40% in U.S. say marriage obsolete

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

WASHINGTON – Is marriage becoming obsolete?

As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren't needed to have a family.

A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.

About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday. Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, a sizable chunk — 6 percent — have parents who are live-in couples who opted to raise kids together without getting married.

Indeed, about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.

In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete.

When asked what constitutes a family, the vast majority of Americans agree that a married couple, with or without children, fits that description. But four of five surveyed pointed also to an unmarried, opposite-sex couple with children or a single parent. Three of 5 people said a same-sex couple with children was a family.

"Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn't dominate family life like it used to," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them."

The broadening views of family are expected to have an impact at Thanksgiving. About nine in 10 Americans say they will share a Thanksgiving meal next week with family, sitting at a table with 12 people on average. About one-fourth of respondents said there will be 20 or more family members.

"More Americans are living in these new families, so it seems safe to assume that there will be more of them around the Thanksgiving dinner table," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center.

The changing views of family are being driven largely by young adults 18-29, who are more likely than older generations to have an unmarried or divorced parent or have friends who do. Young adults also tend to have more liberal attitudes when it comes to spousal roles and living together before marriage, the survey found.

But economic factors, too, are playing a role. The Census Bureau recently reported that opposite-sex unmarried couples living together jumped 13 percent this year to 7.5 million. It was a sharp one-year increase that analysts largely attributed to people unwilling to make long-term marriage commitments in the face of persistent unemployment.

Beginning next year, the Census Bureau will publish new, supplemental poverty figures that move away from the traditional concept of family as a husband and wife with two children. It will broaden the definition to include unmarried couples, such as same-sex partners, as well as foster children who are not related by blood or adoption.

Officials say such a move will reduce the number of families and children who are considered poor based on the new supplemental measure, which will be used as a guide for federal and state agencies to set anti-poverty policies. That's because two unmarried partners who live together with children and work are currently not counted by census as a single "family" with higher pooled incomes, but are officially defined as two separate units — one being a single parent and child, the other a single person — who aren't sharing household resources.

"People are rethinking what family means," Cherlin said. "Given the growth, I think we need to accept cohabitation relationships as a basis for some of the fringe benefits offered to families, such as health insurance."

Still, the study indicates that marriage isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Despite a growing view that marriage may not be necessary, 67 percent of Americans were upbeat about the future of marriage and family. That's higher than their optimism for the nation's educational system (50 percent), economy (46 percent) or its morals and ethics (41 percent).

And about half of all currently unmarried adults, 46 percent, say they want to get married. Among those unmarried who are living with a partner, the share rises to 64 percent.

Other findings:

_About 34 percent of Americans called the growing variety of family living arrangements good for society, while 32 percent said it didn't make a difference and 29 percent said it was troubling.

_About 44 percent of people say they have lived with a partner without being married; for 30-to-49-year-olds, that share rose to 57 percent. In most cases, those couples said they considered cohabitation as a step toward marriage.

_About 62 percent say that the best marriage is one where the husband and wife both work and both take care of the household and children. That's up from 48 percent who held that view in 1977.

The Pew study was based on interviews with 2,691 adults by cell phone or landline from Oct. 1-21. The survey has a total margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, larger for subgroups. Pew also analyzed 2008 census data, and used surveys conducted by Time magazine to identify trends from earlier decades.

[Rakhmetov]

People don't marry on the basis of fairness, love or even sexual attractiveness but on the basis of need, greed and opportunism. :( :mad:

[graymouser]

People don't marry on the basis of fairness, love or even sexual attractiveness but on the basis of need, greed and opportunism. :( :mad:
Maybe the bourgeoisie do - certainly when movie stars get married it's for primarily financial reasons - but it's ridiculous to claim that romantic love does not factor into most marriages today. Where does this crap even come from?

[Lucretia]

Yet leave it to virtually all self-identified Marxist parties to tailgate the "marriage equality" movement as part of the revolutionary class struggle.

[Nuvem]

People don't marry on the basis of fairness, love or even sexual attractiveness but on the basis of need, greed and opportunism.

I find this both untrue and hideously offensive. I live with the woman I love and wholly intend to marry. We love one another deeply and talk constantly about our future plans for marriage. Her family is half made up of drug addled invalids and half by hard-line Catholics who have rejected her for her atheism. Most of my family rejects me for either my Socialism or my atheism, and the relationship I have with them is hollow, plastic and insubstantial.

I love her more than anything. I gave up the opportunity to move to a new, better city and get a good Proletarian factory job making union wages to stay in my economically dilapidated hole of a city, simply because she was too nervous to leave her job and move to a new city. So here I sit, jobless in a city with a higher unemployment rating than Detroit or Flint, solely for my dedication to her.

So don't tell me that people get married only for any of the three above reasons. I choose to be with her because I love her and do plan to marry her some day- she's poor just like I am. She works 34 hours a week at minimum wage at a shitty corner grocery store that gets robbed on a regular basis. I'm not with her for her money, her family's money (it has none) or opportunism. I could just as easily be living with my mother or my father with a newborn child, or with a friend or with my brother. Instead I choose to share my life with her because we truly and genuinely care for one another.

When I met her in high school three years ago, there wasn't a split second in which I thought, "Forming a lasting relationship with this woman would be an excellent strategy for securing my financial future." I thought that she was an intelligent, sweet, beautiful woman who I could imagine being with for a very long time. Neither of us was working at the time, neither of us had any money or any homes of our own. I still lived with my clinically insane mother, and hers had recently thrown her out the very day she turned 18. She was living with a stranger, with the family of a girl she had met at school and hardly spoken to since moving in. She had nothing to offer me but her company, our conversations, her love and understanding. While our partnership is undeniably advantageous from a financial standpoint, it is barely so and there was no consideration for this when I formed a relationship with her.

While marriage isn't for everyone, I at least ask that you have some consideration for those of us for whom lasting relationships are important.

[Obzervi]

The institution of marriage does nothing but reinforce the patriarchy and limit the sexual freedom of women. It needs to be abolished altogether.

[graymouser]

Yet leave it to virtually all self-identified Marxist parties to tailgate the "marriage equality" movement as part of the revolutionary class struggle.
It's a question of elementary democratic rights. Revolutionaries have to be part of the fight to defend and extend these rights, if they are going to win the majority of the people to their side. It is particularly important to be in solidarity with groups that are otherwise oppressed, which is definitely the case with LGBT people, and who are therefore more likely to break from support for the whole system.

As far as the revolutionary class struggle - what, you think there aren't workers who are queer? If so you are never going to win over the workers.


The institution of marriage does nothing but reinforce the patriarchy and limit the sexual freedom of women. It needs to be abolished altogether.
Historically, and to a considerable extent still today, marriage is a property relationship. In a post-property society it would therefore "wither away," an unnecessary relic that some people see as useful for purely romantic reasons. If people want to be in a committed monogamous relationship that's their damn business and should be so. I'm married but have no illusions about the whole institution. I just think taking this ultra-militant stance alienates more people than you need to.

[Nuvem]

The institution of marriage does nothing but reinforce the patriarchy and limit the sexual freedom of women. It needs to be abolished altogether.Doesn't it limit men's sexual freedom as well? A married man who cheats may very well be divorced by his wife if she finds out, which will, if they have been married for any length of time, cost him a substantial portion of his belongings. The same goes for the woman. Also, marriage does not necessarily restrict sexual freedom. Have you not heard of swingers' parties? Patriarchy itself prevents female sexual freedom- indeed, the attitudes of women towards other women does much to prevent female sexual freedom! Marriage is not to blame. It's the prevailing social attitudes that create and perpetuate the patriarchy, not the individual institution of marriage. And what of same sex marriage? Does that, too, reinforce patriarchy?

Put simply, this view is not hollistic. It's "bitter feminism" rather than legitimate, hollistic and rational feminism.

[Lucretia]

It's a question of elementary democratic rights.

Actually, no. It's not a question of "elementary democratic rights." That might be the facile line being parroted by these tailgating Marxist parties, because they clearly still consider questions of sexuality to be tangential to the class struggle and have not taken the necessary time to engage in a rigorous analysis of the issue (which is also why it's silly for you to imply that I think that gay people should be left out in the cold).

It's a question of entrenching an institution that provides material benefits to some individuals, but not others, on the basis of how they organize their sexual lives. This is why "marriage equality" is a contradiction in terms, kind of like your conditional unconditional support of the Soviet Union. Marriage by definition is an institution designed to give some people benefits that other people do not have. It is fundamentally an undemocratic institution and should be eliminated rather than entrenched by allowing gay people to access it, too.


Revolutionaries have to be part of the fight to defend and extend these rights, if they are going to win the majority of the people to their side.Revolutionaries should actually take a few moments to consider the nature of the "rights" they claim to defend rather than just tailgating whatever liberal movement happens to emerge at a particular historical moment. Not all "rights" are democratic, and defending the "right" to an institution that is becoming obsolete anyway seems to be a losing strategy to "win the majority of the people to their side."


It is particularly important to be in solidarity with groups that are otherwise oppressed, which is definitely the case with LGBT people, and who are therefore more likely to break from support for the whole system.Yes, I am sure that the bourgeois gays and lesbians who are the ones in ardent support of "marriage equality" are on the verge of casting their lot with your Soviet-Union-defending communist movement. That you think this is even a possibility shows you haven't really talked to many working-class gays and lesbians, who have far more important issues than planning their honeymoons and buying commitment rings.


As far as the revolutionary class struggle - what, you think there aren't workers who are queer?Uh, no. Actually, I never said that. If I oppose tailgating after anti-democratic movements, I must think that no workers are gay? More scintillating logic.

[Nuvem]

I don't suppose you've considered that marriage doesn't have to grant rights that not everyone has, that's just how it works under the current Market Republic. Just because the Capitalists grant additional rights to married couples when it comes to loans, insurance, adoption, etc. doesn't mean we as Socialists need to do or acknowledge anything of the sort. I fail to see anything wrong with marriage as a social bond when it is stripped of any legal ramifications. So yes, I will agree that there are some undemocratic elements to marriage within the Market system- but then, the entire system is undemocratic.

[Lucretia]

I don't suppose you've considered that marriage doesn't have to grant rights that not everyone has, that's just how it works under the current Market Republic. Just because the Capitalists grant additional rights to married couples when it comes to loans, insurance, adoption, etc. doesn't mean we as Socialists need to do or acknowledge anything of the sort. I fail to see anything wrong with marriage as a social bond when it is stripped of any legal ramifications. So yes, I will agree that there are some undemocratic elements to marriage within the Market system- but then, the entire system is undemocratic.

