Marriage Expansion: Gay Couples?

[Lucretia]

I'm sure a few thousand indignant liberals, living in areas where there aren't even Chick-Fil-a restaurants, pledging to boycott them will completely change their mind on this issue. :sleep: And of course lost in this indignation is the fact that the civil institution of marriage is itself completely fucking backwards, and should be fought not consolidated through expansion.

[MuscularTophFan]

I'm sure a few thousand indignant liberals, living in areas where there aren't even Chick-Fil-a restaurants, pledging to boycott them will completely change their mind on this issue. :sleep:
You do realize that Chick-Fil-a has donated millions towards anti-gay organizations? Also Dan Cathy said gay marriage would "bring god's wrath on America." Dan Cathy has now entered into Fred Phelps anti-gay territory. If you go to Chick-Fil-a you are supporting bigotry and close minded views all warped up in the slogan of "family values."


And of course lost in this indignation is the fact that the civil institution of marriage is itself completely fucking backwards, and should be fought not consolidated through expansion.
In a perfect world marriage and government would be completely separate because marriage is a religious institution. Everyone should obatin a civil union granting everyone, straight or gay, all of the legal benefits under the law and let religious people get married in their religious institutions. But Jesus freaks aren't gonna allow that to happen because without the gay marriage debate they can't attack gay people and make them into second class citizens.

[Igor]

I'm sure a few thousand indignant liberals, living in areas where there aren't even Chick-Fil-a restaurants, pledging to boycott them will completely change their mind on this issue. :sleep: And of course lost in this indignation is the fact that the civil institution of marriage is itself completely fucking backwards, and should be fought not consolidated through expansion.

I don't think it's about thinking you can actually change Chick-fil-a somehow, it's more about the fact that you prefer your money going to those capitalist assholes who don't donate millions of dollars for openly anti-gay organizations. That's quite an understandable position in my opinion.

[Lucretia]

You do realize that Chick-Fil-a has donated millions towards anti-gay organizations? Also Dan Cathy said gay marriage would "bring god's wrath on America." Dan Cathy has now entered into Fred Phelps anti-gay territory. If you go to Chick-Fil-a you are supporting bigotry and close minded views all warped up in the slogan of "family values."


In a perfect world marriage and government would be completely separate because marriage is a religious institution. Everyone should obatin a civil union granting everyone, straight or gay, all of the legal benefits under the law and let religious people get married in their religious institutions. But Jesus freaks aren't gonna allow that to happen because without the gay marriage debate they can't attack gay people and make them into second class citizens.

And if I shop at a capitalist business, I am supporting capitalism, which ultimately is responsible for all state repression. I'm such a terrible person I think I might just want to start wringing my hands.

In all seriousness, though, I am not defending Chick-Fil-A's decisions to bankroll organizations that use their organized superstition as a justification for dehumanizing people or their sexuality. I am saying that the liberal outcry against this is grounded in reactionary views of their own about how political change happens (consumer-based politics, since liberal capitalism is assumed), and about the nature of the civil institution of marriage (which is that it is such an unqualified good, it should be open to as many people as possible rather than fought against). Nobody comes out pretty in this situation.

[MuscularTophFan]

And if I shop at a capitalist business, I am supporting capitalism, which ultimately is responsible for all state repression. I'm such a terrible person I think I might just want to start wringing my hands.
In all seriousness, though, I am not defending Chick-Fil-A's decisions to bankroll organizations that use their organized superstition as a justification for dehumanizing people or their sexuality. I am saying that the liberal outcry against this is grounded in reactionary views of their own about how political change happens (consumer-based politics, since liberal capitalism is assumed), and about the nature of the civil institution of marriage (which is that it is such an unqualified good, it should be open to as many people as possible rather than fought against). Nobody comes out pretty in this situation.
You are missing the entire point of what I'm saying. It doesn't really have any to do with the "civil institution of marriage" as it does with legal benefits. Religious retards don't realize that when they are talking about gay marriage what they are really talking about is "should gay couples have all of the legal benefits, rights, and privileges under the law as heterosexual couples?" People are so caught up over the word "marriage" they don't realize there are rights to marriage as well. As long as the government sancitions marriage gay couples should have all of the legal rights as heterosexual couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States


According to the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Government Accountability Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office) (GAO), there are 1,138[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States#cite_note-0) statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply to only male (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male)-female (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female) couples, from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_equality#United_States


In the United States, gay and lesbian Americans are not currently afforded the same rights and responsibilities[which? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] under current immigration law as their heterosexual counterparts. The Uniting American Families Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_American_Families_Act) would end this discrimination and establish immigration equality. Even though a number of US states have recognized same sex marriages and civil unions, immigration equality is still a long way off because the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the federal government from conferring any benefits to same sex couples.

[Lucretia]

You are missing the entire point of what I'm saying. It doesn't really have any to do with the "civil institution of marriage" as it does with legal benefits. Religious retards don't realize that when they are talking about gay marriage what they are really talking about is "should gay couples have all of the legal benefits, rights, and privileges under the law as heterosexual couples?" People are so caught up over the word "marriage" they don't realize there are rights to marriage as well. As long as the government sancitions marriage gay couples should have all of the legal rights as heterosexual couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_Un ited_States



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_equality#United_States

And all these legal benefits gay people are excluded from are benefits that all single people don't get either. And those "benefits" are also double-edged insofar as they often keep loveless and abusive relationships alive long past their expiration date. So spare me these talking points about how great marriage is. Those talking points are just that -- talking points that presuppose "equal access" in a liberal capitalist society as the be-all and end-all of politics. When you want to move beyond such a simplistic approach, you have to actually take the time to analyze various institutions, how they function in society, and whether or not we should be opening up access equally to everybody, or fighting the institution.

Nobody here is siding with Chick-Fil-A on this. Obviously their practices are reprehensible. But it's idiotic and in some ways regressive to take the position that the most vocal critics of their antics have staked out.

