks anyway?

[KurtFF8]

There's nothing Marxist or even socialist about being pro-gay rights, pro-vegetarian or especially pro-hippie.

It would seem that Marxists ought to be pro-gay rights, as it should be obvious at this point that homosexuality is natural, so there's no rational reason for discrimination.

But Stalin made homosexuality a crime under the USSR and gay rights are only now starting to be looked at in Cuba.

Vegetarianism simply has little to do with the organization of classes in society other than when societies like the US over consume meat, they are taking away an opportunity to feed more poor by using so much grain to feed cattle.

As for hippies, well most hippies were quite a determent to revolutionary action, also on drugs, thinking "all you need is love!! that will fix everything!" Nothing revolutionary or socialist about that.

1. Chavez is not a Marxist

True, but he is a socialist and is certainly influenced by Marxism.

2. Many people around the world, including many "bourgeois" persons, voice a belief in equality

Exactly, Liberalism is the belief that we already have equality of opportunity (however flawed that line of thought may be)

[Kasu]

Well that's certainly going to repel my hippie, vegetarian, and pro-gay rights friends >_>


But I understand that. However, There's nothing revolutiorny about being a homophobe, looking down on people against discrimination and poverty, and supporting corporation inspired animal cruelty.



And just because totalitarian "socialist" states had homophobic and anti-semetic leaders, doesn't mean that it's ok for marxists to embrace those ideas.


Shouldn't they just be included in the over all values of a leftist?

[Dr House]

Shouldn't they just be included in the over all values of a leftist?

That's like saying traditional morality should be included in the overall values of a rightist.

[Dave]

hey Kasucakes, there's nothing revolutionary about you posting on this messageboard

perhaps you're not a real Marxist

[KurtFF8]

Well that's certainly going to repel my hippie, vegetarian, and pro-gay rights friends >_>

Well many communists are vegetarians and pro-gay rights. And I may have been overgeneralizing about the hippie comment, there were many hippies who were revolutionary. (See the Yippies for example, although I'm not a big fan of the Yippies, they sought to radicalize hippies that weren't already socialists).

But I understand that. However, There's nothing revolutiorny about being a homophobe, looking down on people against discrimination and poverty, and supporting corporation inspired animal cruelty.

Well you have to understand homophobia. Usually those who are homophobes believe that homosexuality is just a perverted choice that people make. They liken it to deviant sexual acts, and some leftist homophobes are even critical of it because it "isn't productive"

These are silly views to have, and I think that they are wrong. And as progressives, those who hold those views should be open to questioning them.

But that said, those issues are social issues that aren't quite relevant to Socialism.

For example the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) I heard recently came out against homosexuality as a negative consequence of capitalism. I believe that they're quite wrong but that doesn't make them non-communists.

And just because totalitarian "socialist" states had homophobic and anti-semetic leaders, doesn't mean that it's ok for marxists to embrace those ideas.

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's okay or not, that doesn't make them any less Marxist (other things might according to some but not these issues).

Shouldn't they just be included in the over all values of a leftist?

It seems that they are more liberal/progressive social values and I agree with them (perhaps minus the hippies) and I would like them to be included, but they are not universally accepted by the left in places like Third World countries.

In industrialized countries they tend to be very accepted by the left however.

[Kasu]

Maybe that's because third world countries were influenced by imperialist countries that were occupying them and reinforcing those right winged views?

[KurtFF8]

Maybe that's because third world countries were influenced by imperialist countries that were occupying them and reinforcing those right winged views?

Well now you are entering a question of how sociocultural trends develop internationally.

[smashthestate]

It would seem that Marxists ought to be pro-gay rights, as it should be obvious at this point that homosexuality is natural, so there's no rational reason for discrimination.

Sex between a 50-year-old and a 12-year-old is also natural.

[Kasu]

Thanks for comparing the sexual attraction two members of the same sex to pedophilia. It makes you seem very intelligent.

[smashthestate]

Who ever said the 12-year-old wasn't consenting? Don't assume, Kasucakes. I was simply challenging the notion that because it's natural, that condition somehow adds to its moral acceptance.

[Kasu]

But by challenging the notion of naturality when the subject of homosexuality comes up, and comparing it to pedophilia, you're saying that it's just as bad.