Well, of course I agree with this. Make marriage a private matter, not a legal one in which the state provides material benefits to certain groups of people aspiring to live what the state deems the right kind of sex life.

[Nuvem]

Very well, then I see no reason for you and graymouser to argue. It seems to me that this was merely a conflict brought on by misunderstanding. I don't believe that graymouser was supporting the institution of marriage in the context of providing benefits for sexual conformity. I don't believe anyone here would support such a thing.

[Lucretia]

Very well, then I see no reason for you and graymouser to argue. It seems to me that this was merely a conflict brought on by misunderstanding. I don't believe that graymouser was supporting the institution of marriage in the context of providing benefits for sexual conformity. I don't believe anyone here would support such a thing.

It was not a misunderstanding at all. Graymouser's position is not to argue for making marriage a private matter. His position is to allow gays and lesbian couples to get legally married, to make the same demands on the state's distribution of material benefits to couples but not to single people or people in non-traditional relationships.

[Hexen]

I would also like to point out that the institution of marriage is a manifestation of property therefore theft from the public domain in a dehumanizing way. Just think of putting a imaginary fence around a individual person from everyone else which is basically what Marriage is in a nutshell.

[the last donut of the night]

"That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny."

emma goldman

[Decolonize The Left]

Marriage isn't just going to disappear out of nowhere, though it most likely will degrade over time as a religious institution and be replaced by a secular alternative (such as civil unions). The whole point is that so long as it is institutionalized, it limits individual opportunities based upon gender and sexual orientation - this isn't to be dismissed, nor is it to dismiss marriage on the whole.

What it does do is put it in perspective. We need to support the gay marriage movement simply because it is a battle against inequality. This doesn't mean we endorse marriage, it means so long as marriage exists we endorse it being available to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

These 'culture war' issues are never black and white, but always nuanced in such a way that you can make a coherent argument whereby you support a cause, but point out the overall flaws in the system at hand.

- August

[graymouser]

Actually, no. It's not a question of "elementary democratic rights." That might be the facile line being parroted by these tailgating Marxist parties, because they clearly still consider questions of sexuality to be tangential to the class struggle and have not taken the necessary time to engage in a rigorous analysis of the issue (which is also why it's silly for you to imply that I think that gay people should be left out in the cold).

It's a question of entrenching an institution that provides material benefits to some individuals, but not others, on the basis of how they organize their sexual lives. This is why "marriage equality" is a contradiction in terms, kind of like your conditional unconditional support of the Soviet Union. Marriage by definition is an institution designed to give some people benefits that other people do not have. It is fundamentally an undemocratic institution and should be eliminated rather than entrenched by allowing gay people to access it, too.
First, quit trying to bleed other debates into threads that have nothing to do with them. The class nature of the USSR is off topic here.

Second, this rant has nothing to do with an actual analysis that you claim is lacking. Marriage is located firmly in the nexus of bourgeois property right, and as such defending the right of people to marry if they so choose is defending a bourgeois-democratic right. If it was illegal for homosexuals to own homes, should we not take up arms against that because we are against property rights? If it was illegal for homosexuals to vote in elections, should we not fight that tooth and nail because we are against bourgeois elections? The bourgeois character of an institution does not mean that the fight for equal access to that institution is somehow wrong.


Revolutionaries should actually take a few moments to consider the nature of the "rights" they claim to defend rather than just tailgating whatever liberal movement happens to emerge at a particular historical moment. Not all "rights" are democratic, and defending the "right" to an institution that is becoming obsolete anyway seems to be a losing strategy to "win the majority of the people to their side."

Yes, I am sure that the bourgeois gays and lesbians who are the ones in ardent support of "marriage equality" are on the verge of casting their lot with your Soviet-Union-defending communist movement. That you think this is even a possibility shows you haven't really talked to many working-class gays and lesbians, who have far more important issues than planning their honeymoons and buying commitment rings.
I've been at larger rallies against Proposition 8 than years of work have brought out against the imperialist wars, but what do I know? And quit bringing up the USSR in this thread, it's not relevant.


Uh, no. Actually, I never said that. If I oppose tailgating after anti-democratic movements, I must think that no workers are gay? More scintillating logic.
Hey, you're the one who made a one-liner dismissing any class aspect to this question.

[Hexen]

Marriage is also something that should be incompatible in a post-revolutionary society since the entire point of Leftism is classless society where workers control the means of production and marriage is just another form of (or practice of) bourgeoisie domination over the means of production therefore marriage would not translate well into a post-revolutionary society because that too will be abolished as everything will fall into public domain.

[Rakhmetov]

I find this both untrue and hideously offensive. I live with the woman I love and wholly intend to marry. We love one another deeply and talk constantly about our future plans for marriage. Her family is half made up of drug addled invalids and half by hard-line Catholics who have rejected her for her atheism. Most of my family rejects me for either my Socialism or my atheism, and the relationship I have with them is hollow, plastic and insubstantial.

I love her more than anything. I gave up the opportunity to move to a new, better city and get a good Proletarian factory job making union wages to stay in my economically dilapidated hole of a city, simply because she was too nervous to leave her job and move to a new city. So here I sit, jobless in a city with a higher unemployment rating than Detroit or Flint, solely for my dedication to her.

So don't tell me that people get married only for any of the three above reasons. I choose to be with her because I love her and do plan to marry her some day- she's poor just like I am. She works 34 hours a week at minimum wage at a shitty corner grocery store that gets robbed on a regular basis. I'm not with her for her money, her family's money (it has none) or opportunism. I could just as easily be living with my mother or my father with a newborn child, or with a friend or with my brother. Instead I choose to share my life with her because we truly and genuinely care for one another.

When I met her in high school three years ago, there wasn't a split second in which I thought, "Forming a lasting relationship with this woman would be an excellent strategy for securing my financial future." I thought that she was an intelligent, sweet, beautiful woman who I could imagine being with for a very long time. Neither of us was working at the time, neither of us had any money or any homes of our own. I still lived with my clinically insane mother, and hers had recently thrown her out the very day she turned 18. She was living with a stranger, with the family of a girl she had met at school and hardly spoken to since moving in. She had nothing to offer me but her company, our conversations, her love and understanding. While our partnership is undeniably advantageous from a financial standpoint, it is barely so and there was no consideration for this when I formed a relationship with her.

While marriage isn't for everyone, I at least ask that you have some consideration for those of us for whom lasting relationships are important.


You do not demonstrate any logic with your post. Your argument is akin to:

"Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind, ergo Stevie Wonder is love."

:eek::tongue_smilie::w00t::star::reda::cursing:
Faulty logic

[Lucretia]

Marriage is located firmly in the nexus of bourgeois property right, and as such defending the right of people to marry if they so choose is defending a bourgeois-democratic right. If it was illegal for homosexuals to own homes, should we not take up arms against that because we are against property rights? If it was illegal for homosexuals to vote in elections, should we not fight that tooth and nail because we are against bourgeois elections? The bourgeois character of an institution does not mean that the fight for equal access to that institution is somehow wrong.

This is exactly the unthinking response I expected. Once again we get a strawman. This time the strawman is: "You seem to think that any fights for equality within a system of bourgeois rights and property relations is necessarily backward and reinforces the property rights!"

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I very much would support a struggle against prohibitions outlawing gay people from owning homes for example. Or buying food. Or prohibitions that prevent black people from attending the same school as white people. The problem here is that you're using the crude label "bourgeois democratic rights" and applying to a wide umbrella of issues which differ from each other in very important ways. This is, once again, lazy and imprecise thinking.

If we open up marriage -- an institution enshrining a monogamous relationship -- to gay people, we are not simply removing barriers to equality in a way that we would if we allowed gay people to own homes. You're ignoring the fact that marriage is a legal institution that comes with material benefits subsidized by single people as well as married people. In allowing more people to get married, you'll be increasing the economic burdens on single people to subsidize married couples. This is not a cut-and-dry issue that you can compare to segregation, for instance. "Marriage equality" compounds the inequality of single people and people involved in non-traditional relationships like polyamory. You are again thinking too abstractly about what "equality" means by divorcing it from the larger material situation.


I've been at larger rallies against Proposition 8 than years of work have brought out against the imperialist wars, but what do I know? And quit bringing up the USSR in this thread, it's not relevant.You can say it's irrelevant all you want to, but I just find it odd that somebody who in one thread is more orthodox than thou has fallen victim to the lazy liberal tailgating that Marxists have substituted in place of an actual analysis of the marriage issue. It seems your revolutionary creds are not as spotless as you want to think.

[punisa]

all you need is love :)
As long as people love each other, may they live in whatever union or non-union they please.
Excuse me for sounding like a hippy.

Mentioning love may seem irrational and not in line with scientific method, but still - I calim that only people who love each other should get married (that's like 1 %), everything else is a mental / physical prison cell and agony.

I'm happy that divorces are on the rise in recent years. Get married 10 times if you will, but don't settle down with someone you don't love.
Viva el amor :lol:

[graymouser]

This is exactly the unthinking response I expected. Once again we get a strawman. This time the strawman is: "You seem to think that any fights for equality within a system of bourgeois rights and property relations is necessarily backward and reinforces the property rights!"
Honestly, the strawman is better than the "real thing."


Wrong, wrong, wrong. I very much would support a struggle against prohibitions outlawing gay people from owning homes for example. Or buying food. Or prohibitions that prevent black people from attending the same school as white people. The problem here is that you're using the crude label "bourgeois democratic rights" and applying to a wide umbrella of issues which differ from each other in very important ways. This is, once again, lazy and imprecise thinking.

If we open up marriage -- an institution enshrining a monogamous relationship -- to gay people, we are not simply removing barriers to equality in a way that we would if we allowed gay people to own homes. You're ignoring the fact that marriage is a legal institution that comes with material benefits subsidized by single people as well as married people. In allowing more people to get married, you'll be increasing the economic burdens on single people to subsidize married couples. This is not a cut-and-dry issue that you can compare to segregation, for instance. "Marriage equality" compounds the inequality of single people and people involved in non-traditional relationships like polyamory. You are again thinking too abstractly about what "equality" means by divorcing it from the larger material situation.
That's all you've got? The argument about it being a bourgeois property right is better than that. You are saying that, when LGBT people are demanding that they receive equal treatment, we should say no because of a structural quibble you have about marriage being unfair to single and poly people. Well hell, marriage is a deeply problematic institution, but in society it's the only way to get certain non-property rights such as medical visitation, control in a medical emergency, custody of children and so on. As long as it exists, the institution must be open and Marxists have to support its expansion to LGBT people. The fact that there would still be problems in society afterward is immaterial to the actual existence of this specific inequality.


