Socially liberal right wingers?

[graffic]

I'm referring specifically to the British Conservative party under David Cameron who has tried to re-brand the conservatives as "modern Tories" and the gay marriage law. The "gay marriage" proposal has been pushed strongly by a minority of conservatives, many of whom claim to be "modern conservatives".

What this re-branding of the Conservatives has done coincidentally and appeared as a by-product of attempting to make the Conservatives appear "modern", perhaps deliberate on the part of Cameron or not, is make the "modern" Conservatives the most explicitly anti-Christian political trend ever in modern history. When free-marketers are socially liberal they contradict the gospels and Jesus in every single way.

Jesus was no free-marketer and was not mercenary. Although obviously you cannot say he was a communist he was a radical egalitarian. And he would not have supported gay marriage. The strange thing is that the Conservatives used to include Christian morality and ethics, (which I also believe was linked to charity and a skeptical attitude towards greed) used to be a very "Conservative" issue and it was a reason many people voted Conservative. Now coincidentally the modern Tories not only defend immoral greed of bankers in the city and are punishing the poor and vulnerable with their economic fiscal policy, they are also pushing for marriage equality and a fundamental erosion of Christian morals and ethics: They support greed and support marriage equality. Listen to what Boris Johnson had to say about the gay marriage issue: "Tories will vote for it, whack it through, let's knock this thing on the head," he said. "Let's get it done and let's talk about the real Conservative things we want to do like encouraging aspiration, entrepreneurship, cutting taxes, cutting crime, creating a fairer society." He doesn't consider Christian morals or ethics a "real Conservative issue" even though many people have voted for the Conservatives because of those issues and the majority of his party feel the same way.

The socially liberal right wing poseurs or "modern Tories" are free-market spivs with no moral compass yet because of some intellectual and moral collapse this is seen by some people as the Tories being "modern" rather than a government resembling the last days of Rome.

[Richard Nixon]

I see what you're saying here, but considering Tories support no-fault divorce laws (at least I presume this is the case for most of the party including Mr. Cameron), that they have come around on gay marriage.

[cynicles]

It sounds like a rehash of what the tories did here years ago when they becames the "Progressive Conservative party". It didn't last or change much, even socially.

[Regicollis]

I'm not surprised to see European conservatives support gay marriage. Conservatism is not a static ideology but changes to conform to contemporary morals and social values. Today gay rights are widely accepted in Western Europe and have become part of what's normal.

Another - more sinister - reason why conservatives have entered modernity on the issue of gay rights could be that if you accept gay rights (at least on a rhetorical level) you can point fingers at the homophobia among muslims. I have seen nationalistic right-wingers use gay rights like this several times.

I don't think one should take the 'Christian values' of conservatives too seriously. Throughout history religiously justified morality has always conformed to the opinions of conservative minded people. Furthermore asking what a man who lived 2000 years ago in a completely different culture would think about today's issues is beyond pointless.

[graffic]

I'm not surprised to see European conservatives support gay marriage. Conservatism is not a static ideology but changes to conform to contemporary morals and social values. Today gay rights are widely accepted in Western Europe and have become part of what's normal.


I think it's capitalism seeking a more liberal face and being secular is part of that now.

Traditional conservatism and Christian morality aren't relevant with the increasing globalisation and free-market agenda of neo-liberals. Sexual prudence doesn't sell and discrimination is bad for profit. The "New" Conservatives get their morality from the financial times, the economist magazine and city AM. They are free-market spivs with no moral compass. They don't have to pretend to have a heart or a moral compass and pander to Christian conservatives like they used to because the Church is a minority and dying institution.

Perhaps secularism is the future and this is how the conservatives present themselves now, exploiting identity politics to make people better consumers rather than class warriors.

As a lapsed Christian I don't think "time" matters and how "old" something is. The message of Jesus is timeless. I.e compassion and helping the poor. I don't see anything inspirational in free-market ideology and defenders of globalization. I don't think it's "freedom". It doesn't matter how many women get into the capitalist class or how "free" homosexuals become with the advancement of humanist values, there's no freedom under capitalism and as far as I can tell the bourgeoisie and capitalists are exploiting just as much and profiting from all sorts of misery that make Hitler and Stalin look like bourgeoise philanthropists at the same time as re-defining "marriage" and making vague statements about "freedom" and "tolerance".

I think Jesus is timeless and deserves more respect. He said clearly in the gospels that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That wasn't old Testament , that's what Jesus said himself. If what he said about the money changers is timeless (which it is in my opinon) and can inspire us to make the world a better place today, I don't see any justification for the simple concept of marriage between a man and woman not being "timeless" when gay people are equal and free with civil partnerships.

