Fidel Castro takes blame for persecution of Cuban gays

[Smoke]

Maybe you should look up what the US was doing to their homosexual citizens in the 60s and 70s before beaming down at Cuba from your high horse.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Cuba in 1979, 24 years before it was decriminalized nationwide in the U.S. -- by a Supreme Court decision that was met with howls of anger and predictions of the imminent end of civilization from the Christopublicans.

 

[Smoke]

I'd have to see the whole interview, but it seems like Fidel Castro is taking blame, but not accepting blame at the same time. He is falling back on the defence that he was busy with other pressing matters, but as far as I am aware, he was staunchly anti-homosexual back in the day. Just from Wikipedia, I found: "homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people," and, "in the country, there are no homosexuals." Guess we know where Ahmadinejad stole his classic line.

I think Mariela Castro, Fidel's niece, is the driving force behind the government's apparent openness toward changing its ways. Fidel never did anything good for gay people, and did lots of bad. But at least he admits it, whereas popular American "conservatives" like Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Glenn Beck still think McCarthyism was a good idea.

 

[Darkness]

What's this, a wiki war?

The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when people in the homosexual community fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted sexual minorities, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.

American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than those of some Warsaw Pact countries.[note 1][2] Early homophile groups in the U.S. sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into society, and they favored non-confrontational education for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The last years of the 1960s, however, were very contentious, as many social movements were active, including the African American Civil Rights Movement, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and antiwar demonstrations. These influences, along with the liberal environment of Greenwich Village, served as catalysts for the Stonewall riots.

Wiki on stonewall.

I am well aware of the Stonewall Riots, but you missed the point completely. The information that I listed was from the late '90s and early 2000's, when homosexuality was supposed to be legalised. And, honestly, I do not care enough to do a research project on Cuba and Castro, beyond Wikipedia. My mind on Castro was made up a long time ago, and his I'm sorry but not sorry speech is not going to change my opinion of him.

Hm - says here you can even get free sex change operations in Cuba. Perhaps the persecution of transexuals is not as severe these days as Darkness would have us believe.

From The Global and Mail, "He said he was not prejudiced against gays, but 'if anyone is responsible (for the persecution), it’s me.'" From Wikipedia, "Castro has asserted that 'homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people'" (Castro's Cuba, Cuba's Fidel. p.124. Revised edition).

 

[Darkness]

I think Mariela Castro, Fidel's niece, is the driving force behind the government's apparent openness toward changing its ways. Fidel never did anything good for gay people, and did lots of bad. But at least he admits it, whereas popular American "conservatives" like Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Glenn Beck still think McCarthyism was a good idea.

You see, I don't think he actually admitted to anything. He claimed ultimate responsibility, because he was Dictator-in-Chief, but he did not admit that he was a driving anti-gay force in the country (as evidenced by my quote in the post above), just negligent. He is a ******* coated *******.

Pat Buchanan (Seig Heil, Mein Fuhrer!) is a disgraced, old racist fool. Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are paid to be grade-A jerks. Beck was calm and sane back in the days of Headline News, when it didn't pay to breakdown crying on live tv and smoke a pipe with dead rotting fish on your desk. Ann Coulter is smart and realises that she can become rich if she is offensive.

 

[Alceste]

You see, I don't think he actually admitted to anything. He claimed ultimate responsibility, because he was Dictator-in-Chief, but he did not admit that he was a driving anti-gay force in the country (as evidenced by my quote in the post above), just negligent. He is a ******* coated *******.

Pat Buchanan (Seig Heil, Mein Fuhrer!) is a disgraced, old racist fool. Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck are paid to be grade-A jerks. Beck was calm and sane back in the days of Headline News, when it didn't pay to breakdown crying on live tv and smoke a pipe with dead rotting fish on your desk. Ann Coulter is smart and realises that she can become rich if she is offensive.

Didn't Bush himself say he didn't think atheists should be allowed to vote? Nobody's perfect, but to be willing to apologize for your mistakes is a step forward.

Keep in mind that the science demonstrating trans people and homosexuals have no choice in the matter is relatively new.

 

[Darkness]

Didn't Bush himself say he didn't think atheists should be allowed to vote? Nobody's perfect, but to be willing to apologize for your mistakes is a step forward.

Note exactly. Here is the conversation taken from A Tangled Web: A Dissenting Review of Contemporary Politics:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Keep in mind that the science demonstrating trans people and homosexuals have no choice in the matter is relatively new.