You can say it's irrelevant all you want to, but I just find it odd that somebody who in one thread is more orthodox than thou has fallen victim to the lazy liberal tailgating that Marxists have substituted in place of an actual analysis of the marriage issue. It seems your revolutionary creds are not as spotless as you want to think.
I'm not too concerned about your opinions of my credentials. I just don't think it's appropriate to go about bleeding topics into each other, it's not a good way to do debating and honestly I think it was a rather cheap attempt to score points.

[Obzervi]

Historically, and to a considerable extent still today, marriage is a property relationship. In a post-property society it would therefore "wither away," an unnecessary relic that some people see as useful for purely romantic reasons. If people want to be in a committed monogamous relationship that's their damn business and should be so. I'm married but have no illusions about the whole institution. I just think taking this ultra-militant stance alienates more people than you need to.
Yes it is about property. Marriage has existed as a formal contract between men and women which grants the man sole ownership of the woman's sex while the women attains access to the man's product of labor.

[Lucretia]

Honestly, the strawman is better than the "real thing."


That's all you've got? The argument about it being a bourgeois property right is better than that. You are saying that, when LGBT people are demanding that they receive equal treatment, we should say no because of a structural quibble you have about marriage being unfair to single and poly people. Well hell, marriage is a deeply problematic institution, but in society it's the only way to get certain non-property rights such as medical visitation, control in a medical emergency, custody of children and so on. As long as it exists, the institution must be open and Marxists have to support its expansion to LGBT people. The fact that there would still be problems in society afterward is immaterial to the actual existence of this specific inequality.


I'm not too concerned about your opinions of my credentials. I just don't think it's appropriate to go about bleeding topics into each other, it's not a good way to do debating and honestly I think it was a rather cheap attempt to score points.

You are misrepresenting my position as being one where I oppose "marriage equality" because I don't think it's radical enough. In fact, my critique is that "marriage equality" entrenches marriage and therefore represents a move in the opposite direction of where a socialist society should want to take us. Arguing for "marriage equality" is the equivalent of arguing that we should disband labor organizations and stop participating in the political process, which would also move us in the opposite direction. It's a critique that you can't respond to, so all you do is just keep repeating the word "equality" like establishing "equality" among two groups represents some kind of progressive achievement when it comes at the cost of increasing inequality for other groups all while pressuring people to conform to a very narrow range of sexual lifestyles.

[Crux]

You are misrepresenting my position as being one where I oppose "marriage equality" because I don't think it's radical enough. In fact, my critique is that "marriage equality" entrenches marriage and therefore represents a move in the opposite direction of where a socialist society should want to take us. Arguing for "marriage equality" is the equivalent of arguing that we should disband labor organizations and stop participating in the political process, which would also move us in the opposite direction. It's a critique that you can't respond to, so all you do is just keep repeating the word "equality" like establishing "equality" among two groups represents some kind of progressive achievement when it comes at the cost of increasing inequality for other groups all while pressuring people to conform to a very narrow range of sexual lifestyles.
I can appreciate, even agree, with the opposition to marriage but central conflict here is hardly between single people and non-marrying same-sex couples. The right to marry would not necessarily solidify attitudes towards marriage that are not entrenched already and the benefits of winning that battle are still greater. It's a legal discrimination against same sex couples and as such it should be fought and opposed, especially given the very real movement there is in the U.S.

Nuvem:
Why does "forming a lasting relationship" necessarily imply marriage?

[graymouser]

You are misrepresenting my position as being one where I oppose "marriage equality" because I don't think it's radical enough. In fact, my critique is that "marriage equality" entrenches marriage and therefore represents a move in the opposite direction of where a socialist society should want to take us. Arguing for "marriage equality" is the equivalent of arguing that we should disband labor organizations and stop participating in the political process, which would also move us in the opposite direction. It's a critique that you can't respond to, so all you do is just keep repeating the word "equality" like establishing "equality" among two groups represents some kind of progressive achievement when it comes at the cost of increasing inequality for other groups all while pressuring people to conform to a very narrow range of sexual lifestyles.
There is nothing about this critique that I "can't" respond to. Your point is quite the same as any posturing, ultraleft argument against expanding bourgeois liberties. How is, for instance, expanding voting rights in a parliamentary system not "entrenching bourgeois democracy" and "moving in the opposite direction" of a socialist society? The deeper the connection that oppressed groups have to bourgeois democracy, the further we are from a socialist revolution. Yet we do not turn up our noses at this expansion. By definition, any bourgeois freedom is relative to something that we would rather not have exist at all after the revolution.

For an even more accurate analogy, being consistent in this position would mean that you would have opposed the end of laws banning interracial marriage during the 1960s. After all, this moved in the "opposite direction" by "entrenching marriage," right? It had exactly the same problems as your position on gay marriage. Should Marxists have scoffed at the brave men and women who married across the color lines in the 1960s and dismissed what they did as irrelevant? And FWIW, if you say yes, I'm putting you on my ignore list.

As for the idea that it "increases inequality" - only in a very bizarre and mechanical view that looks at the tax pool as a zero-sum game. I don't even think that the argument can hold water with the most radical elements.

[Lucretia]

There is nothing about this critique that I "can't" respond to. Your point is quite the same as any posturing, ultraleft argument against expanding bourgeois liberties. How is, for instance, expanding voting rights in a parliamentary system not "entrenching bourgeois democracy" and "moving in the opposite direction" of a socialist society? The deeper the connection that oppressed groups have to bourgeois democracy, the further we are from a socialist revolution. Yet we do not turn up our noses at this expansion. By definition, any bourgeois freedom is relative to something that we would rather not have exist at all after the revolution.

For an even more accurate analogy, being consistent in this position would mean that you would have opposed the end of laws banning interracial marriage during the 1960s. After all, this moved in the "opposite direction" by "entrenching marriage," right? It had exactly the same problems as your position on gay marriage. Should Marxists have scoffed at the brave men and women who married across the color lines in the 1960s and dismissed what they did as irrelevant? And FWIW, if you say yes, I'm putting you on my ignore list.

As for the idea that it "increases inequality" - only in a very bizarre and mechanical view that looks at the tax pool as a zero-sum game. I don't even think that the argument can hold water with the most radical elements.

The fact that you consider the entrenchment of marriage as a case of "expanding liberties" shows just how warped your understanding of marriage is. Marriage is not a freedom. It is a legal institution that by its very nature is designed to funnel money and benefits to people who agree to engage in sexual relationships that the state prioritizes. The issue is not the simple dichotomy of "more freedom" versus "less freedom" you want to boil it down to. I've explained this repeatedly and yet you refuse to actually engage this point, instead just saying it's not right.

And by the way, as far as I know, Marxists did not start massive campaigns around the issue of interracial marriage in the 1950s and 1960s. Wanna guess why? Because they were too busy fighting for voting rights and jobs for African Americans (an actual expansion of freedom). Not to mention the fact that Marxists at the time held the correct view that state-sanctioned marriage was a bourgeois institution designed to prop up bourgeois property relations and capitalist ideology.

I am not just opposed to state-sanctioned interracial marriage. I am opposed to all state-sanctioned marriage. And arguing to expand and entrench state-sanctioned marriage to cover new groups of people moves us in the opposite direction we want to be headed in. I don't know how I can make my position any clearer than that.

[Lucretia]

I can appreciate, even agree, with the opposition to marriage but central conflict here is hardly between single people and non-marrying same-sex couples. The right to marry would not necessarily solidify attitudes towards marriage that are not entrenched already and the benefits of winning that battle are still greater. It's a legal discrimination against same sex couples and as such it should be fought and opposed, especially given the very real movement there is in the U.S.

Nuvem:
Why does "forming a lasting relationship" necessarily imply marriage?

The relationships of same-sex couples do not fall under the current definition of marriage. But neither do many other relationships. Why should we legitimize only same-sex monogamous unions, and force the millions of people who engage in the other types of relationships to foot the bill because they are not included in the state's big tent of preferred sexuality?

[graymouser]

The fact that you consider the entrenchment of marriage as a case of "expanding liberties" shows just how warped your understanding of marriage is. Marriage is not a freedom. It is a legal institution that by its very nature is designed to funnel money and benefits to people who agree to engage in sexual relationships that the state prioritizes. The issue is not the simple dichotomy of "more freedom" versus "less freedom" you want to boil it down to. I've explained this repeatedly and yet you refuse to actually engage this point, instead just saying it's not right.
You have certainly asserted this view of marriage. As I said upthread, I view marriage as a property relationship fundamentally, and I think that locking people out of property relationships under capitalism based on sexuality is something where we have an obligation to take a fairly straightforward stand.


And by the way, as far as I know, Marxists did not start massive campaigns around the issue of same-sex marriage in the 1950s and 1960s. Wanna guess why? Because they were too busy fighting for voting rights and jobs for African Americans (an actual expansion of freedom). Not to mention the fact that Marxists at the time held the correct view that state-sanctioned marriage was a bourgeois institution designed to prop up bourgeois property relations and capitalist ideology.

I am not just opposed to state-sanctioned interracial marriage. I am opposed to all state-sanctioned marriage. And arguing to expand and entrench state-sanctioned marriage to cover new groups of people moves us in the opposite direction we want to be headed in. I don't know how I can make my position any clearer than that.
And this whole "entrench" argument is a red herring, because the question is not whether we will have marriage or not as a society, but whether in a society that has marriage, those benefits will be extended to gay and lesbian couples as well. Honestly, you are making an elementary ultraleft argument here and trying to use some verbiage about "entrenching" and where we are "headed" to justify it, but it's the same basic argument. I am opposed to the wage system, but I am for workers getting higher wages. I am opposed to bourgeois parliaments, but I am for black people getting to vote. I am opposed to the bourgeois institution of marriage, but I am for gays and lesbians getting to marry. This is not a "one of these things is not like the other" case.