Also I would like to note that CFA has NOT sunk to a new low. This is an old low that they have been occupying for some time: CFA has been doing this kind of shit for decades, going back to their partnership with Focus on the Family in the late '80s. People who seem to think that this is some new outrageous development are demonstrating just how poorly informed they are about things besides the desirability of marriage as a civil institution.

[Leftsolidarity]

should be fought not consolidated through expansion.

Marriage inequality has real effects. Also, why do I want to fight against marriage? I might not like the thought of it all that much but if consenting people decide that they want to be married, why not? As it stands, with the government not allowing same-sex marriage it puts all queer people below heterosexual people. It is targeted oppression against the Queer community.

Another thing, are you Queer? If not, you have no business telling us what we should and should not be fighting for.

Edit: Idk if this is all getting off topic. If it is, I'd prefer a Mod to split it to a new thread for discussion instead of trashing it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Split thread from here...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/chik-fil-sinks-t173834/index.html

[Lucretia]

Marriage inequality has real effects. Also, why do I want to fight against marriage? I might like it the thought of it all that much but if consenting people decide that they want to be married, why not? As it stands, with the government not allowing same-sex marriage it puts all queer people below heterosexual people. It is targeted oppression against the Queer community.

Another thing, are you Queer? If not, you have no business telling us what we should and should not be fighting for.

Edit: Idk if this is all getting off topic. If it is, I'd prefer a Mod to split it to a new thread for discussion instead of trashing it.

The civil institution of marriage is itself oppressive in many, many respects, and many of these oppressive aspects are also what people tout as marriage's "benefits." I understand most of the participants on this forum aren't even old enough to drive much less old enough to have experience with marriage, but it's still all about the manipulation and transfer of property. And these qualities of the institution coerce people into staying locked into relationships that they shouldn't be in, some of them highly abusive. Marriage as a civil institution is mostly about controlling people's intimate relationships through use of certain economic and cultural benefits to legitimize those relationships. This should be combated directly, not reinforced by liberal campaigns for "equal access."

By the way, what an outrageously asinine and offensive remark you made about how I can't share my views about gay/lbtqia/queer issues and their relationship to revolutionary politics unless I am gay/queer/lgbtqia. That in itself is profoundly discriminatory, and it's the clearest example of how identity politics taken to an extreme can lead to reactionary positions and practices. I have stated before on this forum how I identify, but since you want to be the grand gay ayatollah of this subforum, I'll leave you the pleasure of digging that information up on your own.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The civil institution of marriage is itself oppressive in many, many respects, and many of these oppressive aspects are also what people tout as marriage's "benefits."

Absolutely true: marriage is an oppressive institution.But that is what marriage is-an institution. One is not forced to stick with marriage in a secular sense such as what the gay community is fighting for. The kind of marriage the gay community is fighting for is government reconized marraige, not the guilt ridden,"You have to stay with your partner forever" type.



I understand most of the participants on this forum aren't even old enough to drive much less old enough to have experience with marriage, but it's still all about the manipulation and transfer of property.I would say most people here can drive but that is a mute point.

The property transfer one is important as the state needs marriage as part of their bourgeois superstructure (I.E who to tax). Yet this does not mean it is something which revolutionaries shouldn't fight for while the existence of capitalism is present. Gay couples must have all the resources available to them if they are to survive like their heterosexual counter-parts. You seem to be setting up this false dictomy that because it, in a certain form, deals with property and capital transfer than revolutionaries should abandon it.In fact the opposite is true: because it deals with capitalist social relations regarding an oppressed community revolutionaries should be giving all of their support in order to make inroads with that group.


And these qualities of the institution coerce people into staying locked into relationships that they shouldn't be in, some of them highly abusive. Marriage as a civil institution is mostly about controlling people's intimate relationships through use of certain economic and cultural benefits to legitimize those relationships. This should be combated directly, not reinforced by liberal campaigns for "equal access."No one is forcing anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, to stay in any abusive relationships. In fact, looking at the divorce rates for heterosexuals one can see that straight couples certainly do not take it seriously.

It is true that marriage is exactly what you say it is and that it should be combated rigorously.Yet not while there is discrimination present.Socialist revolutionaries fight for the betterment of people under capitalism because it helps the working class.This extends towards social issues as well. If you think back to the DADT repeal campaign many revolutionaries celebrated the repeal as a sign of progress.This is certainly a contradictory position, would you not agree? Socialists fighting for gay people being able to enter into the imperialist service. And yet many did so because it is only when everyone is able to participate equally that something can truly be attacked in earnest. The current order is not going away any time soon so while it is standing we must be willing to help our common man to equal access to the same rights that we have. The fight to destroy such an institution can come later when everyone is on equal footing.


By the way, what an outrageously asinine and offensive remark you made about how I can't share my views about gay/lbtqia/queer issues and their relationship to revolutionary politics unless I am gay/queer/lgbtqia. That in itself is profoundly discriminatory, and it's the clearest example of how identity politics taken to an extreme can lead to reactionary positions and practices. I have stated before on this forum how I identify, but since you want to be the grand gay ayatollah of this subforum, I'll leave you the pleasure of digging that information up on your own.No, it is not at all reactionary. It is simply stating that heterosexuals uninvolved in the queer liberation struggle are not qualified to make conclusions as to how gay people should live.

To make a parallel: I as a white man would not dare to lecture people of color on how to forward their liberation struggle.

It is the same with the non-queer community: if you are not queer than on what great well of knowledge are you basing your assertions on? In all honesty your remarks here sound like those of racists when people call them out on their white supremacy ("How dare you insult my right to speak, you racist!").

You do have a right to your opinion but when it comes to deciding the course of a minority's liberation movement if you yourself are not "one" of them than it is best to leave it be.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Marriage as it exists in bourgeois society is an oppressive social construct.
Since the 90's the Democrats have hijacked the gay liberation movement and made it all about marriage. The radical energy within the gay liberation movement has been stamped out, the movement has become gentrified and turned into a single-issue special interest group. It's not about liberation any more. It's about phony religious ceremonies and being able to check that you're married when you fill out your taxes.