[smashthestate]

First of all, pedophilia is an adult attraction to a prepubescent child. Few 12-year-old girls are prepubescent, and most have the ability to bear children. Secondly, you're making the equation here, not me. I used this example to challenge Kurt's notion. He declared that because it is 'natural' that there is no reason for discrimination against it. I pointed out that a consenting 50-year-old having sex with a consenting 12-year-old is also completely natural, yet most people will agree that this behavior should be discriminated against and, in fact, prohibited.

[KurtFF8]

Sex between a 50-year-old and a 12-year-old is also natural.

This is not an analogy. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different types of things.

Also consensual sex between a 50 year old and 12 year old is not natural. At 12 years old, it is actually highly unlikely (and almost never the case) that their brain has developed for it to even be possible for it to be consensual as they have simply not matured enough.

Also that type of attraction to 12 year olds represents an actual physical illness generally, while homosexual behavior has been shown to exist in many different animals, and is wholly consensual (minus cases of rape obviously).

It's always laughable when people try to compare the two and shows the weakness of the homophobes stance.

I pointed out that a consenting 50-year-old having sex with a consenting 12-year-old is also completely natural, yet most people will agree that this behavior should be discriminated against and, in fact, prohibited.

You have actually failed to show how it is "natural" in the same sense that homosexuality is natural.

[smashthestate]

This is not an analogy. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different types of things.

Once again, we're not talking about pedophilia. I made no reference at all to pedophilia. So please, let us stop with the pedophilia.

Also consensual sex between a 50 year old and 12 year old is not natural. At 12 years old, it is actually highly unlikely (and almost never the case) that their brain has developed for it to even be possible for it to be consensual as they have simply not matured enough.

Yet they are physiologically able to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant and bring the baby to term...hmmm... Not natural? This happens every day within human societies which still live as our ancestors used to (i.e. tribal communities, hunter-gatherer groups).

Also that type of attraction to 12 year olds represents an actual physical illness generally

And what physical illness would that be?

homosexual behavior has been shown to exist in many different animals, and is wholly consensual (minus cases of rape obviously).

Completely agree.

It's always laughable when people try to compare the two and shows the weakness of the homophobes stance.

Incidentally, I think homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals have...but whatever.

[KurtFF8]

Once again, we're not talking about pedophilia. I made no reference at all to pedophilia. So please, let us stop with the pedophilia.

Yes you did, you brought up sex between a 50 year old and a 12 year old, which is by definition pedophilia.

Yet they are physiologically able to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant and bring the baby to term...hmmm... Not natural? This happens every day within human societies which still live as our ancestors used to (i.e. tribal communities, hunter-gatherer groups).

Yes they physically can engage in it, that doesn't mean that it is scientifically seen as quite premature to be doing that. There are many reasons that people of that age should refrain from sexual activities, especially with older people. Psychological reasons, physical reasons, etc.

And what physical illness would that be?

It would be a mental illness (I don't believe that mental illness is different from physical illness)

Incidentally, I think homosexuals should have every right that heterosexuals have...but whatever.

Yet you made a similar comparison that anti-gay rights people often make. Which is to compare a situation where there is clearly a victim or someone who cannot fully consent to a situation where it is fully consensual and there exists no victim.

[Dave]

The purpose of the comparison was to expose your shit logic, not to suggest that homosexuality is identical to pedophilia.

[smashthestate]

Yes you did, you brought up sex between a 50 year old and a 12 year old, which is by definition pedophilia.

Pedophilia: a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children

Yes they physically can engage in it, that doesn't mean that it is scientifically seen as quite premature to be doing that. There are many reasons that people of that age should refrain from sexual activities, especially with older people. Psychological reasons, physical reasons, etc.

Kurt, you do realize that prehistoric man constantly engaged in such behavior?

It would be a mental illness (I don't believe that mental illness is different from physical illness)

What mental illness would that be?

I don't believe that mental illness is different from physical illness

Then you don't know the difference between the two terms, better look them up.

Which is to compare a situation where there is clearly a victim or someone who cannot fully consent to a situation where it is fully consensual and there exists no victim.

Who is the victim in the example I provided?

Do you still think that just because something is a natural tendency of human behavior, that it should be free from discrimination among peers?