[helot]

I think Jesus is timeless and deserves more respect. He said clearly in the gospels that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That wasn't old Testament , that's what Jesus said himself. If what he said about the money changers is timeless (which it is in my opinon) and can inspire us to make the world a better place today, I don't see any justification for the simple concept of marriage between a man and woman not being "timeless" when gay people are equal and free with civil partnerships.

For Jesus it is preferable that everyone be celibate but he did allow marriage between men and women who weren't committed to celibacy.

Anyway, your argument about the timelessness of all of Jesus' teachings is bullshit. If you don't pick and choose your beliefs are an enemy of humanity.

I refer you to 1 Timothy 6:1-2

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves.

[l'Enfermé]

If Jesus was an egalitarian(égal=equal), he wouldn't have been against marriage equality.

[Ocean Seal]

You know I think I really dislike socially liberal right wingers because they are happy to tout their privilege as acquired through some sort of herculean trial (which we are all free to do).

P.S.
I miss the regular conservatives who weren't allowed to have fun. Those were the days :crying:.

[graffic]

If Jesus was an egalitarian(égal=equal), he wouldn't have been against marriage equality.

There is no such thing as marriage "equality". Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman.

I actually object to "equality" being used in this loose, vague way as if it's a synonym for "social justice". Who invented the idea of bringing the two words "Equality" and marriage together? It's political propaganda that de-values the true meaning of equality.

If you think anyone should be allowed to marry because of a claim to "equality", if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion you should also be in favour of close relatives being allowed to marry each other.

I just don't get at all the claims of homophobia, injustice and "in-equality" in this particular case at all. It just flies so extraordinarily and brazenly in the way of common sense. I saw a gay couple on the news complaining that they can't get married. I thought fine, I sympathize it must suck to an extent, but seriously you can get a civil partnership with all the same legal benefits and protections. You really can't justify re-defining the meaning of marriage. When, or if I do get married, I'm straight so it will be to a woman and I want the institution to remain the way it is. Not because I have a problem with gays, it's life. Deal with it. I don't want to share it with homosexuals. I don't think that makes me selfish.

The most despicable aspect of it is the way conservatives are casting themselves in a positive light as if they are so in touch with the modern world, as if that is somehow a good thing on it's own, and totally "tolerant" and in favour of "freedom" when they are free-market hawks exploiting the working class and apologising for greed and all sorts of human misery.

[helot]

I just don't get at all the claims of homophobia, injustice and "in-equality" in this particular case at all. It just flies so extraordinarily and brazenly in the way of common sense. I saw a gay couple on the news complaining that they can't get married. I thought fine, I sympathize it must suck to an extent, but seriously you can get a civil partnership with all the same legal benefits and protections. You really can't justify re-defining the meaning of marriage. When, or if I do get married, I'm straight so it will be to a woman and I want the institution to remain the way it is. I don't want to share it with homosexuals. I don't think that makes me selfish.


Yes, in the UK it is largely a semantic issue between marriage and civil partnership but there's no justification for this semantic difference. The only reason for this semantic difference is homophobia. The definition of marriage is a very loose and abstract thing. It is not and has never been set in stone.

[graffic]

Everyone knows what marriage is. It's between a man and a woman. Lets not pretend that the conservatives are going ahead with this because they are secular-humanists convinced they are making the world a better place. It's bourgeois identity politics in the consumerist sense. The free-marketers inspired by Thatcher and Milton Friedman just see society as a bunch of consumers. Gay marriage doesn't affect profits.

Specifically with gay marriage, some gay rights activists have said they should be able to take churches to a European court and get them fined for not marrying them. If we are seriously going to live in a society where places of worship are being shut down because they won't marry homosexuals we've arrived at a place where bourgeoise identity politics is literally being anti-reformist and anti-philanthropy (because of course if churches are closed believers will be less likely to do good works like feeding the poor and homeless). I know that charity is just a sticking plaster but I think it's the principle that matters here. Helping the less fortunate is important whatever society you are in. If people are helping the poor because they want to reflect what Gods like, let them get on with it and we can overlook gays not being recognised in marriage.

[helot]

Everyone knows what marriage is. It's between a man and a woman. No people think they know what marriage is but they lack knowledge of anthropology. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman? How do you explain group marriages? How do you explain marriage in societies with more than two genders? Marriage is determined by the society in which it's occuring, nothing more. Hence, its definition is loose and not set in stone.