Also, Chick-Fil-A is delicious.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Marriage as it exists in bourgeois society is an oppressive social construct.
Since the 90's the Democrats have hijacked the gay liberation movement and made it all about marriage. The radical energy within the gay liberation movement has been stamped out, the movement has become gentrified and turned into a single-issue special interest group. It's not about liberation any more. It's about phony religious ceremonies and being able to check that you're married when you fill out your taxes.

Also, Chick-Fil-A is delicious.

More or less. You are spot on about the Democrats role.

However to say it is all about religion is simply silly.Many people are married with the help of a secular helper.The name varies by state but in my own they are called "Justice of the Peace." Once such person married my parents at a farm house. No religion involved.

Also it is not true about taxes.It is about rights, about equal status within society.If you do not believe that unmarried couples are treated on less than equal footing than with their married counterparts than you are not living in the same system as I am.This goes especially true for homosexual couples who often can only validate their love to the community through an expression of dedication to their partner. For this reason marriage is more important than ever, even if it is just the monetary, rights ridden one of singing a government paper.

I do not think marriage willl bring about much liberation but it is a step and that is better than nothing;with that step future progress will be easier for the real battles.

[Lucretia]

Absolutely true: marriage is an oppressive institution.But that is what marriage is-an institution. One is not forced to stick with marriage in a secular sense such as what the gay community is fighting for. The kind of marriage the gay community is fighting for is government reconized marraige, not the guilt ridden,"You have to stay with your partner forever" type.

Okay, so we both agree that marriage is an institution. We just apparently have a disagreement about what makes it oppressive. I, and many other leftists, think it is oppressive as a civil institution because it links certain economic and legal benefits to staying with a partner, thus encouraging people to remain in abusive or loveless relationships for the sake of maintaining those benefits. You apparently, judging from the above paragraph, think that it is oppressive because it is a heterosexually defined civil institution, and that if we allow gays to get married, it would suddenly stop being oppressive. This is more of that whacky identity politics thinking run amok. Marriage is not an institution straight people use to oppress gay people. Marriage is a civil institution that oppresses all people, whether straight or gay, that fall within its orbit. There is a way to maintain the positive aspects of marriage while eliminating its oppressiveness, but that would require dismantling the institution as we know it and instituting a dramatically different form of legal partnerships, with pared down benefits, not restricted to (two) people who choose to fuck or have some other romantic connection. It would require dismantling the institution, radically gutting it, because it is that thoroughly plagued by problems and the potential for oppression.


I would say most people here can drive but that is a mute point.

The property transfer one is important as the state needs marriage as part of their bourgeois superstructure (I.E who to tax). Yet this does not mean it is something which revolutionaries shouldn't fight for while the existence of capitalism is present. Gay couples must have all the resources available to them if they are to survive like their heterosexual counter-parts. You seem to be setting up this false dictomy that because it, in a certain form, deals with property and capital transfer than revolutionaries should abandon it.In fact the opposite is true: because it deals with capitalist social relations regarding an oppressed community revolutionaries should be giving all of their support in order to make inroads with that group. ... Socialist revolutionaries fight for the betterment of people under capitalism because it helps the working class.I have already responded to this argument, which again talks about civil marriage only as a positive resource that gay people are being denied. It's not. So your point here is totally moot.


It is true that marriage is exactly what you say it is and that it should be combated rigorously.Yet not while there is discrimination present.Huh? Marriage is a failed and oppressive institution that should be combated, but not until we fight to allow more people to enter this institution? Please tell me I misunderstood that.


To make a parallel: I as a white man would not dare to lecture people of color on how to forward their liberation struggle.Right. And Engels would not dare to lecture to proletarians how to have a socialist revolution. It's silly, quite frankly. Espousing a certain identity does not automatically give a person the key to resolve the political issues confronting people with that identity, anymore than lacking that identity bars somebody from having insight into issues afflicting people of that identity. Again, it's identity politics run amok. Being gay is not the same as knowing how to end gay oppression. Being black is not the same as knowing to end black oppression. Being proletarian is not the same as knowing how to end capitalist exploitation.

For a Marxist, this is a particularly shocking argument to make, since it reifies a non-class identity, then uses that identity to privilege potentially reactionary "queer" views on gay oppression over materialist views presented by people who aren't gay.

Anyhow I think you already know the status of my sexual identity, so it's all beside the point. On a more personal and comradely note, I know you're quite young and at a formative stage of identity development, so I totally appreciate your enthusiasm, confusion, exhilaration you must feel about exploring an aspect of your identity that relates to one of the most intimate and powerful components to personhood. But I am also here to give you a helpful hint not to peg too much onto it. It's a slippery thing, and the supposed "community" founded upon it illusory. Without trying to sound condescending, I think you are bright enough that you will learn these things in time. And maybe I should be faulted for trying to rush your understanding of it artificially.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You either support equality for LGBT people now or you don't. There are very real rights in our society attached to the institution of marriage. Should LGBT people not have those rights because marriage should ideally by abolished? That's like arguing we shouldn't support legal protections for workers because ideally capitalism should be abolished.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

You either support equality for LGBT people now or you don't. There are very real rights in our society attached to the institution of marriage. Should LGBT people not have those rights because marriage should ideally by abolished? That's like arguing we shouldn't support legal protections for workers because ideally capitalism should be abolished.

This. I'm getting married soon because it means a lot to my wife-to-be (civil ceremony, not religious), not a big believer in marriage myself but it matters to her and I like the idea of celebrating our commitment to eachother in front of friends and family. So long as this institution exists and people want to enter into it they should be free to do so irrespective of their sexual orientation.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Okay, so we both agree that marriage is an institution. We just apparently have a disagreement about what makes it oppressive. I, and many other leftists, think it is oppressive as a civil institution because it links certain economic and legal benefits to staying with a partner, thus encouraging people to remain in abusive or loveless relationships for the sake of maintaining those benefits.

