On May 18, 9:55=A0pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On 2008-05-19 05:56 +0100, stephen allegedly wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 5:37 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > =A0wrote:
> >> On 2008-05-19 02:06 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
>
> >>> But what an individual does in bed with a consenting adult human
> >>> being is his own business - if a socialist he belongs, if he so
> >>> choses, in a socialist organisation.
> >> Exactly. Yet it seems that according to SRD, homo***uality
> >> invalidates that.
>
> > Whether a homo***ual practices, abstains, or pretends to conform has
> > =A0no effect on my *****sment. So homo***uality doesn't invalidate the
> > =A0right to participate in chosen ***ual activity.
>
> My statement wasn't about the ***ual activity, but about the "if a
> socialist he belongs, if he so choses, in a socialist organisation".
>
> > The most extreme measure that could be contemplated is to exclude
> > homo***uals from the party. I don't advocate this.
>
> Don't you.
>
> > Consider that I compared conspirativists to homo***ual activists.
>
> I very much considered that -- as a prodding the limits of good taste
> (and overstepping those of rationality).
>
> > Yet, I'm not inclined to exclude conspirativists.
>
> Aren't you.
>
> But you are inclined to exclude "conspirativism"... which you made up...
> which is a "defence against an underlying paranoid psychosis"... which
> is, as a vision just told you, equivalent, with respects to its
> determination, to homo***uality... because that, too, is a "defence
> against an underlying paranoid psychosis"...
>
> Riiiight.
>
> > I certainly wouldn't want to see vngelis excluded.
>
> Why not? You said he's crazy. What's there to be gained from a crazed
> individual?
>
> > But the leader****p should absolutely refuse to humor him on his
> > conspirativist delusions. (Or concede even a blink of attention to
> > homo***ual members who insist the party take up gay rights.{
>
> > But consider, even if homo***uals were excluded, it still wouldn't
> > violate your principle.
>
> "My" principle?
>
> > Exclusion wouldn't depend on conduct but traits.
>
> I cannot even begin to imagine a situation where that would be the right
> thing to do.
>
> > (I don't say, for example, that occasional acts of homo***uality
> > necessarily indicate anything.
>
> SIC!
>
> > More like they represent a borderline personality disorder or traits
> > =A0rather than actual homo***uality.) A strong additional argument
> > against exclusion is it would require applying a diagnosis.
>
> Yes... I imagine how YOU would have trouble with that, Mr. "clinical
> expert".
>
>
>
> > srd
>
> ... Well, well. The least I can say is this all has been a rather
> edifying exchange so far.
>
> But you are STILL avoiding what for me has been, as repeatedly noted,
> the primary issue. You have proclaimed homo***uality per se to be
> a _threat_ to socialism per se. I am STILL waiting for you to elaborate
> on and to back that claim. I shall ask you one more time but I have to
> admit I'm beginning to lose my patience over this.
>
Don't loose your patience. I will not necessarily read your verbose
postings. You impose the work of condensation on your reader that you
should be performing mentally or on screen.I haven't complained about
that, so please don't complain if I don't respond until you repeat
your point a few times.
Homo***uality has been a threat to socialism because homo***uals,
persecuted and discontent, have gravitated toward the socialist
movement. The result has been that the Op****tunist socialist movement--
almost across the board--has raised reactionary demands like sup****t
for gay marriage and in general, presented the task of ***ual
liberation as though it were a demand. Of course, such demands are
what homo***uals demand of the socialist movement.
I am against the gay liberation program raised by Op****tunist
socialists--from the Spartacist League to the old U.S. SWP--because it
is a diversion and an artificial wedge within the working class
(around the "social conservatism" issue). Since gay liberation is in
substantial part the effort of gays--and since I think gays will and
do advocate gay liberation, as a very part of their pathology--gays
are therefore a threat to socialism, in just the sense described.
srd
|