Lets not pretend that the conservatives are going ahead with this because they are secular-humanists convinced they are making the world a better place. It's bourgeois identity politics in the consumerist sense. It fits nicely with the increasing globalization and free-market ideology. Prudence doesn't sell and discrimination is bad for profit. The free-marketers inspired by Thatcher and Milton Friedman just see society as a bunch of consumers. Gay marriage doesn't affect profits, if anything a more socially liberal capitalism is more profitable. I don't give a fuck what they think i'm just here to correct your nonsense.




(because of course if churches are closed believers will be less likely to do good works like feeding the poor and homeless). So believers do good because the church says so and not because of their own personal beliefs? If that's the case they're no better than infants.



I know that charity is just a sticking plaster but I think it's the principle that matters here. Helping the less fortunate is important whatever society you are in. If people are helping the poor because they want to reflect what Gods like, let them get on with it. I don't see how anyone possessing a heart can even entertain the possibility that a church not marrying homosexuals because of their beliefs is more important than this.

If helping the poor is more important then doesn't that undermine your argument against gay marriage? Should not the church be more concerned with helping the poor than stopping gay people getting married?

[graffic]

No people think they know what marriage is but they lack knowledge of anthropology. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman? How do you explain group marriages? How do you explain marriage in societies with more than two genders? Marriage is determined by the society in which it's occuring, nothing more. Hence, its definition is loose and not set in stone.

How can it be "loose" when for centuries it's been understood as man&woman. What do you mean by "loose"?



So believers do good because the church says so and not because of their own personal beliefs?
Religion does give people a moral code and a desire to help others, yes. How is that a bad thing?


If helping the poor is more important then doesn't that undermine your argument against gay marriage? Should not the church be more concerned with helping the poor than stopping gay people getting married?The church should do more to help the poor. The church shouldn't bicker about gay rights and feminism and focus said energy on helping the poor, yes, however the marriage issue is quite simple. I don't really care about the established church. They don't necessarily interpret Christianity in the right way all the time. As a lapsed Christian I do however think Jesus was probably the greatest man that ever lived and from a social justice perspective right about everything in my opinion. Gay marriage will be the first time in history that the country will be passing a law that is directly contrary to what Jesus said about marriage in Mark chapter 10 and Matthew chapter 19.

He was no homophobe and whilst he was a radical egalitarian who turned over the tables of the money changers, helped the poor and oppressed and did other good things his message wasn't always conciliatory. He was quite clear that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I've yet to see any evidence that suggests there is a justification for tampering with the institution.

[#FF0000]

oh boy another "we should oppose equal rights for women and gay marriage because young n hip right-wingers support these things" thread from graffic can't wait

[helot]

How can it be "loose" when for centuries it's been understood as man&woman. What do you mean by "loose"?

How very Eurocentric of you.

I mean that throughout human history there has been various institutions that are covered under the term "marriage". There is no man & woman being the defining characteristic. Take tons of North American tribes which had 'Two-Spirit' people which includes both a third gender and two same-bodied individuals marrying.



Religion does give people a moral code and a desire to help others, yes. How is that a bad thing? except morality isn't derived from religion but through material conditions affecting aspects of our social instincts in potentially infinite ways.




The church should do more to help the poor. The church shouldn't bicker about gay rights and feminism and focus said energy on helping the poor, yes, however the marriage issue is quite simple. I don't really care about the established church. They don't necessarily interpret Christianity in the right way all the time. As a lapsed Christian I do however think Jesus was probably the greatest man that ever lived and from a social justice perspective right about everything in my opinion.


So you also think slaves shouldnt rebel against their masters? Doesn't sound conducive to social justice to me. In a more modern context 1 Timothy 6 would probably read "wage workers" and not "slaves".

[Zeus the Moose]

“What enabled communitarianism to go beyond marginality was a reaction of the Anglo-Saxon middle classes to what, in the mid and later 1980s, appeared to a section of them to be the negative consequences of neoliberal and libertarian policy: the combination of rising crime, homelessness and intoxication, the decay of public spaces and infrastructure, and the ‘undermining of tradition’ by the increased market and public presence of assertive women, of blacks and other national minorities, and of gays and lesbians and other sexual minorities. Within this was a significant unarticulated nostalgia for the lived experience of the middle and upper working classes in the years of the long boom and the technocratic consensus.”


WELL LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE

[graffic]

So you also think slaves shouldnt rebel against their masters? Doesn't sound conducive to social justice to me. In a more modern context 1 Timothy 6 would probably read "wage workers" and not "slaves".