It can be both civil and religious. What makes it oppressive largely depends on what the people in the relationship do.Some people, in order to maintain benefits, will remain married on paper until they can find a new partner to remarry.


You apparently, judging from the above paragraph, think that it is oppressive because it is a heterosexually defined civil institution, and that if we allow gays to get married, it would suddenly stop being oppressive.No, it is oppressive because it is marriage.You missed the whole point of my argument.


I have already responded to this argument, which again talks about civil marriage only as a positive resource that gay people are being denied. It's not. So your point here is totally moot.Not an argument. Please respond.


Huh? Marriage is a failed and oppressive institution that should be combated, but not until we fight to allow more people to enter this institution? Please tell me I misunderstood that.You don't understand equality?


Right. And Engels would not dare to lecture to proletarians how to have a socialist revolution. It's silly, quite frankly.The two are completely different but no, actually, Engels wouldn't dare lecture workers on how to manage their struggle. Writing theory and being demanding are two different things.



Espousing a certain identity does not automatically give a person the key to resolve the political issues confronting people with that identity, anymore than lacking that identity bars somebody from having insight into issues afflicting people of that identity.So a person who lacks the dynamic of oppression facing a certain community is just as qualified to make decisions for the community as a person who has been oppressed there all his life? This is to say that a privileged white kid who has never known any kind of discrimination or bigotry could go into a black neighborhood and start to lecture the people there on how to conduct their struggle despite not being involved themselves? How does that work?


Again, it's identity politics run amok. Being gay is not the same as knowing how to end gay oppression. Being black is not the same as knowing to end black oppression. Being proletarian is not the same as knowing how to end capitalist exploitation.Many heterosexuals and non-queer people have some ideas on how to end each community's respective oppression but they only got those ideas from the oppressed communities themselves.Without the oppressed asserting their voices those in privilaged positions would have never known what ailed the oppressed.


For a Marxist, this is a particularly shocking argument to make, since it reifies a non-class identity, then uses that identity to privilege potentially reactionary "queer" views on gay oppression over materialist views presented by people who aren't gay.My argument is one based on experience and knowledge of the specific dynamics of oppression faced by minority communities.They are heterosexuals who have spent decades assisting the queer liberation movement. If those people want to offer their assistance than I would gladly accept them and their opinions on how to move forward.This would be because after all those years of dedication those people would have been close enough to the queer community to understand how queer oppression works. However, this is a rare occurrence and on average any old person who is interested in politics cannot be on equal footing with those who have sent their whole lives oppressed.


Anyhow I think you already know the status of my sexual identity, so it's all beside the point. On a more personal and comradely note, I know you're quite young and at a formative stage of identity development, so I totally appreciate your enthusiasm, confusion, exhilaration you must feel about exploring an aspect of your identity that relates to one of the most intimate and powerful components to personhood. But I am also here to give you a helpful hint not to peg too much onto it. It's a slippery thing, and the supposed "community" founded upon it illusory. Without trying to sound condescending, I think you are bright enough that you will learn these things in time. And maybe I should be faulted for trying to rush your understanding of it artificially.Condescension will get you nowhere and I am starting to think you are a troll (either that or profoundly ignorant).

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You either support equality for LGBT people now or you don't. There are very real rights in our society attached to the institution of marriage. Should LGBT people not have those rights because marriage should ideally by abolished? That's like arguing we shouldn't support legal protections for workers because ideally capitalism should be abolished.

Exactly.

Now Lucretia: do you support equality for Queer people or don't you?

[Manic Impressive]

You either support equality for LGBT people now or you don't. There are very real rights in our society attached to the institution of marriage. Should LGBT people not have those rights because marriage should ideally by abolished? That's like arguing we shouldn't support legal protections for workers because ideally capitalism should be abolished.
It's not that simple actually. I don't support reforms. At all. That doesn't mean I oppose them. I just recognize their futility for our class. I don't support legal protections for workers but I'm glad they're there.

[Lucretia]

It can be both civil and religious. What makes it oppressive largely depends on what the people in the relationship do.Some people, in order to maintain benefits, will remain married on paper until they can find a new partner to remarry.

No, it is oppressive because it is marriage.You missed the whole point of my argument.

Not an argument. Please respond.

You don't understand equality?

The two are completely different but no, actually, Engels wouldn't dare lecture workers on how to manage their struggle. Writing theory and being demanding are two different things.


So a person who lacks the dynamic of oppression facing a certain community is just as qualified to make decisions for the community as a person who has been oppressed there all his life? This is to say that a privileged white kid who has never known any kind of discrimination or bigotry could go into a black neighborhood and start to lecture the people there on how to conduct their struggle despite not being involved themselves? How does that work?

Many heterosexuals and non-queer people have some ideas on how to end each community's respective oppression but they only got those ideas from the oppressed communities themselves.Without the oppressed asserting their voices those in privilaged positions would have never known what ailed the oppressed.

My argument is one based on experience and knowledge of the specific dynamics of oppression faced by minority communities.They are heterosexuals who have spent decades assisting the queer liberation movement. If those people want to offer their assistance than I would gladly accept them and their opinions on how to move forward.This would be because after all those years of dedication those people would have been close enough to the queer community to understand how queer oppression works. However, this is a rare occurrence and on average any old person who is interested in politics cannot be on equal footing with those who have sent their whole lives oppressed.

Condescension will get you nowhere and I am starting to think you are a troll (either that or profoundly ignorant).

So I'm a troll because you angrily disagree with me? Fair enough, TGU. I think that argument is about on par with the quality of your other arguments here. I don't think there's much further I can take a discussion with somebody who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge basic facts (e.g., yes Engels, who was not worker, did tell workers how to go about organizing politically -- have you read his correspondence?), and who responds to arguments with "Nope! Not an argument! I refuse to respond!" (the online equivalent of plugging your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!").