[Lucretia]

You have certainly asserted this view of marriage. As I said upthread, I view marriage as a property relationship fundamentally, and I think that locking people out of property relationships under capitalism based on sexuality is something where we have an obligation to take a fairly straightforward stand.


And this whole "entrench" argument is a red herring, because the question is not whether we will have marriage or not as a society, but whether in a society that has marriage, those benefits will be extended to gay and lesbian couples as well. Honestly, you are making an elementary ultraleft argument here and trying to use some verbiage about "entrenching" and where we are "headed" to justify it, but it's the same basic argument. I am opposed to the wage system, but I am for workers getting higher wages. I am opposed to bourgeois parliaments, but I am for black people getting to vote. I am opposed to the bourgeois institution of marriage, but I am for gays and lesbians getting to marry. This is not a "one of these things is not like the other" case.

You keep trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. All these arguments you are probably used to pulling out of the top drawer everytime somebody criticizes "marriage equality" just won't work on me, comrade. I've spent too much time thinking about this issue to be snookered by the same old talking points.

Marriage is a property relation, but it is a specific type of property relation, so to compare locking gays and lesbians out of it to prohibiting them from buying houses is dishonest. A more appropriate comparison would be preventing gays and lesbians from joining a club that allows them to receive pay-outs from other people who aren't members of the club. The reason being that the club itself should be abolished. Inviting more people into the club just compounds the discrimination -- the pay-outs -- imposed on the people who continue to be left out in the cold. This not a radical ultra-leftist argument. Many people who don't even identify as socialists or leftists recognize the injustice of legally sanctioned marriage. Check out the book Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, for one example.

As much as you want to try to take the question off the table, for whatever reason, the question is whether we should have state-sanctioned marriage. Now, of course, you might think that such marriage arrangements in which monogamous couples receive material benefits for engaging in a particular sexual arrangement should exist under socialism. But if that's the case, I think you need to present an arugment for it. If not, I have a hard time understanding why you support a policy that actually celebrates marriage as a positive good, and which the proponents themselves admit strengthens the legal institution.

We support trade unions because of the fact that it helps workers make greater demands on employers, thereby reducing the amount of exploitation in society even if it occasionally has the contradictory effect of stabilizing the capitalist system.

There is nothing contradictory about supporting "marriage equality." It is a bourgeois campaign through and through, supported in the main by people whose understanding of politics is about as irreconcilable with your ultra-orthodox marxism as I can possibly imagine. As of late a few working-class gays and lesbians have been convinced to throw their weight behind the issue because of its "symbolic importance." But don't mistakenly believe for even a second that the main supporters and financial backers of this issue have not from the very beginning been almost exclusively bourgeois gays and lesbians who want to live the kind of affluent lifestyle of respectability afforded to bourgeois heterosexuals.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marriage is a contractual formalisation of an interpersonal relationship. I see no good reason why LGBT folk should be excluded, or why it should be limited to two people.

As for the supposed tax benefits of marriage, that may be the case in the US, but as far as I can tell my parents paid just as much tax when they where married as when they became divorced - so it strikes me as a bit of a red herring.

[Crux]

The relationships of same-sex couples do not fall under the current definition of marriage. But neither do many other relationships. Why should we legitimize only same-sex monogamous unions, and force the millions of people who engage in the other types of relationships to foot the bill because they are not included in the state's big tent of preferred sexuality?
I am pretty sure I answered that point already. That's not the primary conflict I see here. That hardly means I think the right to marry is somehow the end of the road, rather I think such a victory might well open more doors and signify a step forward in general. Demands and issues are not static thing's that exist in some kind of void. That's not to say there sin't cause for raising further demands, and indeed criticize marriage as an institution.

[Nuvem]

Why does "forming a lasting relationship" necessarily imply marriage? It's not the legal ramifications or the social status of marriage that makes me want to marry someone. It's the vows involved and the ceremony of dedicating myself to one person because she is the most important person in the world to me. It may not be important to everyone and I never said that lasting relationships necessarily imply marriage, only that it must be respected as an option for those of us who wish to marry.


You do not demonstrate any logic with your post. Your argument is akin to:

"Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind, ergo Stevie Wonder is love."

:eek::tongue_smilie::w00t::star::reda::cursing:
Faulty logic You only prove my point. Since when does legitimate love involve any logic at all?If there WERE any logic in my choice to be with the woman I love, it would only serve to further your point, so you seek to assassinate my argument by calling it "faulty logic" and making a metaphor that in fact has no correlation with my argument. My argument isn't about logic, it's about how two people can love one another and choose to be married with no regard for social or material benefits, ergo any of the reasons you listed. Nor did I say a single word about Stevie Wonder or love being blind, so you can stick that right back down your throat along with your childish little array of smiley faces.

[graymouser]

Marriage is a property relation, but it is a specific type of property relation, so to compare locking gays and lesbians out of it to prohibiting them from buying houses is dishonest. A more appropriate comparison would be preventing gays and lesbians from joining a club that allows them to receive pay-outs from other people who aren't members of the club. The reason being that the club itself should be abolished. Inviting more people into the club just compounds the discrimination -- the pay-outs -- imposed on the people who continue to be left out in the cold. This not a radical ultra-leftist argument. Many people who don't even identify as socialists or leftists recognize the injustice of legally sanctioned marriage. Check out the book Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, for one example.
And I keep telling you, this is a terrible argument that you cannot win people over with. Capitalist society is full of unjust social structures that probably shouldn't exist in a socialist society, from the wage system itself on down. None of that means that it's not correct to demand that the government not lock people out from those structures based on sexual orientation.

Your argument over and over is that marriage shouldn't exist - although bluntly your reasoning is awful. The idea that married people "receive pay-outs" is only possible based on a zero-sum view of particular tax codes that simply doesn't hold water. Taxation is a totally separate issue from whether people should be allowed access in the first place, and your focus on it is a total loser as arguments against equality go.


As much as you want to try to take the question off the table, for whatever reason, the question is whether we should have state-sanctioned marriage. Now, of course, you might think that such marriage arrangements in which monogamous couples receive material benefits for engaging in a particular sexual arrangement should exist under socialism. But if that's the case, I think you need to present an arugment for it. If not, I have a hard time understanding why you support a policy that actually celebrates marriage as a positive good, and which the proponents themselves admit strengthens the legal institution.
As long as state-sanctioned marriage exists and gays and lesbians are blocked from it, that is a concrete barrier to LGBT people from participating in the normal life of society. You may want to bury your head in the sand about every aspect of modern marriage, but it's more than just a tax based transfer of wealth. Things like visitation rights, child custody, medical decisions, and the exemption from being forced to testify against your spouse accrue only with the legal status of marriage.

Your inability to separate the questions of "should it exist" and "should everyone have access to it if it exists" shows that you are in fact taking an ultraleft stance, that is, saying that the only solution to the unequal situation is to get rid of marriage entirely. But what other benefit is there? Well, the fight against gay marriage from the homophobes is really a last-ditch effort to preserve a heteronormative institution in a society that is increasingly tolerant of gay and lesbian lifestyles (although less so of transgendered people). I think you're underestimating the potential of actually breaking down that aspect of marriage as part of the overall process of weakening marriage as an institution in society.


We support trade unions because of the fact that it helps workers make greater demands on employers, thereby reducing the amount of exploitation in society even if it occasionally has the contradictory effect of stabilizing the capitalist system.

There is nothing contradictory about supporting "marriage equality." It is a bourgeois campaign through and through, supported in the main by people whose understanding of politics is about as irreconcilable with your ultra-orthodox marxism as I can possibly imagine. As of late a few working-class gays and lesbians have been convinced to throw their weight behind the issue because of its "symbolic importance." But don't mistakenly believe for even a second that the main supporters and financial backers of this issue have not from the very beginning been almost exclusively bourgeois gays and lesbians who want to live the kind of affluent lifestyle of respectability afforded to bourgeois heterosexuals.
And yet for many young people, it's become a litmus test of one's social attitudes. Seriously, when given an opportunity to break down the heteronormative aspect of the institution of marriage, why the hell not go for it? Your excuse that it's financially unfair to single and poly people has no resonance whatsoever in the larger debate. Your argument here is basically "oh noes it's the bourgie gays and lesbians" - but even in the civil rights movement there was a lot of support from the middle class Black leadership up until things got really radical in 1965-68.

[Lucretia]

And I keep telling you, this is a terrible argument that you cannot win people over with. Capitalist society is full of unjust social structures that probably shouldn't exist in a socialist society, from the wage system itself on down. None of that means that it's not correct to demand that the government not lock people out from those structures based on sexual orientation.

The wage system is contradictory. It is exploitative, yet it allows people to acquire the basic necessities. Explain for me, I ask you once again, what exactly is contradictory about marriage. What necessary function does it fulfill in society? Why do you think legally recognized marriage should exist under socialism? If you can't answer these questions, stop making this idiotic comparisons between marriage and the wage relation, or marriage and being allowed to buy a home. For the last time, they are not equivalent or comparable.


Your argument over and over is that marriage shouldn't exist - although bluntly your reasoning is awful. The idea that married people "receive pay-outs" is only possible based on a zero-sum view of particular tax codes that simply doesn't hold water.

What about it doesn't hold water? It's just elementary logic that if some groups of people in society have material benefits that others do not, and all social production is equal, that those receiving fewer benefits are necessarily subsidizing those receiving greater benefits. This logic applies to the case of marriage, unless you are somehow arguing that married people produce more of society's social product and therefore deserve more if its goods.


Taxation is a totally separate issue from whether people should be allowed access in the first place, and your focus on it is a total loser as arguments against equality go.

Taxation is a totally separate issue from how material benefits in a society are distributed. Uh huh. Sure, that makes sense to me. At least its on par with the quality of the logic I have grown to expect from you. :glare:


As long as state-sanctioned marriage exists and gays and lesbians are blocked from it, that is a concrete barrier to LGBT people from participating in the normal life of society.

Marriage is an institution that enshrines and offers people material benefits as a result of entering the approved type of sexual relationship. It prevents all kinds of people from participating in the "normal life" of society because, by its very nature, it stigmatizes all people whose sexual lives do not fit the state's criteria. Yet you seem totally okay with this, so long as we allow monogamous same-sex relationships into the club of privilege, all because you evidently think that the people lining up to get married are just a gentle nudge away from accepting orthodox Trotskyism. Talk about a morally bankrupt and politically naive position.