Ok "everything" is an exaggeration. That passage can be interpreted in different ways. Jesus isn't condoning slavery, he's saying to turn the other cheek and peacefully protest Mart Luther King style if you like. Jesus was no apologist for oppression. He came to turn father against son.

There is a justification for ending slavery, and there always was. There's never been a justification to change the marriage law, and there never will be.

Legally there is no justification at this time. I don't think the world is going to implode if gay marriage goes ahead, but I don't see any real justification for it.

[graffic]

“What enabled communitarianism to go beyond marginality was a reaction of the Anglo-Saxon middle classes to what, in the mid and later 1980s, appeared to a section of them to be the negative consequences of neoliberal and libertarian policy: the combination of rising crime, homelessness and intoxication, the decay of public spaces and infrastructure, and the ‘undermining of tradition’ by the increased market and public presence of assertive women, of blacks and other national minorities, and of gays and lesbians and other sexual minorities. Within this was a significant unarticulated nostalgia for the lived experience of the middle and upper working classes in the years of the long boom and the technocratic consensus.”


WELL LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE



From the term "Anglo-Saxon" I gather this is perhaps racist shite.

Yes, Fascists also oppose imperialism and free - market capitalism. I don't understand what the term "technocracy" is but I've heard it used by conspiracy theorists before. What is the paragraph from?

[helot]

Ok "everything" is an exaggeration. That passage can be interpreted in different ways. Jesus isn't condoning slavery, he's saying to turn the other cheek and peacefully protest Mart Luther King style if you like. Jesus was no apologist for oppression. He came to turn father against son.

Jesus isn't saying to peacefully protest it literally says "they [slaves] should serve them [their masters] even better" if their master is also a christian. That doesn't mean "peacefully protest" it means to work harder. You're purposefully misinterpretting something that obviously isn't an analogy and is clearcut.

Now of course, the only way out of this while still proclaiming Jesus was worthy of the faith you place in him is to regard the entire passage as being a product of the co-option of early Christianity by the Roman state however that does lead to rejecting huge parts of scripture due to it being tainted by tyrants and thus we have no reliable source of Jesus' teachings which is what a good friend and committed comrade of mine does. He rejects every part of the bible that does not conform to his commitment tofighting social injustice.




There is a justification for ending slavery, and there always was. There's never been a justification to change the marriage law, and there never will be.

Legally there is no justification at this time. I don't think the world is going to implode if gay marriage goes ahead, but I don't see any real justification for it.

There is no justification for any semantical difference between mixed-sex and same-sex couples. Your only justification was that marriage is between men and women but i destroyed that justification by pointing out the flexibility of what marriage is.

[graffic]

Jesus isn't saying to peacefully protest it literally says "they [slaves] should serve them [their masters] even better" if their master is also a christian. That doesn't mean "peacefully protest" it means to work harder. You're purposefully misinterpretting something that obviously isn't an analogy and is clearcut.

Now of course, the only way out of this while still proclaiming Jesus was worthy of the faith you place in him is to regard the entire passage as being a product of the co-option of early Christianity by the Roman state however that does lead to rejecting huge parts of scripture due to it being tainted by tyrants and thus we have no reliable source of Jesus' teachings which is what a good friend and committed comrade of mine does. He rejects every part of the bible that does not conform to his commitment tofighting social injustice.




There is no justification for any semantical difference between mixed-sex and same-sex couples. Your only justification was that marriage is between men and women but i destroyed that justification by pointing out the flexibility of what marriage is.


The difference is "slavery" was a completely different thing back then. Material conditions and many other factors of the world have totally changed but my argument was that marriage has always remained male and female. And I'd argue it always should.

Marriage has stayed untouched for centuries, through revolutions and radical changes in society. Why change marriage now? There's no justification for a change.

(Jesus doesn't condone slavery. There's tons of articles all over the net written by people who understand scripture better than I do that have explained those passages.)

[helot]

The difference is "slavery" was a completely different thing back then. Were talking about antiquity. Material conditions and many other factors of the world have totally changed but my argument was that the human condition, (specifically marriage) is male and female and has stayed the same. And I'd argue it always will.

yet you're wrong about marriage consistently being between a man and a woman which i've already pointed out with an example to back up my claim which you completely ignored.

Your Eurocentricism gets the better of you.

[graffic]

Sometimes it's good to be "Eurocentric". Marxism is a euro centric ideology. The enlightenment happened in Europe.

Why should we see marriage as "flexible" because of what some North American tribes got up to? If you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion why shouldn't we perhaps be open to re-defining our attitudes towards eating because of the cannabilism of certain African tribes?