I hate that arguement. Personally, I believe sexual orientation has more to do with environment than genes, but the moral rightness of GLBT should not hinge on whether it is a choice or not. Fidel Castro has no excuse.

 

[Smoke]

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.

And that's the President Bush John Pinette describes as "the first one -- the good one, as it turned out."

 

[Alceste]

hate that arguement. Personally, I believe sexual orientation has more to do with environment than genes, but the moral rightness of GLBT should not hinge on whether it is a choice or not. Fidel Castro has no excuse.

The question of morality hinges entirely on whether or not we have a choice. If a behavior or proclivity is not optional, then how can it be considered 'wrong'? Undesirable, perhaps, from certain perspectives, but wrong?

Castro seems to have recognized he had no excuse. Hence the apology, right?

 

[Darkness]

And that's the President Bush John Pinette describes as "the first one -- the good one, as it turned out."

We are the most distrusted minority if the polling data are correct.

The question of morality hinges entirely on whether or not we have a choice. If a behavior or proclivity is not optional, then how can it be considered 'wrong'? Undesirable, perhaps, from certain perspectives, but wrong?

We can go into a huge debate about whether we have free will or not, but I rather not. Personally, I am a compatibilist, so I believe free will simply means we are not hindered by outside actors, not that our will itself is undetermined. We can call it universal determinism.

Regardless, usually people who have a problem with homosexuality, do not have a problem with the idea of people feeling homosexual, just homosexual acts, so whether it is a choice or not is a moot point. Paedophilia is not a choice, but the we consider it to be wrong and we demand counselling for those with paedophilia, lest they harm our children. Thus, I adamantly defend the right of people to have same-sex sex. If a person is straight and wants to have sex with someone of his or her own sex, that is morally fine. I don't care.

Castro seems to have recognized he had no excuse. Hence the apology, right?

Once again, Castro never apologised for being anti-gay. He made believe that he was never anti-gay and that he simply didn't pay enough attention to the issue. He gains no credit in my eyes. I want him to apologise for being anti-gay, and then I will forgive him.

 

[Alceste]

Regardless, usually people who have a problem with homosexuality, do not have a problem with the idea of people feeling homosexual, just homosexual acts, so whether it is a choice or not is a moot point. Paedophilia is not a choice, but the we consider it to be wrong and we demand counselling for those with paedophilia, lest they harm our children. Thus, I adamantly defend the right of people to have same-sex sex. If a person is straight and wants to have sex with someone of his or her own sex, that is morally fine. I don't care.

Ah, well, probably not worth getting into in this thread, but I think that people who have a problem with homosexuality need to think of it as a choice in order to maintain the problem they have. If they were to accept that homosexual feelings are inherent and can not be changed, and that heterosexual feelings in many cases do not and can not exist, it would make them feel like "bad people" to still wish to deny homosexuals the same rights, opportunities and benefits they themselves enjoy: the freedom to openly indulge feelings of romantic love, in particular. Nobody wants to be bad people.

Once again, Castro never apologised for being anti-gay. He made believe that he was never anti-gay and that he simply didn't pay enough attention to the issue. He gains no credit in my eyes. I want him to apologise for being anti-gay, and then I will forgive him.

OK, I will be sure to mention that to him at the next pinko convention.

 

[Revoltingest]

Better late than never, I guess.

No American President would ever man up and take the blame for his unjust behavior like that.

Bob Barr did, but candor tends to prevent winning elections here.

 

[Smoke]

Bob Barr did, but candor tends to prevent winning elections here.

Right. That's why Bob Barr didn't win.

I'm all for candor. But when you change all your opinions at once, it makes me suspect that candor is exactly what's lacking. Either you're a liar or you're mentally unbalanced. And when you claim to believe that your entire career has been spent doing the wrong thing and fighting for wrong causes, I expect an apology and an accounting, not patting yourself on the back because while you may have done everything wrong, at least you were doing something, and surely that qualifies you to be President.

Your candidate didn't lose because he's a *********; he lost because he's a Libertarian. But he's still a *********.

Edit: ********* = Summer's Eve bag.
For crying out loud, is my mother in control of the automatic censor?