You make a good point about how not all marriages are oppressive, but that's not really the point we're debating. The question is whether marriage as an institution deserves our support or opposition, and to do that you look at the effects of the institution across broad swaths of the population, not isolated corner cases.

But I think what is most alarming issue in our exchange is this bizarre gay nationalism that I detect in your and some other people's posts here. It is a reductionist idea that only people who experience X directly can know how to fight X the most effectively (I guess straight-identifying Marxists can't tell Log Cabin Republicans to join the class struggle to achieve sexual liberation without being berated on this strange subforum). And at any rate, the experience of "being gay" (whatever that means -- but for our purposes, we'll say the experience means feeling homosexual attraction) is basically a universal phenomenon present in everybody to greater or lesser degrees. So it makes no sense to claim that "being gay" gives some subset of the population special knowledge of political questions relating to eliminating sexual repression. It affects everybody, and everybody has a right to state their views on the matter without the Gay Ayatollah issuing a fatwah.

If you had the amount of knowledge you imply you do when you rail against me as "ignorant," you'll know that none of these views I have expressed is new. They were at the very heart of the gay liberation movement before it was hijacked and transformed into a bourgeois "equal rights" movement that Marxists have tailed out of a lack of interest in providing the necessary analysis to challenge it (which reveals the latent heteronormativity in these groups). And if you had half the experience you claim you do, you'd realize that just as there's not one "gay community" or "LGBT community," there has not been one "queer liberation movement," but a variety of overlapping movements that emerged at various times, often with conflicting views on the nature of sexuality and on what position to take on specific issues like service in the military or marriage, to name just the most obvious two.

[Lucretia]

Exactly.

Now Lucretia: do you support equality for Queer people or don't you?

Of course I support equality for queer people. Why else would I support dismantling marriage as a civil institution for opposite-sex couples, if not to place them on part with queer people? It's a far better form of equality than what the marriage-touters here envision. It's also why it is laughably simplistic to declare that if somebody opposes expanding and consolidating civil marriage as an institution, that person must in principle be opposed to equality. Equality does not have a single transparent meaning, but rather has a different meaning depending on the nature of one's political views. "Equality of what? In what type of society?"

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You make a good point about how not all marriages are oppressive, but that's not really the point we're debating. The question is whether marriage as an institution deserves our support or opposition, and to do that you look at the effects of the institution across broad swaths of the population, not isolated corner cases.

Opposition, of course, but only after equality has been achieved.If you wish to remain isloated from the queer struggle,and isolated you will remain since that is the prime concern right now, than that is your own problem.


But I think what is most alarming issue in our exchange is this bizarre gay nationalism that I detect in your and some other people's posts here. It is a reductionist idea that only people who experience X directly can know how to fight X the most effectively (I guess straight-identifying Marxists can't tell Log Cabin Republicans to join the class struggle to achieve sexual liberation without being berated on this strange subforum).Again you completely miss my whole point of those with experience and knowledge of oppression. You are mixing in many other conflicting parallels which have little to no impact on the current discussion.


And at any rate, the experience of "being gay" (whatever that means -- but for our purposes, we'll say the experience means feeling homosexual attraction) is basically a universal phenomenon present in everybody to greater or lesser degrees. So it makes no sense to claim that "being gay" gives some subset of the population special knowledge of political questions relating to eliminating sexual repression. It affects everybody, and everybody has a right to state their views on the matter without the Gay Ayatollah issuing a fatwah.Sexual matters and queer liberation can be intertwined but they are two greatly different fields. Sexual repression affects everyone and everyone is entitled to their opinion but those opinions will not be correct if if the person does not identify and organize with that community.What works for heterosexuals will not necessarily work for queer people.


If you had the amount of knowledge you imply you do when you rail against me as "ignorant," When do I claim that I have some data bank of knowledge? Where are you getting this "my opponent thinks he is the end all in discussion" attitude?



you'll know that none of these views I have expressed is new. They were at the very heart of the gay liberation movement before it was hijacked and transformed into a bourgeois "equal rights" movement that Marxists have tailed out of a lack of interest in providing the necessary analysis to challenge it (which reveals the latent heteronormativity in these groups). I am well aware of my community's history so loose the attitude.

This is what is in the here and now: the battle for queer liberation revolves around bourgeois "rights." It is not going away. We as revolutionaries can either sneer at the activists or we can participate and build alliances and try to radicalize them.This is reality. History is gone and it isn't coming back.


And if you had half the experience you claim you do, you'd realize that just as there's not one "gay community" or "LGBT community," there has not been one "queer liberation movement," but a variety of overlapping movements that emerged at various times, often with conflicting views on the nature of sexuality and on what position to take on specific issues like service in the military or marriage, to name just the most obvious two.I think that is pretty obvious.Perhaps you should take your rantings about inequality to one of those other communities then,perhaps the gay segment which is against marriage?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Of course I support equality for queer people. Why else would I support dismantling marriage as a civil institution for opposite-sex couples, if not to place them on part with queer people? It's a far better form of equality than what the marriage-touters here envision. It's also why it is laughably simplistic to declare that if somebody opposes expanding and consolidating civil marriage as an institution, that person must in principle be opposed to equality. Equality does not have a single transparent meaning, but rather has a different meaning depending on the nature of one's political views. "Equality of what? In what type of society?"

Equality here has already been defined and has been defined for a long time: legal and economic equality. Do you support that?

[Lucretia]

Equality here has already been defined and has been defined for a long time: legal and economic equality. Do you support that?

I see what's going on here. You get establish what kind of equality gay people must seek, then either I support your concrete position (in which case I am in support of the principle of "equality") or I do not support your cause (in which case I am opposed to "equality" in principle). It doesn't take a rocket scientist here to see you're conflating a principle with how you choose to apply it to a particular issue.

Sorry, but you don't get to delegitimize other people's political views here by pretending they are the product of a principled opposition to equality when they explicitly are not. It's about as honest as libertarians telling Marxists that either they support equal rights to own privately the means of production, or that they must oppose equality in principle -- despite the fact that Marxists argue for equal public ownership of the means of production.