You may want to bury your head in the sand about every aspect of modern marriage, but it's more than just a tax based transfer of wealth.
Things like visitation rights, child custody, medical decisions, and the exemption from being forced to testify against your spouse accrue only with the legal status of marriage.
All of these issues should be decoupled from who somebody chooses to fuck. Again, even many non-Marxists are beginning to recognize how reactionary it is to attach these benefits to the idea of monogamy and sexuality, yet you as a revolutionary Marxists think we just need to strengthen marriage because it's already here. Why not make the same case for capitalism and drop the pretense of calling yourself a Marxist?


Your inability to separate the questions of "should it exist" and "should everyone have access to it if it exists" shows that you are in fact taking an ultraleft stance,

Technically, everybody has access to marriage. Every single person, regardless of their sexual preferences, has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a family member. This is why "equal access" is a red herring. What we are talking about is redefining an institution that is becoming obsolete, so that a few more people have access to it and can enjoy the unfair benefits that the institution bestows.


But what other benefit is there? Well, the fight against gay marriage from the homophobes is really a last-ditch effort to preserve a heteronormative institution in a society that is increasingly tolerant of gay and lesbian lifestyles (although less so of transgendered people). I think you're underestimating the potential of actually breaking down that aspect of marriage as part of the overall process of weakening marriage as an institution in society.

Oh, right. If we just had gay marriage, gay teens wouldn't commit suicide, right? I should support the campaign for "marriage equality" because odious homophobic people are against it. All of these arguments are shallow and cheap, not persuasive.

[L.A.P.]

Maybe the bourgeoisie do - certainly when movie stars get married it's for primarily financial reasons - but it's ridiculous to claim that romantic love does not factor into most marriages today. Where does this crap even come from?

No, but most marriage is really just based off of infatuation which what the problem is with most marriages I would say.

[9]

certainly when movie stars get married it's for primarily financial reasons - but it's ridiculous to claim that romantic love does not factor into most marriages today. Where does this crap even come from?

If you are insinuating that movie stars and people who are financially taken care of are the one's who marry for financial reasons - in contrast to working class people - that sounds pretty strange to me. I would think it would tend much more to be the single mother with three jobs and two kids who can barely survive on her own who would be driven to marry for financial reasons, in contrast to someone who is already well off.

[Ocean Seal]

Marriage is no longer relevant, abolishing or defending marriage is not for revolutionary leftists to do. Within a while it may abolish itself, or it may not, and it wouldn't matter simply because it is an institution that means nothing.

[Amphictyonis]

Her family is half made up of drug addled invalids...



Geez. Perhaps capitalism is a system which creates these "invalids"? What are your views on the millions of people in American prisons?

[graymouser]

The wage system is contradictory. It is exploitative, yet it allows people to acquire the basic necessities. Explain for me, I ask you once again, what exactly is contradictory about marriage. What necessary function does it fulfill in society? Why do you think legally recognized marriage should exist under socialism? If you can't answer these questions, stop making this idiotic comparisons between marriage and the wage relation, or marriage and being allowed to buy a home. For the last time, they are not equivalent or comparable.
You are attacking some bizarre strawman here, in that I've said that legal recognition of marriage would not be a part of a socialist society. I also don't think home ownership should be part of a socialist society - that doesn't mean I do not think that while it exists it should be equal. You have NOT dealt with the question of what to do while these institutions exist in the first place, which is why your approach is infantile ultra-leftism, irrelevant from the standpoint of where we actually are. And you have not shown why your "case" against supporting gay marriage would not also be a "case" against supporting interracial marriage.


What about it doesn't hold water? It's just elementary logic that if some groups of people in society have material benefits that others do not, and all social production is equal, that those receiving fewer benefits are necessarily subsidizing those receiving greater benefits. This logic applies to the case of marriage, unless you are somehow arguing that married people produce more of society's social product and therefore deserve more if its goods.
As I said, your argument is based on a zero-sum game which does not exist in reality. The "benefits" that accrue to married people are basically paying a lower price for certain services and paying lower taxes. These are not zero-sum questions, that is, there is not a certain amount in taxes that are going to come out no matter what, and there is a certain amount going for those services (like health insurance and so on) no matter what. Simply not true.


Taxation is a totally separate issue from how material benefits in a society are distributed. Uh huh. Sure, that makes sense to me. At least its on par with the quality of the logic I have grown to expect from you. :glare:
Taxation is a separate issue from access. Which is 100% true.


Marriage is an institution that enshrines and offers people material benefits as a result of entering the approved type of sexual relationship. It prevents all kinds of people from participating in the "normal life" of society because, by its very nature, it stigmatizes all people whose sexual lives do not fit the state's criteria. Yet you seem totally okay with this, so long as we allow monogamous same-sex relationships into the club of privilege, all because you evidently think that the people lining up to get married are just a gentle nudge away from accepting orthodox Trotskyism. Talk about a morally bankrupt and politically naive position.
Am I okay with marriage, institutionally, as it exists? Have I said that? Or are you making shit up for the sake of this argument? It turns out that the answer is #2.

I am married. I've been in a long-term, committed monogamous heterosexual relationship with a wonderful woman for over five years, and I plan to remain in this relationship for a long time to come. My wife and I discussed our situation and it is one where she felt it was important for her that we be married, as a question of permanent commitment, so we got married. That's our situation. My feeling has long been that marriage should not be a state institution. That doesn't mean we didn't legally get married, because that's the reality of a long-term committed monogamous heterosexual relationship in modern American society.


All of these issues should be decoupled from who somebody chooses to fuck. Again, even many non-Marxists are beginning to recognize how reactionary it is to attach these benefits to the idea of monogamy and sexuality, yet you as a revolutionary Marxists think we just need to strengthen marriage because it's already here. Why not make the same case for capitalism and drop the pretense of calling yourself a Marxist?
Being a Marxist means that one has to oppose institutional discrimination against oppressed groups even when the institution itself is not worth salvaging. You could make the same ultra-leftist argument in dozens of places where discrimination has taken place in the past - you could say 50 years ago that we're against Woolworth's as an institution, so it doesn't matter whether their lunch counters become integrated, the important thing is to get rid of Woolworth's. If you support the young Black people who defied arrest to be served at Woolworth's, why even call yourself a Marxist?


Technically, everybody has access to marriage. Every single person, regardless of their sexual preferences, has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex who is not a family member. This is why "equal access" is a red herring. What we are talking about is redefining an institution that is becoming obsolete, so that a few more people have access to it and can enjoy the unfair benefits that the institution bestows.
Again, this argument could be made against having legalized interracial marriage decades ago. It's so far removed from the reality that people are living that it's really almost comi-tragic; you are adrift in a world of pure theory, where all that matters is whether the institutions of society become actually equitable and a movement of people for access to an otherwise backward institution doesn't matter because that institution's not up to your standards. You have nothing to contribute to real people in motion. Happily that means you're stuck in a world of your words and your pure ideals, and won't do any damage in the real one.

[Amphictyonis]

True monogamy can hardly exist under conditions of scarcity and inequality.

[Lucretia]

You are attacking some bizarre strawman here, in that I've said that legal recognition of marriage would not be a part of a socialist society.

I won't bother circling wagons with you over and over again. You've made it clear that you won't respond substantively to the content of the things I say and are just writing them off with simplistic one-liners. But the quoted passage above really begs the question: if the goal of socialists is a society in which there is no legalized marriage, why do you support same-sex marriage? Do you think this is making progress in a movement to abolish marriage? Do you think it moves society in the direction of socialism?

Now, I support labor unions despite the fact that the existence of labor unions indicates the existence of capitalism, which I oppose. But I support labor unions because of the fact that it reduces exploitation and encourages class consciousness. Both of which move us in the direction of a socialist society.

I repeat, how does supporting the redefinition of marriage to enable people of the same sex to get married move us in the direction of a socialist society? And don't come at me with the same old bullshit talking point about "supporting equality." If you supported equality, you'd support treating all people equally before the law, which is exactly what marriage prevents. The "equality" you support is between the right of monogamous heterosexuals and monogamous homosexuals to enter a pact which provides them material benefits that don't just accrue magically out of thin air, but accrue at the expense of people who are not married. "Marriage equality" is not about social equality. It's about enabling a narrow group of people -- mostly bourgeois homosexual couples wanting to make lifelong commitments -- to enjoy the same benefits, premised on social inequality, that hetero married couples enjoy.

If we have an institution which is designed to create inequality, we as Marxists try to destroy that institution. We do not try to expand people's access to that institution in the name of being equitable.

[graymouser]

If we have an institution which is designed to create inequality, we as Marxists try to destroy that institution. We do not try to expand people's access to that institution in the name of being equitable.
There are two parts to this that I want to address, because I think you are taking an extremely ultra-left stance on this issue.

The first is, you have no plan for what to do while marriage still exists. That is, what I have been saying is that legal marriage shouldn't exist, but if it does, it has to be open to people who aren't straight, aren't of the same race, aren't of conveniently opposite genders, and so on. You have moved away from the real situation - that marriage exists - to one of your own liking, simply saying that marriage shouldn't exist and that's all we have to say about it. Well, sure it shouldn't exist, but what I can't do is go along with a stance that says that we should just let it be a private reserve for hetero couples while it does. That won't fix everything that's wrong with it, but it will help.

The second is, I don't think "let's abolish legal marriage" is a slogan that is very operable these days. I mean, yeah, it'll get you some hard-core feminists, but in my eye it's about as relevant to what is going on as telling a bunch of workers on strike that they should quit that nonsense and form soviets. At some level you need to be addressing workers from where they are, and get them to where you want them to be, not to simply sit on your laurels and demand that they come to where you are. Maybe the situation will arise where it's an operative demand - but I would wager that not many of the 40% who see marriage as obsolete would stand for its total dissolution as a legal structure.

[brigadista]

unequal commercial contract plain and simple originally an institution of the aristocratic class to ensure their wealth did not leave their class and an institution bolstered by the church to control women and support class interests

[Lucretia]

There are two parts to this that I want to address, because I think you are taking an extremely ultra-left stance on this issue.

The first is, you have no plan for what to do while marriage still exists. That is, what I have been saying is that legal marriage shouldn't exist, but if it does, it has to be open to people who aren't straight, aren't of the same race, aren't of conveniently opposite genders, and so on. You have moved away from the real situation - that marriage exists - to one of your own liking, simply saying that marriage shouldn't exist and that's all we have to say about it. Well, sure it shouldn't exist, but what I can't do is go along with a stance that says that we should just let it be a private reserve for hetero couples while it does. That won't fix everything that's wrong with it, but it will help.

