Charles writes
> Yes, I didn't say it was ok, but that they followed
the line that homosexuality is associated with
bourgeois decadence. They have renounced
that position today.
Okay, got it.
> Doug has cited someone who has done research
showing that gay men's incomes in the US today are
slightly lower than average. Just by their sheer numbers
homosexuals couldn't be only members of the ruling
class in the US today.
You mean I don't have all the disposable income I was promised when I chose to be gay? Damn.
> There is a puzzle as to why the oppressed classes going
back to Roman times would develop this prejudice against
the ruling classes.
Or could it be that they hated queers and then associated being queer with another group they hated: the ruling classes. Which hatred begat which?
> What is the material basis for it?
Maybe jealousy over the fact that queers could have sexual pleasure without the need for marriage or the possibility of procreation? I have het male friends who think the best part of being gay is being able to avoid pregnancy. Also, when I was a teenager, I would hold it over my male friends that I could have all the sex I wanted and never get anyone pregnant.
> Seems likely that the Stalinists reinstituted anti-homosexual
laws because they thought it would impact population growth,
and the earlier Cuban position followed this line, I think.
Seems like a straight case of straight hate to me.
> You ignore this and continue to claim "Castro is oppressing
homosexuals". This seems foolish on your part.
Well, according to my queer friends in Cuba and those who have been lucky enough to escape, there is no equality for them as queers. They live under watch. Either Castro or the regime he heads or somebody is creating this oppression. It isn't just materializing from thin air. And if Castro was pro-queer, why doesn't he do something to end this oppression?
> Seems you would want to broadcast that Castro has changed
his views on your favorite subject, as a victory for you.
Well, Castro's words in an interview have not led to an end of the oppression of my friends. People can say anything they want. It is actions that count.
> Instead, you want to hang on to the past so you can redbait.
I am focusing on the present oppression that my friends experience. For me, the actual experiences of queers has more weight than the words of a het (and after all, don't we all create our reality through language? So Castro uses a language that creates a non-repressive atmosphere, while the experienced reality is that queers are neither equal or free in Cuba.
> In general, I don't know if you want to use rams to make your
point.
I don't either. I just thought it was an interesting study. How they set it up with the males and females locked into position and that certain male rams would always go for other males, despite the availability of menstrating ewes.
> Do you think people want to be like monkeys or rams?
Whether they want to or not is irrelevant. The question is: are they like monkeys and rams? And if they are, to what extent.
> Depends on what they do in relation to the revolution as to
which one of these they are.
Okay so then just being queer doesn't make one a counter-revolutionary. Got it.
> By ignoring the other issues of oppression in the Cuban context,
you are less likely to help any oppressed Cuban queers, because
the Cuban's are more likely to put your protest in the same bag as
the other opponents of the Cuban revolution.
Not the Cubans I am friends with. They hate that queer Americans (especially men) come there and exploit young queers.
> A better approach would be to be pro-Cuban revolution, and then
raise your concerns as a friend.
I am pro-Cuban revolution and anit-queer oppression. Ends do not justify means in my world and Silence = Death. You act as if you can only be one or the other. I believe we can oppose both imperialism and queer oppression. If Castro was smart he would hold queer parades and celebrations. He certainly would attract more progressives. Those imperialists who are against him are not going to hate him any more, and the fact that he currently oppresses queers may be the only thing they like about him, since queers are the only thing they hate worse than Castro.
Am I not a friend if I do not support the revolution without question?
> If you really cared about them, you would adopt an approach that
is more likely to be effective.
Just as you said you listen to women about their sexual needs, I listen to my queer friends in Cuba. They tell me they are discouraged that leftists outisde of Cuba pay so little attention to their lack of freedom and do not raise the issue of their equality.
I have found that applying presure is the only way to gets hets to give up their privilege. But then pressure is usually the only way to create change. Afrikaaners didn't give up power because they thought it would be nice to share.
> On the other hand, I suppose it is unlikely you are marching in
front of the Cuba Interest Section. Maybe you only discuss this on
this list.
Oh, no. I discuss it all over the place. On my gay list I recently brought it up in the context that the embargo against Cuba was like the embargo against queers: in each case conservatives are interfering with the well-being of people by interfering with their access to items of material well-being. I received an e-mail from the moderator that I should be more considerate of the feelings of others and that politics does not always belong on a gay discussion list. Kinda like you in reverse Charles, now that I think of it. I should approach the men on the list as a friend and not bring pressure to bear on their oppressive imperialist politics.
> But most importantly, it seems as if the Cuban revolution is moving
right along in getting rid of homophobia.
And we need to keep ther pressure up until the last vestige is gone. Just because the swelling goes down doesn't mean you stop the course of antibiotics. You finish the treatment until the cure is complete. Probably what happened in Russia. They got rid of the laws and thought the problem was solved. Little did they know.
> The explanation is that you have issues that do not permit you to
_understand_ sexuality clearly, so my perfectly sensible discussion of
sexual issues doesn't get through to you.
And those issues are? Don't be coy Charles.
> As the main example is usually the Soviet Union, the SU
abolished the old Russian anti-homosexual laws at the beginning.
And then re-instituted them. Yeah for us.
> I haven't seen it demonstrated that said laws nor their
enforcement were worse than the anti-homosexual laws in the
capitalist countries.
Charles who cares if it was worse. It should not have existed at all.
> I haven't heard claims that the other socialist countries persecuted
gays worse than the capitalist countries.
Charles, it is not a question of who was least oppresive. There should not have been oppression in the first place. Next thing you know you'll be saying that plantations in Alabama were better to their slaves than plantations in Mississippi.
> If queers haven't been and aren't being oppressed significantly
in market economies, why do we have a gay liberation movement in
the U.S.?
Did I ever say they weren't oppressed?
> Following your post Michael Pugliese sends a post with homophobic
quotes from Gorky and Castro.
Curious thing is that a new book out says Gorky was queer.
> So, returning to the point of dispute, said quotes don't establish
greater oppression of queers in centrally planned economies.
I didn't say that they did. I noted that centrally planned economies, just like market economies, persecuted queers. Obviously, neither path is queer-friendly. The question is can either path ever be queer-friendly?
> In response to the below, as I said, Cuba is moving to end
homophobia, and your complaint is largely moot.
Not according to my queer friends.
> That you are focussed on Cuba, which has made progress on this
issue, and ignore all the market economy countries with anti-gay laws
makes you sound like a Michael Pugliese-style, broken-record
anti-communist.
I do not know enough about communism to be for or against it. What I am against is queer oppression. Saying that Cuba is making progress is an empty statement , like Michael's "Queers are doing as well as can be expected." Just as we should not let up on George Bush when he promotes homophobia, we should not let up when anyone else does so. Friends don't let friends bash queers.
Rights for queers are part of the South African Constitution. They should also be part of the US Constitution, the Cuban Constitution and every other constitution. If a governemnt is serious about ending homophobia, then queer rights will be in their laws and constiution.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister