Gay arguments against gay marriage

[Kukulofori]

Looking for more info on how the fight for gay marriage has harmed the gay community.

[FreeFocus]

I don't know of anything specific, but it's a reformist demand, and the institution of marriage has historically been oppressive anyway.

[gorillafuck]

How can fighting for gay rights harm the gay community?

[Kukulofori]

How can fighting for gay rights harm the gay community?

It's assimilationist. Among other things, I know the gay community used to be a lot more promiscuous before we decided to try to prove we're enough like straight people to have marriage. it's been used to manipulate us into destroying our own culture.

It's not really so much fighting for gay rights as it is fighting for THIS gay right, and a few others the gay liberal agenda likes to focus on like military service.

although it's obviously not a subject I'm well versed in at all, which is why I made this thread.

[Revy]

I'm a gay man, and the fight for gay marriage is part of the fight for equality. Saying that marriage is sexist doesn't apply here.

I'm against don't ask, don't tell, BUT I don't see it an issue to be fought for, because of my anti-imperialism, if this were a peaceful military it would be an important issue, but it is not, it is an imperialist military. And I think it's true that gay people haven't fought for this like they have fought for gay marriage.

[Il Medico]

Fighting for the same rights that everyone else has harms the gay community? Well, glad we cleared that up. :rolleyes:

[Kukulofori]

either of you ever read anything Malcolm X ever wrote on assimilation?

Christ, being against don't ask don't tell? DADT is fucking great, it makes us immune to the draft. Repealing it could never be anything positive or helpful to the gay community.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I wrote a crappy article on it last year, if you're interested here: http://flag.blackened.net/af/res/resist_pride_special_2008.pdf (the one entitled 'Gay Marriage - No Thanks' unsurprisingly haha)

But yeah I agree with the sentiment that it's a reformist and assimilationist demand. Moreover much of the left treat gay marriage as the beginning and end of LGBTQ liberation, when infact it's absolutly irrelivent. In fact i'd say it's a distraction and completely removed from any true aim of sexual freedom.

[spiltteeth]

Everyone ought to have a choice of sexual freedom vs marriage or both.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Everyone ought to have a choice of sexual freedom vs marriage or both.

Asking the government to allow me to sign a piece of paper that amounts to ownership over my partner (and him equal partnership over me) isn't compatable with sexual freedom, or freedom at all really.

[core_1]

I tend to find that the struggle for gay marriage rights is somwhat irrelevant to anti-capitalist struggle. It is essentially reformist and proves a distraction from class struggle.
Anyway marriage is essentially a bourgeoisie and outdated concept.

[Revy]

Wow, what an exciting bunch of inane arguments.

Assimilationist! Reformist! even "Irrelevant"!

I'm sorry, but we are talking my equal rights as a human being here. I take it very seriously. I do not hold attachments to the idea of marriage, and I don't think that is what the issue is about at all. Gay people and their allies support equality, opponents oppose equality. I support "universal civil unions" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

To give some historical context in another movement, yes, during the Civil Rights Movement era, you had people like Malcolm X or Zora Neale Hurston voice their opposition to integration. Casting that view as pro-black does not change the implications, that races would have been separated, an altogether vile outcome. Integration, the idea that skin color should not determine where you could live work or otherwise exist, was progressive.

So pile on the BS and call me an assimilationist, but yeah, going on some pretend radical rant about how str8 people are a threat to our "culture" doesn't change the implications. That I as a gay man am somehow different and on some different level than a str8 man. If I insist I am on a different level, the str8 man is not going to let me be on some perpendicular level, I am going to be below, inferior, alien to his "culture" or belief system. I reject that entirely.

And on a note about culture, I am unaware as to how my preference for the male sex makes me part of a culture. Furthermore, gay people are a transnational, transcultural world community. I am not sure what "culture" binds me to a gay man in Thailand or Ghana, Peru or Slovenia. But we are all gay, and our oppression is the same. I do not fight for LGBT "culture", I fight for our liberation.

[StalinFanboy]

There's actually a great interview in Vengeance 3 on radical, working class homosexuals, and it goes over gay marriage.


http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/08/08/v3f.pdf

[spiltteeth]

Asking the government to allow me to sign a piece of paper that amounts to ownership over my partner (and him equal partnership over me) isn't compatable with sexual freedom, or freedom at all really.

Theres a difference between 'ownership' and partnership. I have my own personal views on marriage and, since I am not gay, I can act out my views anyway I please. Gay people cannot. They ought to have the same freedom.
Although I agree people ought not have to 'ask' the state anything, we ought to tell them.

[SubcomandanteJames]

The gay rights issue on marriage should be summed up in one demand: GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE.

Of course, being an anti-statist I believe the government should stay out of alot more than that, however, marriage is a cultural institution as diverse as the people who live on this Earth and any attempt to regulate, assimilate, define, or restrict it is simply ridiculous and futile. The current marriage institution under the state thrives on generalization and restriction. It simply shouldn't exist. Leave marriage to the romantics and the people. The legal bindings of marriage are illegitimate, and the matter of financial benefits is a problem for the capitalists to worry about.