 

[Darkness]

Ah, well, probably not worth getting into in this thread, but I think that people who have a problem with homosexuality need to think of it as a choice in order to maintain the problem they have. If they were to accept that homosexual feelings are inherent and can not be changed, and that heterosexual feelings in many cases do not and can not exist, it would make them feel like "bad people" to still wish to deny homosexuals the same rights, opportunities and benefits they themselves enjoy: the freedom to openly indulge feelings of romantic love, in particular. Nobody wants to be bad people.

I am not opposed to this strategy when confronting conservatives and fundamentalists. However, the liberal community needs to move beyond such an arguement in its own ranks. The sad thing is that the liberal community, in the States, is quite illiberal in many respects.

 

[Alceste]

I am not opposed to this strategy when confronting conservatives and fundamentalists. However, the liberal community needs to move beyond such an arguement in its own ranks. The sad thing is that the liberal community, in the States, is quite illiberal in many respects.

Well, generally speaking, Canadian liberals don't think the government has any business in the bedrooms of our citizens and for the most part don't give a fiddler's fart if people are gay, or if being gay is a choice. The question of marriage equality was resolved in federal court. We have a charter of rights that prohibits discrimination against minorities. Sexual orientation is not specified, but the intention of the law is clear enough:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Not to say the intention of the 14th amendment in the US is unclear in comparison, but perhaps American judges just aren't such good readers.

 

[Darkness]

Well, generally speaking, Canadian liberals don't think the government has any business in the bedrooms of our citizens and for the most part don't give a fiddler's fart if people are gay, or if being gay is a choice. The question of marriage equality was resolved in federal court. We have a charter of rights that prohibits discrimination against minorities. Sexual orientation is not specified, but the intention of the law is clear enough:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Not to say the intention of the 14th amendment in the US is unclear in comparison, but perhaps American judges just aren't such good readers.

Canada has same-sex marriage then?

 

[dust1n]

The US isn't a bad place to be deranged. Regarding gay folk, I know many, & while some bristle at that marriage
problem, they still have a pretty good life here....as good as mine or better in some cases. Not one has expressed
to me his/her need to flee to Cuba for a civil liberties upgrade.

Actually, there is a group of pastors around here that organize around and go to Cuba every year because of American's inability to purchase products from them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right. That's why Bob Barr didn't win.

Oh no...he lost cuz he preaches that loony libertarian stuff that scares normal people. But mainstream politicians must avoid candor,
lest the public find out what they really believe. I just see a teensy bit of partisan inconsistency that you're all lovey dovey with Castro,
but won't cut Barr the same slack. (How about Robt Byrd, the former KKK grand poobah, eh? What an about face!)

Besides, I don't think your reasons for despising Barr are widely shared. There are so many more things about us which frighten voters,
eg, legalizing drugs, getting rid of the nanny state, stopping foreign aid, fewer wars, smaller government, ,etc, etc.

I'm all for candor. But when you change all your opinions at once, it makes me suspect that candor is exactly what's lacking. Either you're a liar or you're mentally unbalanced.

I'm all for mental unbalance. I favor it over those "balanced" types who stick to a position no matter how hard reality rhymes-with-witch slaps
them in the face. But suspicion is always good.

And when you claim to believe that your entire career has been spent doing the wrong thing and fighting for wrong causes, I expect an apology and an accounting, not patting yourself on the back because while you may have done everything wrong, at least you were doing something, and surely that qualifies you to be President.

I'm not trying to convince you that you should've voted for him. (In fact, I'd expect you not to.) I just preferred him greatly over McCain & Obama.

Your candidate didn't lose because he's a *********; he lost because he's a Libertarian. But he's still a *********.Edit: ********* = Summer's Eve bag.
For crying out loud, is my mother in control of the automatic censor?

You're too kind...suggesting that the problem is the candidate & not some fundamental problem with us libertarians.
Don't spare me the unpleasant truth just to spare my feelings. (You aren't hitting on me are you?)

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, there is a group of pastors around here that organize around and go to Cuba every year because of American's inability to purchase products from them.

How many of them stay for the superior civil liberties?

 

[Alceste]

Canada has same-sex marriage then?

Yep. Sure does.

 

[Alceste]

How many of them stay for the superior civil liberties?

I've been there. I would happily live in Cuba for a few years to study Spanish and Cuban music, but my heart is too Canadian not to come back. It's not that bad. The booming black market in everything from cigars to restaurants gives the place an anarchic flavour I really enjoyed. Everybody's got some kind of scheme going.