[ed miliband]

cameron and the majority of 'cameronite' conservatives, or whatever they might call themselves, are liberals (and consciously so...); i believe the tories have the highest number of openly gay mps, for example.

[helot]

Sometimes it's good to be "Eurocentric". Marxism is a euro centric ideology. The enlightenment happened in Europe.

Why should we see marriage as "flexible" because of what some North American tribes got up to? If you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion why shouldn't we perhaps be open to re-defining our attitudes towards eating because of the cannabilism of certain African tribes?

Something coming from Europe doesn't make it Eurocentric. If the charge of Marxism as Eurocentric is correct then it has no use outside of Europe.

Your analogy is flippant. I'm not talking about attitudes as such nor am i saying we must see marriage as flexible, i'm stating marriage is flexible and the evidence proves this.

I'm claiming your definition of marriage is inherently eurocentric and ignores the existence of other forms of marriage throughout human history. Your entire argument against gay marriage was that marriage is necessarily between man and woman which i've disproved. You have no argument. You just can't accept it because facts must bend to your desire to protect your idealised view of an institution that emerges within various human societies from homosexuals.

[Zeus the Moose]

From the term "Anglo-Saxon" I gather this is perhaps racist shite.

lol


Yes, Fascists also oppose imperialism

Wat.


and free - market capitalism.

Yes and no. Regardless, they still support capitalism.


I don't understand what the term "technocracy" is but I've heard it used by conspiracy theorists before. What is the paragraph from?

It's a paragraph from a book review (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/482/republicanism-and-marxism).

[graffic]

Something coming from Europe doesn't make it Eurocentric. If the charge of Marxism as Eurocentric is correct then it has no use outside of Europe.

Eurocentricism is viewing the world from a European perspective. Karl Marx was a European and formed his ideas from a European perspective. Movements such as "Arab socialism" combined elements of Marxism with another culture.


Your analogy is flippant. I'm not talking about attitudes as such nor am i saying we must see marriage as flexible, i'm stating marriage is flexible and the evidence proves this. You said that because of what some North American tribes did we should see marriage as "flexible". That is the same as saying our attitudes to food are flexible because some African tribes engage in cannibalism. But know one in their right mind is advocating a change in our attitudes towards food.

After centuries why at this specific time should it be re-defined? There is no justification for it.



I'm claiming your definition of marriage is inherently eurocentric and ignores the existence of other forms of marriage throughout human history. Your entire argument against gay marriage was that marriage is necessarily between man and woman which i've disproved. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for more than a long enough time. It's an institution that's survived radical social and economic change throughout centuries.

There is no justification to change it now.

[soso17]

Okay, whenever I see a post from graffic, I read it, and am surprised that I feel like I'm losing my mind. The bs he posts is far worse than many "bannable" offenses I've seen. At first, I thought this was in OI, but it's not.

Here's a fun game for you all: Replace the word "homosexual" with the word "black" in all his posts. Then replace "homophobia" with "racism". Then issue a warning for how incredibly reactionary his posts are.

Has he never heard of Jim Crow laws? "Separate but equal"? I am SO tired of hearing about Jesus and "traditional beliefs" and all. He paints the proletariat (esp. the men) as a bunch of ignorant backward bafoons, whom we have to "trick" into socialism by bending to their biggotry. I have a significantly higher opinion of working men (and women) than to think them unable to come to the conclusion that equal rights are essential to the progress of humanity.

Also, I'm not in a position to find a quote right now, but doesn't the Communist Manifesto explain that "traditional" marriage is just a product of patriarchy and a form of ownership over the woman? Why on EARTH would we, as the revolutionary left, wish to preserve such an heinous system?

Keep in mind, marriage has had many faces over the years, even in Europe. Until the twentieth century, marriages weren't even registered with the government, and were private and/or religious matters. Also, the idea of marrying for love is a pretty new idea also, and in the past was secondary to monetary/familial/finacial gain on the part of the man. I find it hard to believe that the Hapsburgs, etc., consistently had what we now consider "ideal, traditional" marriages. Also, polygamy and other forms of marriage have been accepted and practiced at different times and in different places. There are many, many more examples, but I think you get the idea.

There is a thread that has been on RevLeft for a while now entitled, "Stalin was a rape apologist", which is based on one quote from a source of questionable merit. I can find many more quotes from Graffic to prove that, "Graffic is a hate apologist".

-soso

EDIT: Found a quote:
"The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition ofthe community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private." --Marx and Engels, "The Communist Manifesto"

[soso17]

Also, I am not only gay, but a church-going Christian, and my husband and I had a ceremony to bless and witness our Civil Union, IN my church, performed by our pastor. Not all Christians are ignorant and reactionary, and I take offense at that implication. I know many, many religious people who see no room in the church for bigots.

