A reminder that despite being economically far-left, the leaders of socialist nations were very anti-lgbt

Despite being economically far-left Stalin was socially far-right, he sent homosexuals to the gulag and his regime promoted the traditional nuclear family about as much as any Christian theocracy or fascist regime. Che Guevara and Fidel Castro also persecuted gays and Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe were even devout Catholics.

classic "it wasn't real socialism" argument

Are you suggesting I am using the "not true scotsman" fallacy on communist dictatorships like some ignorant leftist? I can guarantee you I don't adhere to extremist ideologies like Marxism. I'm just pointing out that despite being economically far-left communist dictators that not let their regimes have "free love" like Marx himself imagined a socialist utopia would have. Just because one is economically far-left doesn't necessarily mean is socially far-left. Stalin did in fact ban homosexuality and promote the traditional family. Communist dictatorships to this day still ban lgbt rights, China is banning lgbt symbolism, criminalizing gay sex and even banning feminism in the name of promoting the traditional family and encouraging people to have more kids.

During 1924 - 1953 (stalin's reign), what countries legalized homosexuality or did not promote family (or what we for some reason now call "traditional family")?

Yes, every nation around the world didn't let gays have rights or promote any non-traditional lifestyle. I still say that Stalin was socially right-wing than Marx or Lenin. Marx wanted to get rid of traditional concepts such as the family unit, Stalin did nothing of the sort, again he promote the nuclear family. Under Lenin's USSR, abortion was legal, in fact it was the first country in the world to legalize abortion. When Stalin came to power, he banned abortion to again promote the family unit and increase the USSR's population.

I think it is impossible to classify any of these characters by the right or left wing dichotomy. If they follow two concepts which you correctly or incorrectly attribute to "right-wing" why wouldn't you ignore the other concepts that you may correctly or incorrectly attribute to "left-wing"?

Cmon now, this is a new time and Era...of modern day Marxism.
Don't shit on their rainbows of socialist lust!

Cuba just legalized gay marriage. You can have a sex change in all existing Marxist-Leninist countries if I'm not mistaken, too. Sodomy is legal everywhere.

That doesn't change the fact that communist nations still were not well-known for being pro-lgbt. Just because one is economically far-left doesn't necessarily mean one is socially far-left. Stalin may have been economically far-left but he was socially far-right, his regime promoted the traditional nuclear family as much as any fascist regime or Christian theocracy. Also just because a nation leaves gay people alone in the bedroom and doesn't criminalize gay sex doesn't necessarily mean the nation is pro-lgbt. China doesn't ban gay sex but the government does ban the promotion of lgbt relationships in public and on TV, China is even banning feminist speech in the name of the traditional family unit, China also of course doesn't let gays get married. A lot of people are mad at Florida for allegedly 'violating lgbt rights' but in reality all Florida does is ban public schools from teaching lgbt sex ed in public schools to kids younger than Grade 4 (schools are still allowed to teach that stuff Grade 4 and older). That doesn't affect gay people in general and their right to have relationships and their life in general. In Florida you can still have gay sex with anyone you want, get married, party at gay bars in Miami and even party at pride parades in Miami, Orlando and other cities in Florida. Florida isn't in any way banning gay sex, gay relationships, gay bars, pride parades or gays on tv, you just can't talk about lgbt issues in a kindergarten class. In China if you came out as gay, you would probably be arrested for "promoting homosexuality" even though you are not near any children. If you were in Miami and you were out on the streets shouting out loud "HEY EVERYBODY I'M GAY" waving your rainbow flags people would probably pat you on the back and invite you to a party at one of the many gay bars down the street.

im a pan person that is a dishonest blatant lie about florida i have friends there telling me they are scared for thier lives

Yes, historically they weren’t pro-LGBTQ except for the early Bolshevik administration under Lenin when they allowed for gay marriage. China might not allow gays to get married, but currently the US Supreme Court is interested in removing this right from gay people, and re-criminalizing sodomy. States like Texas have already indicated they will enforce their existing statutes on sodomy.
You also contradicted yourself, you said they can’t teach kids sex ed in Florida then admit it’s really about LGBT issues. One county made teachers remove pictures of their same-sex partners and adopted policy to out queer kids to their parents.

How did I contradict myself? I said that Florida's laws only prevent lgbt sex ed from being taught in classes younger than Grade 4. It does affect what a teacher can and can't say in a kindergarten classroom but it doesn't affect what a gay person can and can't do in their own personal life and love life. It doesn't affect what a gay person can and can't do in the bedroom, it doesn't affect what a gay person can and can't do at the gay bar and it doesn't even affect what a gay person can and can't do out on the streets at the Miami pride parade. These have nothing to do affecting a gay person's personal life in any way just what a teacher can and can't teach in a classroom younger than Grade 4, they can however still teach that stuff to grade 4 classes and up. I don't see how not being able to teach lgbt stuff to kindergarteners who are not even your own kids is 'oppression' according to you.

I also seem to recall that both congress and senate are voting for a bill to protect gay marriage from being overturned by the SCOTUS, even a fair amount of Republicans are voting for the bill.

The bill has nothing to do with sex ed. what the f**k are you talking about. The Respect for Marriage Act repeals DOMA, it won’t codify gay marriage. It is weak legislation.

Explain how these things are opposed

Marxism simply suggests that socialism is the inevitable follow-up to capitalism. It is not about individual rights but rather the right of what is best for all. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one - schtick.

Right now, many liberals are advocating equal rights through what they call "marxism" when they're actually diametrically opposed when it comes to individual rights verses societal rights. Societal rights would actually fall under a kind of theocratic or set of moral standards. Either through religious dogma, or it can be subplanted by populist idealism. What we're seeing now between the two extremes of the parties is populist idealism of social justice being countered with another kind of populist idealism... anti-social justice, moral justice, or simply national-socialist (with the socialist part being VERY quiet on the right).

The right are socialists as well, they just are more Stalin than Lenin in their socialism. Lenin advocated for the sepeartion of church and state; while Stalin sought to control the nation through religion; denouncing and destroying all religious opposition and demonaninations and then later reviving the Russian Orthodox Church. True, the right are not shooting hundreds of millions of catholics or jews; but they don't need to if the state conceeds their power in the name of religious freedoms.

It is very telling that conservatives view equal rights or even the rights of minority groups as being granted more rights; rather than the same rights. Because this is them projecting exactly what religious freedoms mean to them. More rights to the majority, less for the minority.

Yet, that is precisely what the left ARE NOT advocating for. Nor even what is best for all. They believe individial freedom is best and that there should be little to no intereference from the state. There are inconsistences, of course. Their position of free speech, I think, is ultimately self-defeating. However, the accusations levied from the right that the state is controlling misinformation and hate speech through media is exagerated. Media is controlling speech, don't get me wrong, but this is not through state control but rather... again... populist idealism.