The second is, I don't think "let's abolish legal marriage" is a slogan that is very operable these days. I mean, yeah, it'll get you some hard-core feminists, but in my eye it's about as relevant to what is going on as telling a bunch of workers on strike that they should quit that nonsense and form soviets. At some level you need to be addressing workers from where they are, and get them to where you want them to be, not to simply sit on your laurels and demand that they come to where you are. Maybe the situation will arise where it's an operative demand - but I would wager that not many of the 40% who see marriage as obsolete would stand for its total dissolution as a legal structure.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I try to take positions indicative of wanting to eliminate marriage, then I am "not taking account of the real situation." By the same logic, I suppose if I try to take stopgap measures to weaken capitalism, then I am also not taking account of the "real situation" that capitalism exists.

Do you intend on answering my question? If the goal of socialists (as you admit it is) is a society in which there is no legalized marriage, why do you support same-sex marriage? Do you think this is making progress in a movement to abolish marriage? If it does not, how or when do you think we should begin the process of eliminating the legal institution of marriage? It sounds like some pie-in-the-sky dream that will perpetually be postponed to some never-to-arrive hereafter.

[Martin Blank]

Do you intend on answering my question? If the goal of socialists (as you admit it is) is a society in which there is no legalized marriage, why do you support same-sex marriage? Do you think this is making progress in a movement to abolish marriage? If it does not, how or when do you think we should begin the process of eliminating the legal institution of marriage? It sounds like some pie-in-the-sky dream that will perpetually be postponed to some never-to-arrive hereafter.

Since it seems that no one else can muster up the argument, I will.

Supporting the right of same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license and certificate from the state in which they live is a question of equal protection under the law, as defined by Section 1 of the XIV Amendment:


1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added)

For communists, the issue here is not marriage, either as an institution or as a concept, but equal protection and equal access to public services. Whether we like it or not, obtaining a marriage license and certificate is a public service, just like getting a fishing license or a birth certificate or even riding on a publicly-funded mass transit system. Therefore, as marriage is a legal standing recognized by the state, the right of any U.S. citizen to successfully apply and receive that state service must be protected, and access must be granted equally.

You will note that the laws being passed in relation to same-sex marriage are laws that restrict the rights of these couples, not expand them. There is a tacit acknowledgment in these laws that equal protection does apply, since the stated intent is to take that protection away. These are similar to the "anti-miscegenation" laws passed in the last century to keep African Americans and whites from marrying. The 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia declared:


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.... There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.The Loving decision provides precedent for the current cases winding their way through federal courts, especially those coming from California in response to the passage of Proposition 8 two years ago. This is why the Republicans (and some Democrats) have been so inclined as to push for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage along heterosexual lines. Without such an amendment restricting the rights of citizens and denying them equal access to this state service, they know that the Loving decision will be cited as precedent for enforcing equal protection in the obtaining of a marriage license and certificate.

If elements of the exploiting and oppressing classes are successful in restricting access to public services and establishing unequal protection under the law in this situation, it opens the door to similar actions by states and the federal government in other areas. Indeed, it could be used to roll back virtually all civil rights legislation adopted (and upheld by the courts) for the last 50 years.

People are right when they call this the "civil rights question of our time". The implications in relation to the XIV Amendment are no different than they were in the Loving decision, or Brown v. Board of Education, or Bolling v. Sharpe, or a myriad of other landmark "equal protection" cases.

Opposing marriage as an institution and defending equal protection (equal access) under the law are not mutually exclusive. In fact, quite the opposite. It is only through defending basic democratic and civil rights that we can fully and properly point out the inherently unequal and undemocratic relations that exist in the bourgeois family unit -- that we can show how capitalism reduces the family to an economic unit for the purposes of production and reproduction of classes. In this sense, by defending the democratic right to marriage equality, we can argue against the marriage institution itself by pointing out its anti-democratic underpinnings.

[Lucretia]

For communists, the issue here is not marriage, either as an institution or as a concept, but equal protection and equal access to public services. Whether we like it or not, obtaining a marriage license and certificate is a public service, just like getting a fishing license or a birth certificate or even riding on a publicly-funded mass transit system. Therefore, as marriage is a legal standing recognized by the state, the right of any U.S. citizen to successfully apply and receive that state service must be protected, and access must be granted equally.

You will note that the laws being passed in relation to same-sex marriage are laws that restrict the rights of these couples, not expand them. There is a tacit acknowledgment in these laws that equal protection does apply, since the stated intent is to take that protection away. These are similar to the "anti-miscegenation" laws passed in the last century to keep African Americans and whites from marrying. The 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia declared:

The Loving decision provides precedent for the current cases winding their way through federal courts, especially those coming from California in response to the passage of Proposition 8 two years ago. This is why the Republicans (and some Democrats) have been so inclined as to push for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage along heterosexual lines. Without such an amendment restricting the rights of citizens and denying them equal access to this state service, they know that the Loving decision will be cited as precedent for enforcing equal protection in the obtaining of a marriage license and certificate.

If elements of the exploiting and oppressing classes are successful in restricting access to public services and establishing unequal protection under the law in this situation, it opens the door to similar actions by states and the federal government in other areas. Indeed, it could be used to roll back virtually all civil rights legislation adopted (and upheld by the courts) for the last 50 years.

People are right when they call this the "civil rights question of our time". The implications in relation to the XIV Amendment are no different than they were in the Loving decision, or Brown v. Board of Education, or Bolling v. Sharpe, or a myriad of other landmark "equal protection" cases.

Opposing marriage as an institution and defending equal protection (equal access) under the law are not mutually exclusive. In fact, quite the opposite. It is only through defending basic democratic and civil rights that we can fully and properly point out the inherently unequal and undemocratic relations that exist in the bourgeois family unit -- that we can show how capitalism reduces the family to an economic unit for the purposes of production and reproduction of classes. In this sense, by defending the democratic right to marriage equality, we can argue against the marriage institution itself by pointing out its anti-democratic underpinnings.

This is just a wordy version of the same tired and non-sensical argument that mouser has been posting over and over again, just with references to the US Constitution of all things thrown into the mix.

Are you going to actually answer the question: if the goal is to eliminate legal recognition of marriage, how does redefining marriage to permit people of the same sex to be married, which effectively reinforces the legal institution of marriage, lead us in that direction?

It's a very simple question, yet Marxist advocates of same-sex marriage seem unable to answer it.

[Sosa]

Because its more important to fight against laws that restrict the rights of individuals.

[Martin Blank]

Are you going to actually answer the question: if the goal is to eliminate legal recognition of marriage, how does redefining marriage to permit people of the same sex to be married, which effectively reinforces the legal institution of marriage, lead us in that direction?

Actually, that's not the question you asked. You asked: "If the goal of socialists (as you admit it is) is a society in which there is no legalized marriage, why do you support same-sex marriage?" That's the question I answered.

As for this question, I can argue it from two perspectives: 1) that the question of same-sex marriage can open up a broader dialogue on democratic rights and democratic principles, which then allows communists to present its view on the undemocratic character of marriage as it exists, or 2) that expanding marriage as a legal institution beyond its "traditional" parameters (as a means of defining legal inheritance and "legitimacy" in procreation) undermines its position as a key social relationship in bourgeois society. Which would you prefer?

[Lucretia]

Actually, that's not the question you asked. You asked: "If the goal of socialists (as you admit it is) is a society in which there is no legalized marriage, why do you support same-sex marriage?" That's the question I answered.

Conveniently omitting the context of the question, which came before my asking "Do you think this is making progress in a movement to abolish marriage? If it does not, how or when do you think we should begin the process of eliminating the legal institution of marriage?"



As for this question, I can argue it from two perspectives: 1) that the question of same-sex marriage can open up a broader dialogue on democratic rights and democratic principles, which then allows communists to present its view on the undemocratic character of marriage as it exists,Now we're getting down to what's called the nitty gritty. What you're saying here is that supporting same-sex marriage is important, because it will allow communists to "present its view on the undemocratic nature of marriage as it exists." As if a definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples suddenly becomes democratic. It doesn't, which is why socialists want to abolish the legal recognition of marriage. I fail to see how fighting for same-sex marriage moves us any closer to the socialist vision of a society without legally recognized marriage, and to be honest your answer doesn't cut it. Perhaps if injustices you allude to here were used to show how marriage itself is undemocratic, this might work. But then again, why support reinforcing an institution which is obviously anti-democratic and by its very nature treats individuals differently based on whether or not they choose to enter the right kind of relationship?


or 2) that expanding marriage as a legal institution beyond its "traditional" parameters (as a means of defining legal inheritance and "legitimacy" in procreation) undermines its position as a key social relationship in bourgeois society. Which would you prefer?I prefer neither, because number 2 makes equally little sense as answer 1. You are trying to attribute to the campaign for same-sex marriage the opposite goals which the fiercest advocates of the campaign have. They openly and proudly proclaim that the goal is not to "undermine marriage's institution as a key social relationship in bourgeois society," but rather to strengthen marriage by allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the same bourgeois benefits, to pass on their property to their adopted children (which, of course, is why same-sex marriage is an issue that has grown in tandem with the issue of adoption by same-sex couples). While I have been repeatedly accused of burying my head and not taking account of the real situation, it is actually answers like this which betray a profound misreading of the political situation - almost to the point of dishonesty about what is actually being advocated for and why.

The fact that "non-traditional" couples do not have the same benefits as married couples does expose the undemocratic nature of marriage, but it does so by exposing how all people not in a relationship deemed appropriate by the state lack the benefits of marriage. Instead of using this insight to tear down the undemocratic legal institution, which is what Marxists should be doing, we have feeble and non-sensical arguments which abstract "equality" from the whole social situation and pretend that the overall goal of socialists should be equality between monogamous sexual pairings rather than overall social equality. Marriage is an institution that is designed to promote inequality, and strengthening it is to strengthen inequality. This is why claiming that same-sex marriage is about "equality" is misleading. It is about equality between two specific portions of the population, who if socialists in this thread had their way would still enjoy all the anti-democratic benefits that marriage as a legal institution bestows on them and not on everybody else. So let me repeat: even advocates of same-sex marriage implicitly recognize that there will be no marriage in a socialist society: it, by its very definition, creates inequality and should be abolished. The only salient question is why people who recognize this fact bother with advocating for redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage.