[#FF0000]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for more than a long enough time. It's an institution that's survived radical social and economic change throughout centuries.

There is no justification to change it now.

Except it certainly has changed over the centuries. Marrying for love, rather than marriage being about wealth or prestige, became more common, and especially so during the 19th century when working/middle class people could actually start paying for their own weddings rather than relying on their families to set the things up. Also it's pretty silly to say marriage was simply "a man and a woman". Up until the 20th century marriage also implied a hierarchy of husband over wife, which has changed for the most part.

Also the church recognized same-sex marriage (between males) as late as the 13th century, carrying out the ceremonies with all the same fixings as a marriage between a man and woman (vows, a kiss, and everything) until some emperor decided to change that tradition.

Oh and hey let's not forget how divorce has become all the more common over the past century or so, changing marriage from a lifetime thing to a contract to be ended whenever the people involved want it to end.

So hey look at that graffic once again talks about days gone by as they never actually were. What a surprise.

[graffic]

There is a rational reason for supporting some aspects of conservative morality. The institution of marriage discourages casual sex culturally. If casual sex is encouraged culturally it encourages a disfunctional society based around pleasure-seeking objectifiers.

Marriage as an institution was partly introduced and continued to combat the jealousy and ill feelings that naturally arise in a culture of sexual promiscuity.

The whole "free love" thing was dropped quickly in the USSR after the revolution.

[l'Enfermé]

^Maybe the Pope says so but in reality marriage as an institution arose exlusively for the purpose of ensuring property inheritance and reinforcing patriarchy.

[graffic]

By the way you accuse me of being"euro centric" because I have a socially conservative view of marriage. Your aggressive athiest view is very first worldist. Religion is massive globally. In Western Europe we live in a bubble where the overwhelming majority are secular. If you want people to join a struggle you have to be more patient and accepting of their religion and traditions which they won't just lose at the drop of a hat. I don't think socially conservative opinions make one a bad person. I know many black African Christians and Arab Muslims who get involved in radical politics at university who hold socially conservative opinions on marriage but I don't pick athiest fights with them because it's more important to focus on materialism. The gay marriage issue isn't really important. It's a distraction by the coalition. They announced it literally a few days after the economic budget statement which had desired effect of burying the bad economic news and changing the debate to gay marriage.

[graffic]

And you still haven't explained how and why gay marriage is happening now. Why didn't it happen 10 years ago, 20 years ago or in 5 years time. Why is it happening now? And why was it not included in the parties manifesto? Someone also pointed it out to me that that all the Western nations are introducing it at the same time. Perhaps they were a conspiracy theorist but at the same time it the timing does seem odd.

[Manic Impressive]

According to Leviticus the book where the man shall not lay with man crap comes from you are not allowed tattoos, haircuts, and to mix two different fabrics in one garment.

I want to know when these Christian conservatives are going to spend an equal amount of time crusading against these things as they do against homosexual relations.

Polyester is a sin!!!

[#FF0000]

There is a rational reason for supporting some aspects of conservative morality. The institution of marriage discourages casual sex culturally. If casual sex is encouraged culturally it encourages a disfunctional society based around pleasure-seeking objectifiers.

Marriage as an institution was partly introduced and continued to combat the jealousy and ill feelings that naturally arise in a culture of sexual promiscuity.

Except that is bullshit and I know for a fact that you can't bring up a single source for that because having extra-marital affairs were exceptionally common and were considered the highest form of love for a long, long time. Marriage was about business and politics until about the 18th century and marrying for love wasn't really an option.


The whole "free love" thing was dropped quickly in the USSR after the revolution.Dunno why you think any of us should care about the thermidor of the russian revolution tho

[graffic]

Okay, whenever I see a post from graffic, I read it, and am surprised that I feel like I'm losing my mind. The bs he posts is far worse than many "bannable" offenses I've seen. At first, I thought this was in OI, but it's not.

Here's a fun game for you all: Replace the word "homosexual" with the word "black" in all his posts. Then replace "homophobia" with "racism". Then issue a warning for how incredibly reactionary his posts are.


Why do you equate social conservatism with race issues. I don't judge people on "race". I don't believe in nationalism, far from it in fact.

I support some aspects of conservative morality because they have a rational basis.

I think we should combat the jealousy and ill feelings that naturally arise in a culture of sexual promiscuity and marriage is good at doing that. Marriage should not be under-mined because of a minority within a minority.

Racial "inequality" has been scientifically proven to be false. Homosexual relationships are biologically inferior to heterosexual ones. They cannot produce children so, for example, if gay people are promiscuous, this doesn't affect society the same way if heterosexual people are promiscuous. The institution of marriage discourages casual sex culturally. If you encourage casual sex culturally (which is what undermining the institution does) you encourage a dysfunctional society of pleasure seeking objectifiers that results in jealousy and other ill feelings.

[#FF0000]

Homosexual relationships are biologically inferior to heterosexual ones.

lol what does 'biologically inferior' even mean? Where did you get this term from?


The institution of marriage discourages casual sex culturally.

It doesn't and never did. People cheat now. People were expected to cheat "back then".


If you encourage casual sex culturally (which is what undermining the institution does) you encourage a dysfunctional society of pleasure seeking objectifiers that results in jealousy and other ill feelings.

Can you provide any evidence to back up your thesis here? Evidence that marriage does anything to discourage casual sex or jealousy and "other ill feelings"? Evidence to show that casual sex results in "jealousy" in the first place? Evidence to show it's even an actual problem on any level?

[hetz]

People were expected to cheat "back then".
Well that's new for me. Back when exactly?

[#FF0000]

Well that's new for me. Back when exactly?

As far as I can tell, back before marrying for love came into style in the 17th-19th centuries. People would often marry, like I said earlier, for wealth an status, and have other suitors outside the relationship.

[graffic]

lol what does 'biologically inferior' even mean? Where did you get this term from?

It is an objective fact that gay relationships are inferior.

Marriage is in the best interests of society. People who want to keep it heterosexual only want the best for society.

This is the problem. Some gay rights activists do not want the best for society. They want the best for their own interests. Similarly the capitalists do not want what is in societies best interests.

Marriage traditionalists want the best for society.

Why are both free-marketers and "progressives" interested in de-throning Christianity as the central purpose and central moral system of our society? Not because they want the best for society. They are actively pursuing their own selfish interests.

They both contradict the most selfless, compassionate man that ever lived - Jesus Christ - who said marriage should be man&woman and turned over tables of the money changers and argued against greed.

Edit, different subject.

[soso17]

It is an objective fact that gay relationships are inferior.

Marriage is in the best interests of society. People who want to keep it heterosexual only want the best for society.

This is the problem. Some gay rights activists do not want the best for society. They want the best for their own interests. Similarly the capitalists do not want what is in societies best interests.

Marriage traditionalists want the best for society.

Why are both non-traditionalist free-marketers and "progressives" interested in de-throning Christianity as the central purpose and central moral system of our society? Not because they want the best for society. They are actively pursuing their own selfish interests.

They both contradict the most selfless, compassionate man that ever lived - Jesus Christ - who said marriage should be man&woman and turned over tables of the money changers and argued against greed.

If the devil himself was on earth he would be a socially liberal free-marketer.

WTF???? Why isn't he restricted? Graffic is not a revolutionary leftist of any flavor. His opinions are CONSISTENTLY and blatantly homophobic and misogynistic, and his posts are closer to fascism than communism. What's next, a new Lebensborn program? After all, we're here to make more Christian babies and protect them from all the evil atheists, feminists and gay-rights advocate.

He hides his bigotry by blaming "identity politics" and not the groups against which he's railing per se. I said this before, to no effect...if you change "homosexual" to "insert non-white race here", everyone would see him for what he really is.

I can't be alone in my feelings that this person has no business outside of OI on revleft.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

WTF???? Why isn't he restricted? Graffic is not a revolutionary leftist of any flavor. His opinions are CONSISTENTLY and blatantly homophobic and misogynistic, and his posts are closer to fascism than communism. What's next, a new Lebensborn program? After all, we're here to make more Christian babies and protect them from all the evil atheists, feminists and gay-rights advocate.

He hides his bigotry by blaming "identity politics" and not the groups against which he's railing per se. I said this before, to no effect...if you change "homosexual" to "insert non-white race here", everyone would see him for what he really is.

I can't be alone in my feelings that this person has no business outside of OI on revleft.

You are in OI you joker

[soso17]

My bad...this used to be in religion. But I stand by the rest of my haughty indignation!

[#FF0000]

It is an objective fact that gay relationships are inferior.

Yeah I saw this assertion before. What do you mean "inferior"? In what way? Is the superiority/inferiority of a relationship scaled on whether or not the couple can have kids? What if it's a heterosexual couple incapable of conceiving? What if they just don't want kids?