I support equal access to marriage as a private union that carries no civil obligations or benefits. I oppose civil marriage equally for ALL PEOPLE, ALL COUPLES.

Can I be any clearer with my position, and how my position is not an "opposition to equality"?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Good enough... but you don't support the marriage struggle in the present day because you believe that it needs to be abolished before equality? Answer the question: do you support gay couples rights to have the same material and legal benefits as their heterosexual counter-parts?

[Lucretia]

Opposition, of course, but only after equality has been achieved.If you wish to remain isloated from the queer struggle,and isolated you will remain since that is the prime concern right now, than that is your own problem.

I am somewhat flabbergasted that you don't see the glaring contradiction in your position that we should fight against an institution because it's fucked up, but that we shouldn't fight against it until we expand it so that everybody can equally access this fucked up institution. What would a sign at that demonstration read? "Let us enter your oppressive institution! Equality for all!" (Of course, the person will have to have another sign waiting at home for when they achieve "equality": "END CIVIL MARRIAGE NOW!")

You can keep preaching to me about how "isolated" I am, but the only isolated people are those who think access to marriage is the most important issue confronting queer people as queer people. The issue of marriage was effectively hand-picked by the national bourgeois gay lobby organizations in the early 1990s, and given visibility by tremendous amounts of $$$ (the kind of funding bourgeois groups have access to), not any kind of mass grassroots mobilization you seem to envision. Even after twenty years of pursuing this issue, the most these national organizations have managed to accomplish as far as grassroots organizing goes is one national march, much smaller in scope than all three previous national gay pride marches, which were largely about people mobilizing not in support of marriage per se, but in opposition to the bigots who have idiotic reasons for wanting to keep marriage as a heterosexual institution. The only grassroots types of efforts being undertaken by queer people at this point are groups like Gay Shame in San Francisco, which incidentally are opposed to gay marriage for many of the same reasons I am.


Again you completely miss my whole point of those with experience and knowledge of oppression. You are mixing in many other conflicting parallels which have little to no impact on the current discussion.No, in fact I'm not confusing anything. Your argument is that having a particular identity gives you a privileged insight into how to eliminate oppression related to that identity. It's mixing two levels of analysis: the experience of oppression, which can provide a strong factual and evidentiary springboard for formulating a political position, and the interpretation of how to combat that oppression, the actual political position itself. Nobody here is disputing that people who identify as queer know more about the experience of being oppressed as queer. Where you veer off into dangerous and potentially reactionary territory is in claiming that knowledge of that experience automatically translates into a superior knowledge of how to integrate that experience into a larger political analysis.

Again, Engels never experienced economic exploitation as a proletarian, but he did not make any secret of the fact that he thought his view of ending exploitation was superior to those views of workers who supported bourgeois politicians, and he was not bashful about advising less advanced socialist workers how they might go about advancing their struggle. But if we want to adopt your mentality, we'd have to tell him to shut his bourgeois trap and stop pretending he knows more about being a worker than workers do.


Sexual matters and queer liberation can be intertwined but they are two greatly different fields. Sexual repression affects everyone and everyone is entitled to their opinion but those opinions will not be correct if if the person does not identify and organize with that community.What works for heterosexuals will not necessarily work for queer people.I'm sorry, but maybe you can define what "queer liberation" is and how it differs from the larger project of sexual liberation, because it's not clear to me at all. The process of sexual liberation will break down these rigid identity categories that serve as the basis for gay nationalism -- and gay oppression.


This is what is in the here and now: the battle for queer liberation revolves around bourgeois "rights." It is not going away. We as revolutionaries can either sneer at the activists or we can participate and build alliances and try to radicalize them.This is reality. History is gone and it isn't coming back.So we either tail bourgeois movements that are trying to assimilate queer people seamlessly into the misery and oppression of an institution you concede is fucked up, or we sit on the sidelines and twiddle are thumbs. Nice false dichotomy you have going there.

[Lucretia]

Good enough... but you don't support the marriage struggle in the present day because you believe that it needs to be abolished before equality? Answer the question: do you support gay couples rights to have the same material and legal benefits as their heterosexual counter-parts?

Are you not comprehending the words I am writing? I've repeated myself at least four times. I support all couples having the same legal rights, which is what the elimination of civil marriage as an institution (for opposite-sex and same-sex couples) would bring about. Please stop asking me this question over and over again, as if my responses have been written in medieval Latin.

It is utterly contradictory to acknowledge that an institution is fucked up, but then to actually fight to broaden the institution and strengthen it, instead of fighting to eliminate it. I mean, if we were in the antebellum period, would you be arguing that we have to expand slavery by allowing women equal rights alongside men to own slaves before we could fight to end slavery?

And please stop comparing this to workers' fight for reforms under capitalism. The fight for reforms from a revolutionary perspective weakens capitalism by giving workers the class consciousness and confidence necessary to seize political power as a class, in addition to reducing exploitation by granting workers a higher standard of living. Reforms only strengthen capitalism when they are fought for on a reformist basis, which stabilizes capitalism by placating workers and binding them ideologically to the capitalist system. Such reformism, while chipping away temporarily at the rate of exploitation, prolongs its life significantly and therefore is in the long-term interests of capital.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am somewhat flabbergasted that you don't see the glaring contradiction in your position that we should fight against an institution because it's fucked up, but that we shouldn't fight against it until we expand it so that everybody can equally access this fucked up institution. What would a sign at that demonstration read? "Let us enter your oppressive institution! Equality for all!" (Of course, the person will have to have another sign waiting at home for when they achieve "equality": "END CIVIL MARRIAGE NOW!")

Ditto. You still fail to understand the necessity of improving the lives of queer proletarians through reforms. Until the revolution comes we as revolutionaries have a obligation to ensure that everyone which can be done for the workers is done; instead you have taken the position of sneering down from atop a pedestal of ultra-leftism.


