Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 20:26:40 +1000 (EST)
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: reply to Siddarth Chatterjee
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU


siddarth asked about my attitude towards conservative gays such as "Log
cabin republicans
 

You have side-stepped the question of reactionary
>gays like the Log-Cabin republicans. What attitude will you take towards
>gay people siding with reaction? Should the fact that they are gay
>make them inmmune from all criticism? That is, being gay by itself, makes
>one belong to the most advanced section of the proletariat?
>It can be dangerous sometimes to forget the issue of class. 

I do not understand who these log cabin people are. If they are
conservatives I hate them of course. But I will attack them for the
reactionary politics never for their sexual orientation.  That is the
crucial difference. If we take a specific historical example such as ernest
Rhoemof the SAS and his side kick Hennies.  they were both gay and the
Social Democrats highlighted this in their attacks of Rhoem.  that is of
course opportunistic and unprincipled.  Rhoem should have been shot not for
being "degenerate" but because of his vicious reactionary politics.



What about
>gay hedonism like the clubs in the big cities where orgies take place?
>A gay orgy is a sign of liberation? (A similar reasoning would
>hold for straight orgies - however here the issue is gay liberation). If
>it is, then the senators of Ancient Rome and the Greeks were fighting
>for emancipation of the working class.   
>

Honestly Siddarth I hate condemning people for indulging in "orgies".  They
are neither a sign of liberation nor of degeneration for me.  I honestly
think the proper Marxist attitude is that it is their business as long as no
one is hurt or exploited.  We are not puritans after all.  

Of course some particular sexual practice may take  place which might offend
other people.  In Britain the police rounded up some two years ago men who
were indulging in Sado masochistic acts.  These were being performed by
mutual consent however and the state had no right in interfering.  As for a
personal position, if someone comes near me with a whip or a hammer and a
nail I  will run the proverbial mile and quickly too, but to each his one.

Siddarth next asked

>Could you further elaborate on the difference between "queers" and
>"gays"? Also what was in operation in Russia before Stalin? That is,
>what was the concrete form of gay society in pre 1934 Russia.


Hopefully my second post will have answered some of this.  I will be posting
on the Bolsheviks and progressivism next week.


Siddarth next asked about pedophilia and incest.  I tried to answer this
before but  obviously failed.  I can only repeat that I am opposed to incest
and pediphilia.  I also repeat that i do not understand why I am asked these
questions if I raise the topic  of gay emancipation. Being gay and being a
pedophiliac are two different things.  I have to say that my initial
attitude is anger at being asked these questions but I accept that Siddarth
has a genuine interest in exploring the question of the limits to freedom in
the areas of sexuality. I am not an expert here and honestly I cannot
provide the guidance he seeks. These are truly troublesome questions.  I am
content as a Marxist to take my position from the Bolshevik legislation of
December 1917.  This said

Soviet legislation bases itself on the following principle:

*"It declares the absolute non-interference of the state and society into
sexual matters, so long as nobody is injured, and no one's interests are
encroached upon" * ( emphasis in original), (from Lauritsen J., & Thorstad,
D.,"The Early Homosexual Rights Movement", New York: Times Change Press,
1974: 64)


regards

Gary




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---