[Revy]

There's actually a great interview in Vengeance 3 on radical, working class homosexuals, and it goes over gay marriage.


http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/08/08/v3f.pdf

I read that (at least the part with the gay interview). This is why I don't take these people seriously. Hate crimes legislation promotes the prison-industrial complex? I don't apologize for finding that absurd.

[yuon]

I think my view has been adequately voiced already in tis thread. But once more, regardless.

The demand should not be for legalised "gay marriage" (though, if marriage is to be recognised, why not polyamorous ones, rather than just marriage between two people?), but rather for "no marriage". -(See also.) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-should-nothing-t50027/index.html)

Oh, and sorry, I can't provide information as to how the gay community has been harmed by the call by some for "gay marriages" to be legalised.

[RedCommieBear]

People's personal views on marriage are beside the point. The fact of the matter is is that people are being denied legal equality. This post in another thread put it quite nicely.


It goes deeper than that. In countries like the U.S., the issuing of marriage licenses and certificates are state services. The very concept of "equal protection under the law", which is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the U.S., also means equal access under the law.

(In the U.S., this is why the rightwing reactionaries are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexuals. They know that if it was challenged in federal court, the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would render all state laws and constitutional amendments, and all federal legislation short of a Constitutional amendment, unconstitutional.)

By denying equal access, a second-class citizenship level is codified. Moreover, it sets a precedent that can then be applied by the ruling class when and against whom it chooses (women, racial and national minorities, immigrants, etc.).

By accepting this denial of equal access, even if it is done with a ton of "left" rhetoric, is to enable the reactionaries in their efforts to create a second-class citizenship.

If you don't agree with marriage, then don't get married. But don't let your personal disagreement with the institution allow the reactionaries to institutionalize discrimination and second-class citizenship.

Miles

(emphasis added)

[Kukulofori]

I read that (at least the part with the gay interview). This is why I don't take these people seriously. Hate crimes legislation promotes the prison-industrial complex? I don't apologize for finding that absurd.

http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/a-compilation-of-critiques-on-hate-crimes-legislation/


*From blackandpink.org*
Many liberal, and even self-proclaimed progressive, organizations are fighting for “hate crimes” legislation nationally and state-by-state. The Senate just voted in favor of the “Matthew Shepard Bill”. Challenges and critiques are made over and over again by queer/trans/gender non-conforming folks, people of color, low-income/poor folks, and others most impacted by the many tentacles of the prison industrial complex, yet the campaigns continue on. This document is intended to be a bullet point compilation of materials put out by the following organizations (in no particular order): Sylvia Rivera Law Project (http://www.srlp.org/), Audre Lorde Project (http://www.alp.org/), FIERCE (http://www.fiercenyc.org/), Queers for Economic Justice (http://www.q4ej.org/), Peter Cicchino Youth Project (http://www.urbanjustice.org/ujc/projects/peter.html), Denver Chapter of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, Denver on Fire, and the article “Sanesha Stewart, Lawrence King, and why hate crimes legislation won’t help” by jack. The intention behind this document is to present a somewhat simplified critique that can inspire a desire for more information.

If a particular crime is deemed a hate crime by the state, the supposed perpetrator is automatically subject to a higher mandatory minimum sentence. For example, a crime that would carry a sentence of five years can be “enhanced” to eight years.
Plain and simple, hate crimes legislation increases the power and strength of the prison system by detaining more people for longer periods of time.
Trans people, people of color, and other marginalized groups are disproportionately incarcerated to an overwhelming degree. Trans and gender non-conforming people, particularly trans women of color, are regularly profiled and falsely arrested for doing nothing more than walking down the street.
If we are incarcerating those who commit violence against marginalized individuals/communities we then place them behind walls where they can continue to target these same people. It is not in the best interest of marginalized communities to depend on a system that already commits such great violence to then protect them.

Hate crime laws do not distinguish between oppressed groups and groups with social and institutional power.
This reality of the state makes it so that white people can accuse people of color of anti-white hate crimes, straight people accuse queers, and so on. Such a reality opens the door for marginalized people to be prosecuted for simply defending themselves against oppressive violence. This type of precedent setting also legitimizes ideologies of reverse racism that continuously deny the institutionalization of oppression.
Hate crime laws are an easy way for the government to act like it is on our communities’ side while continuing to discriminate against us. Liberal politicians and institutions can claim “anti-oppression” legitimacy and win points with communities affected by prejudice, while simultaneously using “sentencing enhancement” to justify building more prisons to lock us up in.
Hate crimes legislation is a liberal way of being “tough on crime” while building the power of the police, prosecutors, and prison guards. Rather than address systems of violence like health care disparities, economic exploitation, housing crisis, or police brutality, these politicians use hate-crimes legislation as their stamp of approval on “social issues”.
Hate crimes laws focus on punishing the “perpetrator” and has no emphasis on providing support for the survivor or families and friends of those killed during an act of interpersonal hate violence.
We will only strengthen our communities if we take time to care for those who have experienced or been witness to violence. We have to survive systems of violence all the time and are incredibly resilient. We must focus on building our capacity to respond and support survivors and create transformative justice practices that can also heal the perpetrator (though focusing first and foremost on survivors).

Hate crime law sets up the State as protector, intending to deflect our attention from the violence it perpetrates, deploys, and sanctions. The government, its agents, and their institutions perpetuate systemic violence and set themselves up as the only avenue in which justice can be allocated; they will never be charged with hate crimes.
The state, which polices gender, race, sexuality, and other aspects of identity, is able to dismiss the ways it creates the systems that builds a culture of violence against marginalized communities as it pays prosecutors to go after individuals who commit particular types of interpersonal violence. Hate crimes legislation puts marginalized communities in the place of asking the state to play the savior while it continues to perpetuate violence.
Hate crimes don’t occur because there aren’t enough laws against them, and hate crimes won’t stop when those laws are in place. Hate crimes occur because, time and time again, our society demonstrates that certain people are worth less than others; that certain people are wrong, are perverse, are immoral in their very being.
Creating more laws will not help our communities. Organizing for the passage of these kind of laws simply takes the time and energy out of communities that could instead spend the time creating alternative systems and building communities capable of starting transformative justice processes. Hate crimes bills are a distraction from the vital work necessary for community safety.
Passing hate crimes legislation will not bring back those who have been killed by hateful violence, it will not heal the wounds of the body or spirit, it will not give power to communities who have felt powerless after episodes of violence.
Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and others take advantage of our pain and suffering to garner support for these pieces of legislation. Advocates in the campaigns for hate crimes legislation tokenize individuals like Sanesha Stewart and Angie Zapata while still pushing forward the white, class privileged, gay and lesbian agenda. To truly honor those we have lost and to honestly heal ourselves we must resist the inclination to turn to the state for legitimation or paternalistic protection; let us use the time to build our communities and care for our selves.

[Demogorgon]

It's assimilationist. Among other things, I know the gay community used to be a lot more promiscuous before we decided to try to prove we're enough like straight people to have marriage. it's been used to manipulate us into destroying our own culture.

It's not really so much fighting for gay rights as it is fighting for THIS gay right, and a few others the gay liberal agenda likes to focus on like military service.

although it's obviously not a subject I'm well versed in at all, which is why I made this thread.Oh for fuck's sake, this is ridiculous. We can still be promiscuous if we want to be, but frankly that was never something I was remotely into anyway and I am quite glad that the alternatives are more readily available these days.

The "gay culture" was in reality only ever for a minority of gay people anyway and, for them, it is as strong as it ever was , if not stronger. Why exactly, though, should the rest of the gay population be denied their own rights in order to fit some fucked up version of identity politics?

Sorry for getting quite worked up here, but this kind of thinking really annoys me. Abstract reasoning leading to conclusions that hurt people in the real world. At any rate though, telling us it is forcing us to assimilate is absurd because we should never have been separated from the rest of society anyway. Gay culture formed to provide protection from mainstream homophobia. By saying you would rather we be kept apart, you are effectively saying you would rather that homophobia remain.

[redasheville]

The demand for gay marriage is a civil rights demand. It should be supported by revolutionaries. Arguments about marriage being "out dated" or whatever are irrelevant. It can't be "out dated" when people are being denied a right. The point isn't that marriage is great but that the denial of gay marriage is a homophobic attack of LGBT rights. We oppose oppression in all of its forms. Denial of gay marriage is a form of that oppression, it is impossible to logically argue otherwise.

In the United States, where the movement around marriage is GAINING MOMENTUM when most (all?) other social movements are still in retreat, it is completely insane to write off this struggle. The left wing, grass roots wing of the movement in San Francisco has taken up pro-labor, pro-immigrant and anti-war positions and has been an active force on the left in this city. Most of the activists are new to activism and haven been politicized after the passage of prop. 8. So this struggle is an extremely positive development for the left in the US, and it would be a tragic mistake to stand outside it (or worse yet, oppose it) which some on the left are doing.

As for "assimilation", millions of LGBT couples want to get married, and it is pretty arrogant and elitist to say one know whats best for them and their love life.

[spiltteeth]

I think this applies to gay rights.

Feminism's agenda is basic: It asks that women not be forced to choose between public justice and private happiness
- Susan Faludi,
U.S. feminist and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

This issue is really very simple: straight couples can choose to get married; gay couples can't choose to get married. To not allow homosexual couples to marry is blatant discrimination.

As for whether it has harmed the gay community. Is it not harmful to force gay people to be part of a separate community when they already are part of a diverse society? LGBT people don't need their own community, they need acceptance into existing ones.

Whether marriage is worth campaigning for? Well...that's a different issue. And an entirely subjective one.

[Kukulofori]

You misunderstand. I'm not saying, "I am gay and I think people should be barred by force from wedding." I'm looking for criticisms of the queer community's fight for marriage.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I think most of the objections that come from within the gay community are quite ridiculous.

Obviously there are some religious gay people who object because marriage ''should be between a man and a woman''. (:rolleyes:) Then there are others who believe that introducing marriage will cause LGBT people to lose their freedom (?!) because they'll have to conform to the rigidity and opression that the Traditional Family brings. Some sections of the community believe that being gay is a radical statement: a way of breaking free from society's norms. Peter Tatchell said ''we want to change society, not conform to it''. Another view is that it will cause divisions within the gay community and there will be those who are deemed 'acceptable' by mainstream society and those who are unmarried, in open relationships or not monogamous, will be branded ''the bad kind of homosexual''.

That's what I think, but I haven't really researched this.

[Random Precision]

It's assimilationist. Among other things, I know the gay community used to be a lot more promiscuous before we decided to try to prove we're enough like straight people to have marriage. it's been used to manipulate us into destroying our own culture.

It's not really so much fighting for gay rights as it is fighting for THIS gay right, and a few others the gay liberal agenda likes to focus on like military service.

although it's obviously not a subject I'm well versed in at all, which is why I made this thread.

There is a part in one of the Harry Potter books where the hero is made to carve the phrase "I must not tell lies" repeatedly into his hand. This is what I think the "revolutionaries" who are negative on gay marriage should have to carve into their hands:


I WANT to address another danger. And it comes from people who are not to the right, but people who are our brothers and sisters on the left. There are many people in our movement--great allies, people we have fought alongside of for years sometimes, around all sorts of struggles--who basically say, "This is not our struggle."

They're either indifferent, and many of them hostile, to the demand for equal marriage rights. As Zakiya said, the argument essentially goes something like this: "Who the hell wants this crappy hetero-normative institution that imposes monogamy on us, brings the state into our relationships, and religion."

Now, we socialists are sympathetic to all critiques of monogamy, religion and the state. After all, we're for smashing the state and ending the imposition of the traditional family on people. And, of course, we're for single-payer universal health care as soon as possible.

But this movement is not for the state or monogamy or religion. This is a movement for equality. It is a fight for a reform.

I think in many ways this argument is a reflection of how far away from ordinary working-class lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender lives that the movement went for a time. It disappeared into the far reaches of the academy, where people theorize in abstraction, and left people's real-life concerns and real-life needs by the wayside.

I think if you're going to dis this reform, at least be consistent. Then you have to come out against immigrants' demand for amnesty--who the hell wants a crappy low-wage job in our shitty empire?

I think you have to be consistent, and you have to say something to the Republic Windows & Doors workers--who for the first time in some 70-plus years in this country staged a factory occupation in the city of Chicago. They didn't demand revolution. What was their factory occupation about? It wasn't even to keep the factory open. It was to get severance pay as they were being fired--as the factory was closing. Be consistent, and say we're not for that demand, because that's a crappy halfway demand.

I think you have to be consistent and say, "Troops out now from Afghanistan and Iraq? You want us to call for that crappy demand? We've got bases in hundreds of countries. Does that demand say that we don't care about the bases in all the other countries?"

No! Reforms under this system, by their very nature, are partial. And they create the conditions in which people unite--they come together.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/07/23/we-wont-wait-for-equality

[Janine Melnitz]

Gay people and their allies support equality, opponents oppose equality.
No. Plenty of feminist and gay/queer activists and theorists have made serious criticisms of "equality" as a goal.

going on some pretend radical rant about how str8 people are a threat to our "culture" doesn't change the implications. That I as a gay man am somehow different and on some different level than a str8 man. If I insist I am on a different level, the str8 man is not going to let me be on some perpendicular level, I am going to be below, inferior, alien to his "culture" or belief system.
And this is one reason why. Being different from or alien to the rather vile sexual politics developed under patriarchy is, I should think, something to be proud of. Begging advocates of that politics to be let into their "culture" seems pretty backward, as we are on a different level, and the wild hope of last century's radicals was that we might pull the rest of society up to join us.

And on a note about culture, I am unaware as to how my preference for the male sex makes me part of a culture.
It sure doesn't, which is why it's possible to hear "straight-acting" guys spitting the most venomous hatred for anyone who's "faggy" or whatever -- actually expressing sympathy for fagbashers: "Of course they hate us, I hate us, look how some of us act it makes me sick" etc. This sort of assimilation, where those who succeed at it turn on the rest like trained dogs, has been increasingly prevalent lately, and might shed some light on why some folks are violently opposed to "assimilationism" of any sort.

I'm not one of them, but yeah, that is why, while I "support" any civil rights blahblah I can't actually bring myself to give a shit about gay marriage, even if probably I should. I do think that opposition to it is unproductive at best, and that saying "We should demand no marriage instead!" is a little silly, since "they" definitely won't grant us that (however awesome it would be) -- such a "demand" outside the context of a full revolution is a waste of time.

[Rood]

If gays want to marry just let them it's a part of equality for them, i'm from holland. I'm not proud of my country but atleast we have gay marriage and coffeshops..

btw. i'm not gay

[Oswy]

Looking for more info on how the fight for gay marriage has harmed the gay community.

I see the point about marriage being a concept and institution which embodies a certain ideological orientation towards relationships, sexuality and so on; not least the way it has come to embody the idea that intimate relationships are only 'legitimate' (and 'legal') if they are sanctioned by some external authority, i.e. the Church or State. Having said that I'd take a Gramscian position, you've got to work with what you've got and the symbolic power and normativising effect of equality for gay people in access to marriage probably outweighs the deeper issue about what marriage 'means' negatively (for gay or straight people).

[Revy]

The idea that a fight for equality is irrelevant because you perceive marriage as a str8 institution to assimilate into. You are putting your own personal feelings of what marriage is over support for an equal rights issue because you associate it with heterosexuality, patriarchy and religion, all things that obviously don't apply in a secular gay marriage.

I am well aware that anarchists often have critiques of "institutions", like marriage or voting. The right to vote was not somehow not important because of the futility of workers voting. A lot of the blacks and women fighting for their right to vote might not have even cared about voting for so-and -so bourgeois politician - but the idea of being recognized on an equal political level was also important. Rosa Luxemburg was right when she framed the issue as one of equal political rights - no longer women would be outside of the political sphere, unable to have a true political voice.

[h0m0revolutionary]

I see the point about marriage being a concept and institution which embodies a certain ideological orientation towards relationships, sexuality and so on; not least the way it has come to embody the idea that intimate relationships are only 'legitimate' (and 'legal') if they are sanctioned by some external authority, i.e. the Church or State. Having said that I'd take a Gramscian position, you've got to work with what you've got and the symbolic power and normativising effect of equality for gay people in access to marriage probably outweighs the deeper issue about what marriage 'means' negatively (for gay or straight people).

But that's just not setting with reality is it. We as LGBTQ people have alot of different struggles to engage with, yet all the liberals and pseaudo-leftists care for is gay marriage, it's the spearhead of the assimilationist 'equality' agenda which the pink pound capitalists who set to gain from selling their 'gay' clubs, their 'gay' products and their 'gay' gyms, have pursued.

Gay marriage isn't a worthwhile fight, it's a distraction, we should set about challenging the gay 'community' that has set itself apart from cis (heterosexual) culture, not for isolating themselves, but for alluding to ther myth that being LGBTQ means you have something in common with another LGBTQ individual above and beyod that of a heterosexual. Gay workers have nothing in common with gay bosses. Gay marriage isn't a class issue at all, i's one for the pissy-liberals to fight and a wholly reformist fight.

Such equality-seeking measures serve only to allow gay people to be 'equally' exploited. No thanks.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The idea that a fight for equality is irrelevant because you perceive marriage as a str8 institution to assimilate into. You are putting your own personal feelings of what marriage is over support for an equal rights issue because you associate it with heterosexuality, patriarchy and religion, all things that obviously don't apply in a secular gay marriage.

I am well aware that anarchists often have critiques of "institutions", like marriage or voting. The right to vote was not somehow not important because of the futility of workers voting. A lot of the blacks and women fighting for their right to vote might not have even cared about voting for so-and -so bourgeois politician - but the idea of being recognized on an equal political level was also important. Rosa Luxemburg was right when she framed the issue as one of equal political rights - no longer women would be outside of the political sphere, unable to have a true political voice.

You're equating the recognition of the right of working class women to engage in politics, to the right to a piece of paper saying your partnership with somebody is recognised by the state.

[Oswy]

But that's just not setting with reality is it. We as LGBTQ people have alot of different struggles to engage with, yet all the liberals and pseaudo-leftists care for is gay marriage, it's the spearhead of the assimilationist 'equality' agenda which the pink pound capitalists who set to gain from selling their 'gay' clubs, their 'gay' products and their 'gay' gyms, have pursued.

Gay marriage isn't a worthwhile fight, it's a distraction, we should set about challenging the gay 'community' that has set itself apart from cis (heterosexual) culture, not for isolating themselves, but for alluding to ther myth that being LGBTQ means you have something in common with another LGBTQ individual above and beyod that of a heterosexual. Gay workers have nothing in common with gay bosses. Gay marriage isn't a class issue at all, i's one for the pissy-liberals to fight and a wholly reformist fight.

Such equality-seeking measures serve only to allow gay people to be 'equally' exploited. No thanks.

I don't see it that way. I accept that marriage by its nature carries meanings and expectations which easily serve reactionary agendas, gay-marriage or no gay-marriage. But I don't see it as all or nothing. On balance I think there's more good than bad in the establishment of gay-marriage, and enogh good to make it a worthwhile pursuit. I suppose it depends on what kind of leftist you are, though. I think of my Marxism as very egalitarianism orientated and even if it is within a context of liberal-capitalst hegemony, equal treatment in marriage strengthens the idea of equality itself, even if the situation isn't perfect. We might accept that voters and non-voters are equally exploited in liberal/capitalist democracy but I don't see why we should thus not care about a group, as historically women have been, excluded from voting rights. I think this principle can apply to gay marriage.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Is it not harmful to force gay people to be part of a separate community when they already are part of a diverse society? LGBT people don't need their own community, they need acceptance into existing ones.
I think this is the key point. There are essentially three positions to take here: assimilation into existing communities, where gay people gradually win acceptance into various straight institutions like marriage and the military; separatism, where LGBTQ people maintain their own communities, but at the cost of being cut off from the straight mainstream; or integration based on demolishing existing straight culture and existing LGBTQ culture. This last one may sound like a tall order, but hey, so's communism. I suppose removing all privileges around the idea of "marriage" and just having civil unions for everybody would be the first step towards this.

Peter Tatchell said ''we want to change society, not conform to it''.
Surely if there's one statement that everyone at revleft can agree with, it's that?

The idea that a fight for equality is irrelevant because you perceive marriage as a str8 institution to assimilate into. You are putting your own personal feelings of what marriage is over support for an equal rights issue because you associate it with heterosexuality, patriarchy and religion, all things that obviously don't apply in a secular gay marriage.

Why should a secular gay couple choose an institution so heavily bound up with patriarchy, religion and heterosexuality over any other form of relationship? Why should their love be seen as any more legitimate if it's expressed in that particular form?

[redasheville]

Why should a secular gay couple choose an institution so heavily bound up with patriarchy, religion and heterosexuality over any other form of relationship? Why should their love be seen as any more legitimate if it's expressed in that particular form?

Because they want to? A gay couple that wishes to get married doesn't need to justify it to you. See my comments about elitism above.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Because they want to? A gay couple that wishes to get married doesn't need to justify it to you.
But marriage is the one form of relationship that does need to be justified to someone else. Without a higher authority declaring it to be legitimate, there's nothing making a marriage different from any other relationship. If a gay couple want to do anything between themselves, then that's absolutely none of their business, but if a gay couple want to go in front of a third person and swear a vow about how they're going to behave, then I don't think it's unreasonable to be curious about why they're doing it. (I also think that it's weird that straight people still get married and I think it's legitimate to be curious about that as well).
And besides, this is the internet, so for all you know I could be a civil partnership recording officer, so they would need to justify it to me. ;)

[NecroCommie]

Gee, I'm a little in-between. On the other hand I support the gay rights to have marriage if they so want to, but on the other hand I have always been anti-marriage in general.

[Revy]

You're equating the recognition of the right of working class women to engage in politics, to the right to a piece of paper saying your partnership with somebody is recognised by the state.

Comrade, you set me up for the point I am about to make.

It is so much more than a piece of paper. It is homosexuality being recognized on an equal level. Legal oppression encourages societal oppression. I don't get why you think it's so trivial - it's not.

We are fighting for our right to exist freely in society and equally. If you think the gay marriage issue is about marriage being recognized by the state, you're wrong.

[Kukulofori]

Shouldn't we instead fight the elitism of monogamous people who think their relationships are better than everyone else's?

[redasheville]

Shouldn't we instead fight the elitism of monogamous people who think their relationships are better than everyone else's?

This is ridiculous. The point is people should have the CHOICE to decide what kind of relationship they want to be in.

[h0m0revolutionary]

This is ridiculous. The point is people should have the CHOICE to decide what kind of relationship they want to be in.

That is why Κουκουλοφόροι was arguing against those who view monogomy as a relationship arragement that is superior to others.

[redasheville]

Yea and his argument is abstract and misses the point.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

It is possible to fight for two causes at the same time. Opposing the elitism of monogamous people doesn't mean we would have to abandon campaigns for gay marriage. We're just talking about choice here - the freedom to choose to marry, or not. To choose to be in a monogamous relationship. Or not.

I wouldn't call people in monogamous relationships elitist, either. I just think that they are in the majority and therefore aren't used to the idea of having a different type of relationship because theirs is the only one they know of. Most people I've met wouldn't even consider being in any other kind of relationship - not because they're elitist but because nobody's giving them the option.

[Die Rote Fahne]

There should never have needed to be a movement for gay rights in the first place.

People are people. Their relationship does nobody harm. If they get married it does not affect me.

Most who are against gay rights share the same ideals as those who would see us on the radical left silenced. Who would rather see a fascist rise to power than a socialist.

[Kukulofori]

his

lol


There should never have needed to be a movement for gay rights in the first place.

People are people. Their relationship does nobody harm. If they get married it does not affect me.

Most who are against gay rights share the same ideals as those who would see us on the radical left silenced. Who would rather see a fascist rise to power than a socialist.

Hey thanks, I really appreciate the comparison to Hitler.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But that's just not setting with reality is it. We as LGBTQ people have alot of different struggles to engage with, yet all the liberals and pseaudo-leftists care for is gay marriage, it's the spearhead of the assimilationist 'equality' agenda which the pink pound capitalists who set to gain from selling their 'gay' clubs, their 'gay' products and their 'gay' gyms, have pursued.
Except here in California, the gay bourgeois are saying not to "push too hard" for marriage equality. Groups like Equality California and the LGBT Democrat Club, against the overwhelming desire of their members, want to postpone having a gay marriage bill on the 2010 election.

Gay academics who have a postmodern or identity politics perspective, are also against marriage equality because it enforces hetero-normative institutions.

Both of these groups within the larger gay community of California have more of a luxury to wait for equality - a business owner probably pays for their own health care and so it's no big deal if their partner isn't a legally recognized marriage partner who could be on an job based health-plan. If you're rich, you can just fly somewhere that does perform marriages.

The people out on the streets demanding equality are not the rich, they are mostly young and mostly students and workers.



Gay marriage isn't a class issue at all, i's one for the pissy-liberals to fight and a wholly reformist fight.

Such equality-seeking measures serve only to allow gay people to be 'equally' exploited. No thanks.Just as the civil rights allowed black people entry into segregated worksites where they could also 'equally' exploited alongide whites. We need to be on equal footing if we want eqal fight-back and so I support people fighting for gay marriage. Additionally, in such a homophobic society, having the bigots loose this battle will be a great step forward for both straight and gay people. It will give people confidence to fight to be treated with respect. It will help destroy the right-wing's fetishization of heterosexual nuclear families which also bolsters ideologies around privitization (problems should be delt with through the familiy unit than through government programs) and sexism (women should have to stay home and raise kids) and racism (black poverty is blamed on broken families).

Yes, it's a reform, but it is a step forward and abstaining from this struggle is actually a step backwards because if the right wing wins, do you think they will stop at marriage? A defeat will de-legitimize gay openess and will help bigots argue against openly gay people being teachers or health-workers and so on.

[Kukulofori]

Just like how voting rights changed everything for black people and now they are fully integrated members of society and are not marginalised or discriminated against at all.

oh

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just like how voting rights changed everything for black people and now they are fully integrated members of society and are not marginalised or discriminated against at all.

oh

Your arguemnt is shit.

Come to my neighborhood and tell black people that they are dupes for thinking that they are better off after civil rights. Please! Come to the home of the Black Panthers and stand on a street corner and say how voting rights was a waste of time. Please!

What a BS and a-historical argument! It's like saying that the Haymarket marterys were shit because they fought for people to be exploited for 8 instead of 10 hours a day! I guess since the union movement is so badly off in the US right now, it would have been better if the IWW and the CIO had never existed.

Where did I say that gay marriage would bring final liberation? Where? Read my shit and tell me where! You can't because I said it was a step forward. Now, tell me how if the right-wing outlaws gay marriage it will not be a step backwards for working people?

[Janine Melnitz]

Comparing suffrage to marriage is pretty misleading, as those who choose not to vote aren't directly less-enfranchised than those who do. I've already mentioned (one of) the results of this enfranchisement in this thread -- how the assimilated regard the unassimilated.

[ev]

(Read this shit)
Marriage is a stupid idea that originated from religion and feudalism.. "By the power invested in god, i pronounce you man and wife"

You can't change the religion to incorporate gays to marry and you need to acknowledge that marriage is a kind of taboo.

Abolish marriage I say, It's apart of religion and is often a used as tool for oppression against women.

Why do two people need to be legally binded together? marriage is a by-product of religion and has evolved with religion to have a symbiotic relationship with capitalism in today's western societies. It's all bullshit.

Marriage should not be recognized by the state, it should be a completely religious/ceremonial/sentimental/symbolic affair..

If we are going to recognize "couples" then we should have a completely different system, one where the church is separated from the state. Even then, it is right to do this? Who can provide arguments for marriage in general?


The issue here isn't gay marriage, it is marriage.

[Jimmie Higgins]

(Read this shit)
Marriage is a stupid idea that originated from religion and feudalism.. "By the power invested in god, i pronounce you man and wife"

You can't change the religion to incorporate gays to marry and you need to acknowledge that marriage is a kind of taboo.

Abolish marriage I say, It's apart of religion and is often a used as tool for oppression against women.

Why do two people need to be legally binded together? marriage is a by-product of religion and has evolved with religion to have a symbiotic relationship with capitalism in today's western societies. It's all bullshit.

Marriage should not be recognized by the state, it should be a completely religious/ceremonial/sentimental/symbolic affair..

If we are going to recognize "couples" then we should have a completely different system, one where the church is separated from the state. Even then, it is right to do this? Who can provide arguments for marriage in general?


The issue here isn't gay marriage, it is marriage.
You either don't live in the US - which makes your argument understandable - or you live in the US, but actually exist in some kind of fantasy idealist world.

People are not marching in the streets to get rid of marriage - if they were marching for equal treatment through getting rid of special legal rights for married couples, then yes it would be silly to argue against that in favor of gay marriage. Since this is not the case in the real world, it is just as silly to argue for marriage abolition in the face of a movement for marriage equality. It would be like standing outside a segregated public school where black people are trying to integrate and saying: well public ed under capitalism is shit, so don't integrate into that BS.

The ruling class seeks to divide us in order to rule us - right? Well then to make the working class stronger, then we need to get rid of the systemic divisions between us. Gay people did not pick gay marriage, the right-wing picked it as a wedge issue but gay people and straights as well are pushing back and any radical with a brain-cell in his head must see that radicals should be part of a movement for people fighting back against bigotry and help to give a radical analysis to people in that struggle.

[Kukulofori]

Comparing suffrage to marriage is pretty misleading, as those who choose not to vote aren't directly less-enfranchised than those who do. I've already mentioned (one of) the results of this enfranchisement in this thread -- how the assimilated regard the unassimilated.

Yeah, actually I'm usually very careful not to compare black struggles with gay ones, that was a slip and I apologise. :s Disregard that comparison entirely.


Gay people did not pick gay marriage, the right-wing picked it as a wedge issue but gay people and straights as well are pushing back and any radical with a brain-cell in his head must see that radicals should be part of a movement for people fighting back against bigotry and help to give a radical analysis to people in that struggle.Are you proposing that we let the right wing pick the terms of our struggles? Come on. We've been spending nearly a decade on marriage, compare that to what we've done for AIDS awareness and treatment and queer visibility this is just a distraction stopping us from achieving real goals and really improving the lives of gay people.

Should we fight DADT too, because the far right started it? How will that improve the lives of gay people?

[redasheville]

Just like how voting rights changed everything for black people and now they are fully integrated members of society and are not marginalised or discriminated against at all.

oh

So you're implying that since black people are still oppressed, they shouldn't have fought for the right to vote? That is pretty sad, ultra left lunacy (not to mention a weeeee bit chauvinist).

Sorry for assuming you were male by the way. That wasn't very cool of me.

[Kukulofori]

That's kinda why I don't equate gay struggles with black ones. >_>

And no prob. We're all human. :]

[Salabra]

Looking for more info on how the fight for gay marriage has harmed the gay community.

Before we start, let me point you to my profile to show my interest in the question (SPOILER — I am a gay woman).

The fight for gay marriage hasn’t, of course, harmed the “gay community,” given that that community potentially numbers among its members British Lords and daughters of Japanese capitalists as well as streetsweepers in New Delhi and factory workers in South Africa.

It is not however a particularly revolutionary demand. I take my equal rights as a human being just as seriously as you do, Stancel, but I am not particularly convinced that I can rely on the bourgeois state to protect those rights, especially on this matter. Despite what liberal theory teaches, a state is not a neutral arbiter between classes — it is a weapon which one class uses to impose its will on others. The bourgeois state endorses the bourgeois family — heteronormative, homophobic, aimed at transmitting property in the class that has it and obedience to authority in the class that doesn’t.

The struggle for gay equality is a minimalist demand, a petition which can be granted or refused, and which, even if granted, can be rescinded when it is expedient to do so. Equal rights within a flawed, unjust system is a wrongheaded concept, a call for parity on straight terms within a pre-existing framework of institutions and laws devised by and for the heterosexual majority.

What I want is gay liberation — this requires a complete social transformation, “integration based on demolishing existing straight culture and existing LGBTQ culture,” as The Ungovernable Farce so aptly put it. Since I am a communist, I see the best way of doing this is to struggle for a socialist society in which all people have the same rights and opportunities, and in which homophobia and its minder, patriarchal religion, has been flushed down the toilet of history.

And boatloads of kudos for quoting the piece by bashback, Koukoulophoroi (not perfect, but a good start)!

[ev]

You either don't live in the US - which makes your argument understandable - or you live in the US, but actually exist in some kind of fantasy idealist world.

People are not marching in the streets to get rid of marriage - if they were marching for equal treatment through getting rid of special legal rights for married couples, then yes it would be silly to argue against that in favor of gay marriage. Since this is not the case in the real world, it is just as silly to argue for marriage abolition in the face of a movement for marriage equality. It would be like standing outside a segregated public school where black people are trying to integrate and saying: well public ed under capitalism is shit, so don't integrate into that BS.

The ruling class seeks to divide us in order to rule us - right? Well then to make the working class stronger, then we need to get rid of the systemic divisions between us. Gay people did not pick gay marriage, the right-wing picked it as a wedge issue but gay people and straights as well are pushing back and any radical with a brain-cell in his head must see that radicals should be part of a movement for people fighting back against bigotry and help to give a radical analysis to people in that struggle.

So from what I think you're trying to say is, gays should continue their struggle to change the religion - Christianity to incorporate gay love/marriage? As you should be aware the moralistic and legislative principles are of western states are based upon Christianity and similar religions, in the United States this is particularly the case - this is reinforced by the states motto "In god we trust".

You seem to be living in a fantasy world if you believe that christian bureaucrats will amend laws to allow gays to get married as this goes against their beliefs.

What I stated in my previous thread, is that you need to separate the state and the church in order to have gay marriages.

I did say..
If we are going to recognize "couples" then we should have a completely different system, one where the church is separated from the state. Even then, it is right to do this? Who can provide arguments for marriage in general?

If your going to argue a point, make it clear and ensure you've read what the user has posted correctly.