You can keep preaching to me about how "isolated" I am, but the only isolated people are those who think access to marriage is the most important issue confronting queer people as queer people. The issue of marriage was effectively hand-picked by the national bourgeois gay lobby organizations in the early 1990s, and given visibility by tremendous amounts of $$$ (the kind of funding bourgeois groups have access to), not any kind of mass grassroots mobilization you seem to envision. Even after twenty years of pursuing this issue, the most these national organizations have managed to accomplish as far as grassroots organizing goes is one national march, much smaller in scope than all three previous national gay pride marches, which were largely about people mobilizing not in support of marriage per se, but in opposition to the bigots who have idiotic reasons for wanting to keep marriage as a heterosexual institution. The only grassroots types of efforts being undertaken by queer people at this point are groups like Gay Shame in San Francisco, which incidentally are opposed to gay marriage for many of the same reasons I am. Marriage actually came as a result of the AIDS epidemic and the need for the community to survive.With the reactionary counter-assault in full swing at this moment in time the queer community,or what was the embryo of the queer community,needed to reorganize themselves to withstand the assault.Marriage and nuclear relationships were a step backwards but a necessity to move forward.

Groups like gay shame are part of the problem, not the solution. I do not take any group seriously if they are against psychiatry.


No, in fact I'm not confusing anything. Your argument is that having a particular identity gives you a privileged insight into how to eliminate oppression related to that identity. It's mixing two levels of analysis: the experience of oppression, which can provide a strong factual and evidentiary springboard for formulating a political position, and the interpretation of how to combat that oppression, the actual political position itself. Nobody here is disputing that people who identify as queer know more about the experience of being oppressed as queer. Where you veer off into dangerous and potentially reactionary territory is in claiming that knowledge of that experience automatically translates into a superior knowledge of how to integrate that experience into a larger political analysis.So somehow, according to you, a person who is part of the oppressed community knows that oppression better than heterosexuals but somehow is not any more qualified to make decisions on how to proceed with liberation? How so? Wouldn't their interpretation naturally be better since they have internalized so much more of the hatred and conditions?


I'm sorry, but maybe you can define what "queer liberation" is and how it differs from the larger project of sexual liberation, because it's not clear to me at all. The process of sexual liberation will break down these rigid identity categories that serve as the basis for gay nationalism -- and gay oppression.Queer liberation takes many forms, both progressive and reactionary. Usually, however, it takes the forms of equal rights and anti-discrimination battles and community awareness.Queer liberation is where gay couples can marry and not fear assault, it is where Transgendered people can openly announce their identity without being killed,and is where Bisexual people can talk about their orientation without being fired. In short: it is a world where there is no distinction between the heterosexual and the queer, where the differences between the two are seen as personal and not sexual.

Sexual liberation is just that-sexual. Sexual freedom doesn't take into account gender identity or discrimination.For this reason it is only have real value to heterosexuals. Queer people make use of it and it could be defined as a pillar of queer liberation but such a trait is small and not on my own radar.


So we either tail bourgeois movements that are trying to assimilate queer people seamlessly into the misery and oppression of an institution you concede is fucked up, or we sit on the sidelines and twiddle are thumbs. Nice false dichotomy you have going there.
It is utterly contradictory to acknowledge that an institution is fucked up, but then to actually fight to broaden the institution and strengthen it, instead of fighting to eliminate it. I mean, if we were in the antebellum period, would you be arguing that we have to expand slavery by allowing women equal rights alongside men to own slaves before we could fight to end slavery?The two are not the same in any way,shape,or form.Slavery is an abomination created out of the confines of capitalism which serves no other purpose than to enrich the ruling class.Marriage, on the other hand,is a social phenomena which can assist queer workers in improving their lot.Unless you believe that marriage should be forcefully abolished the crusade against it granting queer couples equal rights is useless.


The fight for reforms from a revolutionary perspective weakens capitalism by giving workers the class consciousness and confidence necessary to seize political power as a class, in addition to reducing exploitation by granting workers a higher standard of living....and yet you still do not support giving gay couples the right to marriage? You do not seem to be comprehending that battling for marriage equality when using a revolutionary lens is exactly what is being discussed.

Have you been to a Equality event? I have met revolutionaries when attending such events that seem to understand this rather well and have had luck in turning workers to revolutionary ideology.
- - - - - - - - - -
It is called looking reality in the face and deciding what is best for the conditions on the ground.

Now, I will ask you one last time: do you support gay couples rights to have the same material and legal benefits as their heterosexual counter-parts?

[Manic Impressive]

Ditto. You still fail to understand the necessity of improving the lives of queer proletarians through reforms. Until the revolution comes we as revolutionaries have a obligation to ensure that everyone which can be done for the workers is done; instead you have taken the position of sneering down from atop a pedestal of ultra-leftism.
You still fail to grasp the futility of reforms and the fact that no reforms get passed which are NOT in the interests of capital. I never sneer at people who are fighting for equal rights or better pay or whatever, as always I wish them the best of luck because they'll need it. However, I do sneer at people who think they can change the world one reform at a time. This is what we call social democracy and they used to be restricted on this site but now they make them admins.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You still fail to grasp the futility of reforms and the fact that no reforms get passed which are NOT in the interests of capital. I never sneer at people who are fighting for equal rights or better pay or whatever, as always I wish them the best of luck because they'll need it. However, I do sneer at people who think they can change the world one reform at a time. This is what we call social democracy and they used to be restricted on this site but now they make them admins.

That is quite the jump to make: giving gay marriage to gay couple to endorsing social-democracy. I am less than surprised :rolleyes:

Who said that they can change the world one reform at a time? Is anyone here advocating that socialism can be brought in through reform or that the working class should place all of their trust in reforms and in time their lot will improve to where they don't need socialism?....no?... then stop placing statement in my mouth.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

At any rate I do not think we are going to reach a conclusion here in terms of agreement.The traditions we come from won't allow it a consensus.So those who want to argue about it can, the thread will remain open, but I won't participate as I have said my piece.

edit: Final Thoughts: Enjoy wallowing in Academia and speculation.I will not be swayed into your outdated nonsense about needing to abolish marriage right-off the back.Honestly, the bastardization that Marxism has undergone in regards to liberation struggles while in the hands of you Ultra-Leftists is revolting.

