So basically their analysis was no deeper or more unique than any non-leftist garden variety homophobe.

I support Complete equal rights for gays.

However there is also another argument.

Are you advocating complete equal rights for paedofiles(something which is also genetic)

Thats exactly what your saying. Shouldent paedofiles have the complete freedom to live their life and have sex with children?

it doesn't make it ok, god, i'm SiCK of hearing that by now. it makes it understandable. Che said 'che' instead of 'hey' because-that's what people in Argentia said at that time! DUHRRRR THAT MAKES iT OK? HUH? HUH?

The point is, we all make mistakes and have misconceptions, at least Stalin's role in history overall was a positive one.

No I didn't say anything about paedophiles. I said relationships between two consenting parties should not be outlawed because they are supposedly 'unnatural'. It is a weak point simply, as Explosive Situation said it is the stance of any reactionary homophobe.

As much as you would like to believe the perception and overall 'situation' with homosexuality and abortion was just the same then as it is now, it wasn't. we're a radically different society.

He undid policies that were progressive on homosexuality and abortion. Undid the ones already in effect that were set by Lenin. It's not as if he failed to change anti-homosexuality laws and decriminalize abortion (which I would be able to be more understanding with), he took power when they were already decriminalized and the re-criminalized them.

Im not trying to apologise for anybody or thing here, but we must accept that in the 1930s people really did not have the same outlook and understanding of things that we have now. Afterall all over the world back them homosexuality was very taboo. People where more religious back then even in the Soviet Union, and probably actually did believe that anything thats not straight was not natural as it is supposed to be against the way of god (this is what i have heard and havent actually read it myself i must add). I supposed it may have something to do with the adam and eve story.

Either way it was wrong, But Stalin wasnt the only powerfull person to take such as stance was he?

Lenin clearly didn't, so did they think he was some sort of homosexual himself? Or was he touched in the head?

**Note:
Saddam Hussein refused to ban homosexuality...just...just a tidbit there out of pure randomness, doesn't really have anything to do with anything but ya.

Excuse me? How can you even think about comparing a paedophiles rights to a homosexuals? It's not at all what anyone is saying. Sex between people 2 people above the age of consent, irrelevant of sexuality, is something that is mutual and both people agree to, whereas forced, paedophilic sex with a child is absolutely nothing of the sort.

But as we've already explained Lenin did not outlaw homosexuality. So the 1930's was a different time card doesn't quite work.

On top of that the idea that non-heterosexual intercourse is "unnatural" is an incredibly psuedoscientific and mystical concept, not something someone adhering to a materialist philosophy should really accept. It's a contradiction.

Yes I agree. I was highlighting the weakness of such an argument.

Maybe you 'll also have to consider changes within the party in that period.

Until 1917 it was a criminal organization that even sympathizing workers would think twice before joining and those that were in already had every right to make obtaining membership difficult to combat possible police infiltration. The well educated professional revolutionaries like Lenin were a much greater percentage in the party than in society itself. As being a bolshevick stopped being a reason for imprisonment, more people joined, people that came from the lower strata of society carrying many of its prejudices.

That seems a quite plausible explanation as to why homosexuality was made legal at such an early time only to be outlawed again later. It's certainly more plausible than assuming gay rights were all-around respected in early 20th century Russia, only to have a "sexist homophobe" dictator change that.

But what makes even more sense to people is accusing Stalin of anything, no matter how stupid the accusation may be, hoping that this way they can discredit the whole of the Soviet Union.

Jesus Christ. This is exactly the Fox News style of argumentation:

"Yeah, well, SOME people would say that...."

I find it hard to believe you when you say you support equal rights for gays, and then immediately after you vomit up a trite smear that homophobes have been saying for years. What next, gay people shouldn't get married because it will lead to people marrying their pets?

For much the same reason he undid a lot of the other good advances that had been made perhaps?

At the time he was trying to cosy up to the Orthodox Church as well. Partly because he thought they were better on side than a potential source of dissent and partly because they could stir people up to "patriotically support the fatherland" and so forth. Abortion and Homosexuality were, at least in part, victims of the particular project.

The question is, was it centralized decision making of the dictatorship that outlawed it, or was it a movement by the workers themselves that outlawed it?

I'm sure it's pretty obvious which, but I don't know much about the subject so I'll refrain from bashing a certain historical figure until I get clarification.

I don't think Lenin was the sole person to advocate the legalization of homosexuality and abortions, the Soviet system originally had policies decided democratically by the workers of Russia. If anything this shows the movement from a democratic worker's state to one controlled by reactionary bureaucrats who threw some of the greatest achievements of the Russian revolution out the window.

Oh come on. By that stage the workers weren't deciding anything for themselves. All laws were coming right from the top by that point, including the laws in question.

Posters here do realize that Marx and Engles were complete homophobes also?
Does that mean we should reject their learning because of a certain social conditioning that even Marx and Engels were not immune to?
If your seeking for supporters of Stalin to roundly condemn his homophobic stance, well I roundly condemn it.
But in the greater material context of Stalin and the USSR it is largely irrelevant, im not excusing his actions just putting some perspectve on it.