futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 21:55:33 GMT
What if the Soviet Union (USSR) would have legalized female same-sex marriage after the end of World War II (with Stalin and later Soviet leaders jailing, torturing, et cetera anyone who disagreed with the government's position on this issue)? Basically, the logic for this, while certainly extremely shaky by 1940s Soviet standards, certainly isn't completely unsound. After all, there was certainly a lot of surplus women in the Soviet Union after the end of World War II due to the fact that 20% of the total male Soviet population got killed in World War II. Thus, let's say that the Soviet government would have not only allowed, but encouraged, Soviet women who cannot find men to marry other Soviet children and to raise children with them. Indeed, while such marriages certainly wouldn't be for love, even I can understand the logic in such marriages--after all, while I myself certainly wouldn't be willing to marry a man in normal circumstances, I would certainly be willing to compromise in regards to this if I couldn't find any available women for me and as long as this marriage permanently remained either mostly or completely sexless. After all, in such a scenario, I myself would certainly want to have some companion to live with, to bond with, and to raise children with even though my overwhelming sexual preference is for women-- not for men. Indeed, the same logic would apply to the Soviet Union in this scenario, but in reverse.  Anyway, any thoughts on this? |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 21:56:43 GMT
Also, for the record, male homosexuality (unfortunately) remains illegal and condemned in the Soviet Union (USSR) in this scenario.  After all, in this scenario, the Soviet leadership certainly (and unfortunately) believes that all mentally capable adult men should marry women and reproduce. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 65,017
Likes: 46,236
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 4, 2016 3:17:25 GMT
What if the Soviet Union (USSR) would have legalized female same-sex marriage after the end of World War II (with Stalin and later Soviet leaders jailing, torturing, et cetera anyone who disagreed with the government's position on this issue)? Basically, the logic for this, while certainly extremely shaky by 1940s Soviet standards, certainly isn't completely unsound. After all, there was certainly a lot of surplus women in the Soviet Union after the end of World War II due to the fact that 20% of the total male Soviet population got killed in World War II. Thus, let's say that the Soviet government would have not only allowed, but encouraged, Soviet women who cannot find men to marry other Soviet children and to raise children with them. Indeed, while such marriages certainly wouldn't be for love, even I can understand the logic in such marriages--after all, while I myself certainly wouldn't be willing to marry a man in normal circumstances, I would certainly be willing to compromise in regards to this if I couldn't find any available women for me and as long as this marriage permanently remained either mostly or completely sexless. After all, in such a scenario, I myself would certainly want to have some companion to live with, to bond with, and to raise children with even though my overwhelming sexual preference is for women-- not for men. Indeed, the same logic would apply to the Soviet Union in this scenario, but in reverse. Anyway, any thoughts on this? Are there going to be any things that will profit for the Soviet Union doing that, in some Westrn European countries same-sex marriage did at that time not even exist ore was still against the law. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 5, 2016 0:23:42 GMT
What if the Soviet Union (USSR) would have legalized female same-sex marriage after the end of World War II (with Stalin and later Soviet leaders jailing, torturing, et cetera anyone who disagreed with the government's position on this issue)? Basically, the logic for this, while certainly extremely shaky by 1940s Soviet standards, certainly isn't completely unsound. After all, there was certainly a lot of surplus women in the Soviet Union after the end of World War II due to the fact that 20% of the total male Soviet population got killed in World War II. Thus, let's say that the Soviet government would have not only allowed, but encouraged, Soviet women who cannot find men to marry other Soviet children and to raise children with them. Indeed, while such marriages certainly wouldn't be for love, even I can understand the logic in such marriages--after all, while I myself certainly wouldn't be willing to marry a man in normal circumstances, I would certainly be willing to compromise in regards to this if I couldn't find any available women for me and as long as this marriage permanently remained either mostly or completely sexless. After all, in such a scenario, I myself would certainly want to have some companion to live with, to bond with, and to raise children with even though my overwhelming sexual preference is for women-- not for men. Indeed, the same logic would apply to the Soviet Union in this scenario, but in reverse. Anyway, any thoughts on this? Are there going to be any things that will profit for the Soviet Union doing that, in some Westrn European countries same-sex marriage did at that time not even exist ore was still against the law. For one, some Western lesbians might try moving to the Soviet Union in this scenario. Also, though, this might result in somewhat more Soviet babies being born since it's easier for two parents to raise children than for one parent to raise children, no? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 65,017
Likes: 46,236
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 5, 2016 8:20:02 GMT
Are there going to be any things that will profit for the Soviet Union doing that, in some Westrn European countries same-sex marriage did at that time not even exist ore was still against the law. For one, some Western lesbians might try moving to the Soviet Union in this scenario. You mean moving from a country to a democracy where there is free speech to a country that is not only because there is same-sex marriage, is that not a bit to much. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,526
Likes: 12,115
|
Post by stevep on Aug 5, 2016 20:12:21 GMT
For one, some Western lesbians might try moving to the Soviet Union in this scenario. You mean moving from a country to a democracy where there is free speech to a country that is not only because there is same-sex marriage, is that not a bit to much. What do you mean the Soviet Union isn't paradise on Earth?  A lot of misguided people thought so even after a lot of its worst atttrocities were revealed. I doubt many would be tempted to move but some might and I could see the supporters of communism in the west making capital from such a legal change. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 5, 2016 21:29:53 GMT
You mean moving from a country to a democracy where there is free speech to a country that is not only because there is same-sex marriage, is that not a bit to much. What do you mean the Soviet Union isn't paradise on Earth? A lot of misguided people thought so even after a lot of its worst atttrocities were revealed. I doubt many would be tempted to move but some might and I could see the supporters of communism in the west making capital from such a legal change. Yes; correct! Also, though, I wonder if homophobia will be even more prevalent in the West--especially in the U.S.--in this scenario. After all, in this scenario, homophobes are going to be able to equate gays (or at least lesbians) with atheistic totalitarian Communism. Indeed, any thoughts on this, Steve? |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 5, 2016 21:30:22 GMT
For one, some Western lesbians might try moving to the Soviet Union in this scenario. You mean moving from a country to a democracy where there is free speech to a country that is not only because there is same-sex marriage, is that not a bit to much. For some people, No, it isn't. |
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,586
|
Post by spanishspy on Aug 10, 2016 20:59:45 GMT
This is going to set back LGBT+ rights in the West for a LONG time, if homosexuality is conflated with "Godless Communism." Gay rights activists will be seen as infiltrators even if they aren't actually.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 11, 2016 0:17:57 GMT
This is going to set back LGBT+ rights in the West for a LONG time, if homosexuality is conflated with "Godless Communism." Gay rights activists will be seen as infiltrators even if they aren't actually. Completely agreed, unfortunately--at least in regards to the U.S. |
|
doug181
Chief petty officer
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
|
Post by doug181 on Dec 31, 2016 13:23:28 GMT
A typical Stalinist mess
|
|
After all, in this scenario, the Soviet leadership certainly (and unfortunately) believes that all mentally capable adult men should marry women and reproduce. 
A lot of misguided people thought so even after a lot of its worst atttrocities were revealed. I doubt many would be tempted to move but some might and I could see the supporters of communism in the west making capital from such a legal change.