[Lucretia]

Ditto. You still fail to understand the necessity of improving the lives of queer proletarians through reforms. Until the revolution comes we as revolutionaries have a obligation to ensure that everyone which can be done for the workers is done; instead you have taken the position of sneering down from atop a pedestal of ultra-leftism.

You still don't grasp how your response completely misses the crux of my argument, which is that marriage as an institution does more harm than good. It patently does NOT "improve the lives of proletarians." You keep trying to squeeze this disagreement into the paradigm of whether we should fight for reforms, or just go for all out revolution, with me playing the role of the ultra-leftist. But I already explained to you two posts ago how that paradigm does not translate over to this issue. Revolutionaries fight for reforms because they are the necessary steps in the working class becoming a class for itself. The revolutionary's struggle for reforms brings us CLOSER to the goal of realizing the radically egalitarian society we have in mind. With civil marriage, we have an institution which you acknowledge has NO role in a post-revolutionary society, yet you insist on fighting to strengthen it through expansion -- which brings us farther away from the goal we have in mind.


Marriage actually came as a result of the AIDS epidemic and the need for the community to survive.With the reactionary counter-assault in full swing at this moment in time the queer community,or what was the embryo of the queer community,needed to reorganize themselves to withstand the assault.Marriage and nuclear relationships were a step backwards but a necessity to move forward.That's actually false. Even the bourgeois historian George Chauncey in his book Why Marriage? does not go that far in trying to draw out that kind of connection between AIDS and same-sex marriage (I guess we can dub it a "community survival" argument). The connection between the two is that the decline in grassroots queer and AIDS activism (typified by ACT-UP and Queer Nation) left a vacuum for the national lobby groups to set the agenda.


So somehow, according to you, a person who is part of the oppressed community knows that oppression better than heterosexuals but somehow is not any more qualified to make decisions on how to proceed with liberation? How so? Wouldn't their interpretation naturally be better since they have internalized so much more of the hatred and conditions?Finally, you're beginning to get the argument. No, their interpretation would not necessarily be better because ascertaining the facts is a different task altogether than interpreting those facts and experiences into a meaningful social program -- which necessarily requires the mediation of some kind of social theory, whether it be libertarianism, neo-conservatism, Marxism, or welfare liberalism.

Depth of feeling about an issue, of the kind that coincides with directly experiencing it, is not the equivalent of clarity of thought about how to bring about resolving that issue. I might be the one who is best informed about my father showing up every night drunk, rambling about how evil immigrants are for costing him his job, and then beating me for hours. But I might draw from that experience completely erroneous conclusions about what my father's problem is, how his physical abuse is connected to the rest of society, and therefore how to stop domestic battering.


Queer liberation takes many forms, both progressive and reactionary. Usually, however, it takes the forms of equal rights and anti-discrimination battles and community awareness.Queer liberation is where gay couples can marry and not fear assault, it is where Transgendered people can openly announce their identity without being killed,and is where Bisexual people can talk about their orientation without being fired. In short: it is a world where there is no distinction between the heterosexual and the queer, where the differences between the two are seen as personal and not sexual.I think you're equating liberation, which has a goal that far transcends equality within the confines of capitalism, with the abstract and rather vague notion of "equality" -- which, as we have seen, can have many different meanings in different social and political contexts.


The two are not the same in any way,shape,or form.Slavery is an abomination created out of the confines of capitalism which serves no other purpose than to enrich the ruling class.Marriage, on the other hand,is a social phenomena which can assist queer workers in improving their lot.Unless you believe that marriage should be forcefully abolished the crusade against it granting queer couples equal rights is useless.Uh, actually slavery and marriage are the same in a very important respect for the purposes of this debate: they are both institutions you think are fucked up and, presumably, would want to eliminate if they existed. So my question still stands: why in the hell would you fight to expand a fucked up institution (marriage) in the name of equality instead of working to eliminate it? Would you also seek to expand the completely fucked up institution of slavery in the name of gender equality before fighting it?



Now, I will ask you one last time: do you support gay couples rights to have the same material and legal benefits as their heterosexual counter-parts?I do not support same-sex heterosexual couples not being able to marry while heterosexual couples can get married. That is discriminatory. The massive flaw in your logic is then deducing from this first premise that people must necessarily fight to expand marriage to encompass same-sex couples, rather than struggle for a society in which opposite-sex couples can no longer get civilly married.

You keep wanting to create this stupidly false dichotomy that if I'm not on board with your little struggle for gay marriage and divorce, then I must embrace discrimination. This kind of debate trick might work with some other participants on this forum, but it won't work with me.

[Manic Impressive]

At any rate I do not think we are going to reach a conclusion here in terms of agreement.The traditions we come from won't allow it a consensus.So those who want to argue about it can, the thread will remain open, but I won't participate as I have said my piece.
This was almost exactly the same thought as i had. I'd written quite a long piece about reformism and social democracy and how it destroys revolutionary movements. But then I thought meh why am I wasting my time when you won't read it.


edit: Final Thoughts: Enjoy wallowing in Academia and speculation.I will not be swayed into your outdated nonsense about needing to abolish marriage right-off the back.Honestly, the bastardization that Marxism has undergone in regards to liberation struggles while in the hands of you Ultra-Leftists is revolting.
I mean this in the nicest way possible but you are not a Marxist. The only bastardization came from the reformism of Kautsky and Lenin. Oh and Ultra-Left is a slur btw. Thought you were a pan-leftist :confused:

[Leftsolidarity]

Oh and Ultra-Left is a slur btw. Thought you were a pan-leftist :confused:

Doesn't mean one has to tolerate stupidity or be nice to it.