[MellowViper]

The way I see it, if the revolution leads to the abolishment of marriage as we know it, then it'll happen that way. The focus should just be on creating a more classless society. I don't think there will ever be a situation in which free love works. There has to be some sort of commitment, especially when it comes to child rearing.

[Sosa]

the dissolution of marriage would just evolve naturally, its not something that should be imposed

[Lucretia]

The way I see it, if the revolution leads to the abolishment of marriage as we know it, then it'll happen that way. The focus should just be on creating a more classless society. I don't think there will ever be a situation in which free love works. There has to be some sort of commitment, especially when it comes to child rearing.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not calling for the abolition of monogamy. I cam calling for the abolition of special legal privileges to people in monogamous relationships.

[Magón]

All you have to do is write up a living will, add the name of the one you love/care for in it, put some junk of yours that you won't be needing anymore by their name, and BAM! Instant they get your junk when you croak. Also, it's a lot less messy if you break up and want to erase his/her name from it all and add a new person's name.

Putting a ring on a finger, and having some dude in an Elvis costume, or a dark robe isn't very romantic in my eyes.

[Rafiq]

Women, especially in there teen years, feel pressured that they are obligated to marry.

It is almost like society is forcing them to marry

[Magón]

Women, especially in there teen years, feel pressured that they are obligated to marry.

It is almost like society is forcing them to marry

Well there are those arranged marriages that happen in some countries/cultures, and are a big part of those societies, and sometimes start when the kids are still not even close to hitting puberty. Mexican societies are like that in some places, and it's a serious pain when you're like me and think marriage is a waste of time and money.

[Martin Blank]

The fact that "non-traditional" couples do not have the same benefits as married couples does expose the undemocratic nature of marriage, but it does so by exposing how all people not in a relationship deemed appropriate by the state lack the benefits of marriage. Instead of using this insight to tear down the undemocratic legal institution, which is what Marxists should be doing, we have feeble and non-sensical arguments which abstract "equality" from the whole social situation and pretend that the overall goal of socialists should be equality between monogamous sexual pairings rather than overall social equality. Marriage is an institution that is designed to promote inequality, and strengthening it is to strengthen inequality. This is why claiming that same-sex marriage is about "equality" is misleading. It is about equality between two specific portions of the population, who if socialists in this thread had their way would still enjoy all the anti-democratic benefits that marriage as a legal institution bestows on them and not on everybody else. So let me repeat: even advocates of same-sex marriage implicitly recognize that there will be no marriage in a socialist society: it, by its very definition, creates inequality and should be abolished. The only salient question is why people who recognize this fact bother with advocating for redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage.

Using this method, one can casually dismiss any type of reform raised within the confines of capitalism. Why bother supporting a reform like single-payer health care since it reinforces and expands of the power of the capitalist state, and we want that abolished? Why bother defending voting rights laws for women, African Americans, etc., since they reinforce the view that progress can be made by the two-party system or capitalist governments, and we want that abolished? Why bother opposing privatization of public services since that only preserves the monopoly of power held by the government and state, and we want that abolished? Why bother fighting the abolition or privatizing of Social Security? Why bother fighting attempts to raise the retirement age? Why bother fighting to stop a war? Why bother with doing anything like this? Instead of defending civil rights legislation and programs, we should be opposing them because these laws are poorly formulated and only create illusions in bourgeois equality, which is itself inherently unequal and undemocratic. Instead of supporting strikes, we should be opposing them because unions seek to preserve "class peace" and an equilibrium between capital and labor, which is an illusion that serves to keep workers subjugated. Instead of fighting austerity, we should do nothing because the capitalist system is exploitative and pushing back against these attacks breeds illusions in capitalism guarding "equality".

Now, if this is your position, you should be honest and say so, instead of just needling people. If this is not your position, you might want to take a little time and re-evaluate what you're saying.

[Lucretia]

Using this method, one can casually dismiss any type of reform raised within the confines of capitalism. Why bother supporting a reform like single-payer health care since it reinforces and expands of the power of the capitalist state, and we want that abolished?
Why bother defending voting rights laws for women, African Americans, etc., since they reinforce the view that progress can be made by the two-party system or capitalist governments, and we want that abolished?

None of these is comparable to the position I hold on marriage. Why bother supporting single-payer? Because it represents the removal of a major industry from private enterprise, and guarantees health care for all, which brings us a lot closer to what health care would be like under socialism. Why bother with defending voting rights of minorities? Because under a socialist society, there will be universal suffrage. And if these populations lost the franchise, it would take us further away from socialism. Again, I am not opposed to reform. I am opposed to people supporting some abstract concept of equality even if it means reinforcing institutions which socialists should be trying to abolish.


Why bother opposing privatization of public services since that only preserves the monopoly of power held by the government and state, and we want that abolished? Why bother fighting the abolition or privatizing of Social Security? Why bother fighting attempts to raise the retirement age? Why bother fighting to stop a war?Huh? We fight privatization of public services because public ownership/control of property is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the establishment of a socialist society. We fight attempts to gut social security because, again, these are gains that the working-class has made against capitalism in a way that makes society more closely resemble socialism. What inane comparisons you're making here.


Instead of defending civil rights legislation and programs, we should be opposing them because these laws are poorly formulated and only create illusions in bourgeois equality, which is itself inherently unequal and undemocratic. Instead of supporting strikes, we should be opposing them because unions seek to preserve "class peace" and an equilibrium between capital and labor, which is an illusion that serves to keep workers subjugated. Instead of fighting austerity, we should do nothing because the capitalist system is exploitative and pushing back against these attacks breeds illusions in capitalism guarding "equality".We support civil rights claims, or claims to equality, when those claims lead us down the path to the kind of society we wish to build. Not when they lead us in the opposite direction. If we took your approach, which seems to be an unconditional and thoughtless defense of "equality" abstracted from concrete social considerations of which institution we're advocating "equal access" to, we'd be supporting the right of all people to own slaves in a society where that "right" is restricted to heterosexual white men. Perish the thought that any Marxist might be opposed to an issue of civil equality!


Now, if this is your position, you should be honest and say so, instead of just needling people. If this is not your position, you might want to take a little time and re-evaluate what you're saying.I've stated repeatedly what my position is, including in this response. It really can't be helped that it hasn't registered with you.

[Rafiq]

Well there are those arranged marriages that happen in some countries/cultures, and are a big part of those societies, and sometimes start when the kids are still not even close to hitting puberty. Mexican societies are like that in some places, and it's a serious pain when you're like me and think marriage is a waste of time and money.

Current Marriage all around the world is just stupid.

But if two human beings really want to spend the rest of their lives together, I don't see a problem with that kind of "Marriage".

But those usually never work.

[Lucretia]

Current Marriage all around the world is just stupid.

But if two human beings really want to spend the rest of their lives together, I don't see a problem with that kind of "Marriage".

But those usually never work.

Absolutely. I do not seek the abolition of marriage. I seek the abolition of the state institution of marriage. Those are two entirely different things. If two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, and choose to hold a commitment ceremony to celebrate it, that's their concern.

[Kléber]

The only salient question is why people who recognize this fact bother with advocating for redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage.
Because it's a step in the right direction. Sure, it would be better if civil unions could have all the same legal privileges and tax benefits as marriages, and even better that we had universal free love without any problems, but if a measure being voted on is whether to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples, then revolutionaries should support the LGBT community in acquiring democratic rights. Let's agitate for full communism but also support reforms that help people right now. It's a way for revolutionaries to popularize their ideas while showing support for progressive causes like equality of sexual preferences.

[Sosa]

I don't see why we cannot support reforms that help people in the short-term without of course losing sight of what our end goals in the long-term are.

[Rafiq]

Absolutely. I do not seek the abolition of marriage. I seek the abolition of the state institution of marriage. Those are two entirely different things. If two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, and choose to hold a commitment ceremony to celebrate it, that's their concern.


I could say almost every marriage, the two couples are not meant for each other.

However, I'm not saying it's completely bizzare for two human beings, who happen to absolutely match each other, to live together, without some kind of "ceremony""...

Like you said, people should be able to choose... But not to the point where the male has any dominance, or that Homosexual's are forbidden to.

[Revy]

I wonder if Lucretia were around 50 or 100 years ago, she would have been arguing that socialists shouldn't support equal voting rights of women and blacks or integration of schools because we should oppose electoralism and the education system. Certainly there were revolutionaries who did not care much for voting but they still saw equality in that matter a very important thing. Even more relevant I wonder if she would be protesting against left support of interracial marriage becoming legal because of her views on marriage. Imagine if interracial marriage was still illegal. No rational person would be saying, "stop trying to legalize it and bring more equality to marriage. Marriage is oppressive, y'all!" just because people are trying to stop that legal injustice. It just looks offensive to take that kind of position when people are trying to fight for gay equality.

Here's the deal. Even if you hate "the state institution" of marriage, at least recognize that while it is a state institution, it should be equal to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Just like if you hate voting, you shouldn't say we shouldn't try to keep that equal.

[Lucretia]

I wonder if Lucretia were around 50 or 100 years ago, she would have been arguing that socialists shouldn't support equal voting rights of women and blacks or integration of schools because we should oppose electoralism and the education system.

You don't have to "wonder" about my position on this at all, since I've responded to at least three other people trying to make the same ridiculous attack over and over again in this thread. I've pointed out repeatedly that I am not opposed to all electoralism, or reforms. I am against "reforms" that reform us away from our ultimate objectives. Stop setting up dishonest strawmen.


Here's the deal. Even if you hate "the state institution" of marriage, at least recognize that while it is a state institution, it should be equal to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Just like if you hate voting, you shouldn't say we shouldn't try to keep that equal.That's like saying: "Look, even if you oppose human enslavement, at least recognize that slavery exists and that only white men can own slaves. Slave-owning should be equal to both men and women."

No thanks. Instead I'll work to end all enslavement rather than reinforce it by opening slave ownership to a greater variety of people. Same with marriage.

Good luck on trying to build your revolutionary Marxist movement among the capitalist class of gays and lesbians who have been at the forefront of pushing this issue from the beginning. I'll get back with you in a few years to see how it's working out.

[Revy]

.....Because wanting the right to marry somebody is comparable to wanting to have the right to own slaves? I really don't understand this ridiculous comparison or what point you are trying to make with it.

Are you homophobic or something? There are millions of working class gays (not "capitalists") who want gay marriage because they want to be equal on a legal and social level. Is it because they uphold marriage as sacred or is it because this is the epitome of a love relationship between people in society, and that recognition could help move acceptance toward homosexuality forward?

You stated you had no problem with marriage, but only if it was done by the state. But electoralism is fine? So you only draw the line on the state when gay people are fighting for equal rights? How does this reform , "reform us away" from our objectives, if one of our objectives is to liberate all oppressed groups including gays and lesbians from inequality?

[graymouser]

That's like saying: "Look, even if you oppose human enslavement, at least recognize that slavery exists and that only white men can own slaves. Slave-owning should be equal to both men and women."

No thanks. Instead I'll work to end all enslavement rather than reinforce it by opening slave ownership to a greater variety of people. Same with marriage.

Good luck on trying to build your revolutionary Marxist movement among the capitalist class of gays and lesbians who have been at the forefront of pushing this issue from the beginning. I'll get back with you in a few years to see how it's working out.
This crosses a lot of lines, IMO ones that should not be crossed. You are basically saying that marriage is the moral equivalent of slave ownership, with a consequent attack on everyone who is married.

Marriage is a bourgeois institution, and the right to get married is a bourgeois-democratic one. The fact that a right is bourgeois does not exempt Marxists from struggling for it, and never has. Yet this is your only argument against it: that marriage is a bourgeois institution, so we cannot fight for equal access to it. But property and inheritance rights are also bourgeois rights, things that we would agitate to remove in a revolution; yet we are not all right if women can't inherit or African-Americans can't own property in a certain area. We aren't saying that inheritance or private property should exist after the revolution, but demanding equal access on a bourgeois basis. Slavery was an institution that had to be abolished even without a socialist revolution. Legal recognition of marriage is not even on a similar plain, and it is disingenous to make the argument you are making.

[Lucretia]

.....Because wanting the right to marry somebody is comparable to wanting to have the right to own slaves? I really don't understand this ridiculous comparison or what point you are trying to make with it.

They are comparable in a very important sense. They are institutions that socialists find problematic and, at least according to all the participants on this forum, have no place in a socialist society.


Are you homophobic or something? There are millions of working class gays (not "capitalists") who want gay marriage because they want to be equal on a legal and social level.Are you a misogynist or something? I'm sure in the hypothetical example I mentioned in my previous post that the women making the argument that they also want to be able to own slaves just want to be "equal" on a legal and social level. But since when was the goal of socialists just to tailgate on what certain social groups want rather than try to persuade these groups to fight for a socialist society?


Is it because they uphold marriage as sacred or is it because this is the epitome of a love relationship between people in society, and that recognition could help move acceptance toward homosexuality forward?Gays already get married, and many of them do every day in their places of worship. Yet acceptance of homosexuality has not been "moved forward" because of this. The repeal of sodomy laws with Lawrence v. Texas has similarly not increased social acceptance of homosexuality. The argument that same-sex marriage should be supported on the basis of its symbolic value is weak, while there are good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage as a part of a larger campaign against marriage as a legal institution.


You stated you had no problem with marriage, but only if it was done by the state. But electoralism is fine? So you only draw the line on the state when gay people are fighting for equal rights? Your question is vague. What does electoralism have to do with anything? If you're asking whether I support working through the electoral system in addition to working through direct action in order to fight for the working-class in a struggle for socialism, then my answer, which I have repeated again and again in this thread, is that yes, I do support "electoralism." But do I support using the electoral system to fight for tax cuts for the wealthy and to privatizing social security, the answer is no. Why? Because I am struggling for a socialist society. And no, I do not oppose only same-sex marriage. I oppose all marriage. There are many, many, many ways in which gays are treated inequitably where remedial actions would not require the support of an unjust and problematic institution. Look at the UN's recent vote granting a wink and a nod to states that want to arbitrarily execute gay people. Why don't Marxists take on these issues instead of tailgating on what for socialist purposes is a dead-end movement?


How does this reform , "reform us away" from our objectives, if one of our objectives is to liberate all oppressed groups including gays and lesbians from inequality?The key to your statement is liberate. We do not "liberate" people by allowing them to own slaves on an equal basis with existing slave-owners. And we do not "liberate" people by allowing some of them to marry on an equal basis with existing married people.

We liberate people and promote equality by destroying marriage as a legal institution rather than reinforcing it because it is an institution designed to discriminate against single people and others who do not have the officially sanctioned form of erotic lifestyle. Because it promises unequal material benefits, marriage often leads people to enter into loveless and abusive relationships that are then difficult to leave. Simply expanding who can become married will not liberate gay people anymore than marriage has liberated straight people. Anymore than allowing women the equal right to own slaves would liberate them. In order for the state institution of marriage to be "reformed" to address all these problems, it would effectively have to cease being marriage as we know it. Yet this is not what gays and lesbians wanting to marry want.

You do think the goal of socialists is to eliminate the legal institution of marriage, right?

[Lucretia]

This crosses a lot of lines, IMO ones that should not be crossed. You are basically saying that marriage is the moral equivalent of slave ownership, with a consequent attack on everyone who is married.

Here you go again putting words in my mouth. Quote any thing I have said that leads any reasonable person to believe that I think marriage is as immoral as slavery. I'll be waiting patiently for you to address this, and not to try to change the subject.

[graymouser]

Here you go again putting words in my mouth. Quote any thing I have said that leads any reasonable person to believe that I think marriage is as immoral as slavery. I'll be waiting patiently for you to address this, and not to try to change the subject.
You said the following:


That's like saying: "Look, even if you oppose human enslavement, at least recognize that slavery exists and that only white men can own slaves. Slave-owning should be equal to both men and women."

No thanks. Instead I'll work to end all enslavement rather than reinforce it by opening slave ownership to a greater variety of people. Same with marriage.
That is drawing a direct moral equivalence between slave ownership and marriage, especially in the context that it is the first equivalence you have allowed for marriage rights. You have specifically rejected any comparison to things like the right to vote in bourgeois elections or own property in the bourgeois system. However, you feel that it is perfectly valid to draw a comparison between the right to get married and the right to own slaves. Then you have the nerve to say I'm putting words in your mouth when called on it. No. You crossed a line here.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I live with the woman I love and wholly intend to marry. We love one another deeply and talk constantly about our future plans for marriage . . . I met her in high school three years ago.

Some people learn the hard way.

[Lucretia]

You said the following:


That is drawing a direct moral equivalence between slave ownership and marriage, especially in the context that it is the first equivalence you have allowed for marriage rights. You have specifically rejected any comparison to things like the right to vote in bourgeois elections or own property in the bourgeois system. However, you feel that it is perfectly valid to draw a comparison between the right to get married and the right to own slaves. Then you have the nerve to say I'm putting words in your mouth when called on it. No. You crossed a line here.

I don't know how to say this in a way that isn't insulting or condescending, but I'll say it anyways: you really need to learn to read carefully.

Nowhere in what you quoted is there any, any hint that I am discussing morality of any kind. All you've done here is quote where I an drawing an analogy (not equivalence) between support for marriage and support for slavery. But does that necessarily entail a moral component to the analogy? Of course not. For the purposes of my discussion the two institutions are similar insofar as they are institutions that socialists recognize are unjust and should be eliminated as part of the fight for socialism. Now, the reason I chose slavery is not that I thought it was morally equivalent to marriage, but because I wanted to choose an institution that is clearly unambiguously condemned in order to draw out the absurdity of socialists wanting to have more people invested in and strengthening an institution whose elimination is the goal of those same socialists, just because of the abstract notion of "equailty" divorced from any concrete specifics about the nature of the institution we are fighting for equal access to.

[graymouser]

I don't know how to say this in a way that isn't insulting or condescending, but I'll say it anyways: you really need to learn to read carefully.

Nowhere in what you quoted is there any, any hint that I am discussing morality of any kind. All you've done here is quote where I an drawing an analogy (not equivalence) between support for marriage and support for slavery. But does that necessarily entail a moral component to the analogy? Of course not. For the purposes of my discussion the two institutions are similar insofar as they are institutions that socialists recognize are unjust and should be eliminated as part of the fight for socialism. Now, the reason I chose slavery is not that I thought it was morally equivalent to marriage, but because I wanted to choose an institution that is clearly unambiguously condemned in order to draw out the absurdity of socialists wanting to have more people invested in and strengthening an institution whose elimination is the goal of those same socialists, just because of the abstract notion of "equailty" divorced from any concrete specifics about the nature of the institution we are fighting for equal access to.
The fact remains that you explicitly rejected analogies of marriage to other bourgeois-democratic rights such as voting and property ownership before choosing to compare it to slave-owning. What you are saying, by rejecting other analogies and choosing this one, is that marriage is closer to slave-owning than it is to voting. And that position has to be rejected, unconditionally.

When you complain that what is represented by gay marriage is an "abstract" equality, you are precisely wrong. It is part of the ebb and flow of movements that a particular concrete bit of equality, once denied, no matter how backward the form of that equality may seem, can become a rallying point for much deeper egalitarian movements. You demonstrate that you don't grasp how people go into motion, which is quite often over relatively trivial things, and that this can actually alter the landscape. And the person abstaining from everything and saying, "Fuck gay marriage, let's abolish the whole thing" doesn't participate in that and becomes alienated. That's why your position is ultraleft.

[Kléber]

I am against "reforms" that reform us away from our ultimate objectives.
Extending democratic rights to the LGBT community is a step in the right direction, not the wrong one. The only political result of using Marxist orthodoxy to reject the struggle for same-sex marriage will be that LGBT folks are alienated from Marxism. The only way to win over activists to revolutionary ideology is to fight alongside them in united fronts while maintaining our political independence. Religion and marriage are reactionary but unfortunately, most workers don't see them that way yet, so let's not give the right wing an advantage by attacking all the enemy fortresses at once.

If you want to talk about distractions from our ultimate objective - proletarian revolution - why not start with your ultraleft declaration of war on the institution of marriage. Marriage is a small enemy camp that can be surrounded and destroyed after the revolution. It would be just wonderful if we could overthrow the whole capitalist system, it would be nice if we could make civil unions legally equal to marriages, but if the struggle happening right now is whether or not LGBT people should have the same bourgeois marriage rights as straight people, they need our support! All power to the workers, yes to putting civil unions on an equal footing with church marriages, yes to same-sex marriage!