But mainly, what do you even mean by inferior/superior in this discussion? How is one relationship either superior or inferior to another?


Marriage is in the best interests of society. People who want to keep it heterosexual only want the best for society.


Everyone who believes anything does. Who cares?


This is the problem. Some gay rights activists do not want the best for society. They want the best for their own interests. Similarly the capitalists do not want what is in societies best interests.

Uh, but "society" is a hodge-podge of people from all backgrounds. Something that is good for society is good for all. Communists, the working class people ought not be looking at what's best for society in general, but the working class alone.

And yeah dogg, that means homosexuals, women, people of all races as well. And that means dealing with the specific oppressions and challenges these groups all face.


Why are both free-marketers and "progressives" interested in de-throning Christianity as the central purpose and central moral system of our society? Not because they want the best for society. They are actively pursuing their own selfish interests.


If someone sees religion as a toxic influence and thinks we'd be all be better off without it, would they not be thinking about the best interests of society? And I don't know about free-marketers, but as for revolutionaries and 'progressives', I think Mark Steel got it spot in one of his articles in the Independent where he said:


...the difference between the modern atheist and the Enlightenment thinkers who fought the church in the 18th century is that back then they didn't make opposition to religion itself their driving ideology. They opposed the lack of democracy justified by the idea that a king was God's envoy on earth, and they wished for a rational understanding of the solar system, rather than one based on an order ordained by God that matched the view that everyone in society was born into a fixed status.


Traditional abrahamic religious institutions tend to be institutions that reinforce the class-system mentality of superiors and lessers, of patriarchy, of subservience to one's betters. That is why we take issue with these traditionalist religious institutions.


They both contradict the most selfless, compassionate man that ever lived - Jesus Christ - who said marriage should be man&woman and turned over tables of the money changers and argued against greed.


Where did Jesus say this? The only reference to such a thing I could ever find was in Leviticus, which iirc is pretty much null and void because of Jesus' New Covenant.


If the devil himself was alive on earth he would be a socially liberal free-marketer. Social liberalism is the most selfish part of the left and right-wing economics is the most selfish part of the right. If you bring them together you have only selfishness and a desire to have it both ways.

In mythical terms the devil represents death and Jesus represents life. We should be choosing life, not death, and doing things that are in the best interests of society like keeping marriage heterosexual and not encouraging a dysfunctional society of pleasure seeking objectifiers, and not encouraging free-markets and greed that encourages a society of commodity fetishizers and money worshipers.

Am I remembering things incorrectly? Wasn't graffic once able to put up a half-decent and well argued post once in awhile? This whole "repeat assertions over and over and make bizarre, ridiculous statements with no basis in anything" thing is new, right?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It is an objective fact that gay relationships are inferior.

Marriage is in the best interests of society. People who want to keep it heterosexual only want the best for society.



What the FUCK is this right-populist bullshit? In case you aren't aware, homosexuals are an inseparable part of your idealistically constructed (and likely orthodox Catholic, latin speaking, etc.) 'society'. If you want to walk away from the fact that non-heterosexuals are viciously oppressed, slandered and spat on to this very day, and start using pope-borne bile about abstract ideological tracts justifying members of the same sex not getting married, then you really shouldn't be considering yourself a leftist.





The clergy is right over there.

[graffic]

Yeah I saw this assertion before. What do you mean "inferior"? In what way? Is the superiority/inferiority of a relationship scaled on whether or not the couple can have kids? What if it's a heterosexual couple incapable of conceiving? What if they just don't want kids?

But mainly, what do you even mean by inferior/superior in this discussion? How is one relationship either superior or inferior to another?

Well obviously it's an inferior relationship because they can't have kids. It is less of a problem to society if they are promiscuous. Marriage discourages casual sex culturally. If marriage is available to homosexuals, marriage as an institution is weakened because homosexual couples don't want to get married to stop being sexually promiscuous. They want to get married because they believe civil partnerships don't recognise their love as "equal" ,they don't see themselves as "equal" and they describe being excluded from "marriage" as a form of seperate but equal "apartheid". If marriage is available to homosexual couples it undermines the foundation of marriage, which is to discourage casual sex culturally.

If you support gay marriage or you support abolishing or undermining the institution of marriage you support a more dysfunctional society. I don't know why anyone would support this.



Uh, but "society" is a hodge-podge of people from all backgrounds. Something that is good for society is good for all. Communists, the working class people ought not be looking at what's best for society in general, but the working class alone. I would argue the institution of marriage is in the interests of the working class. Discouraging casual sex culturally is in the interests of the working class. A dysfunctional society of pleasure seeking objectifiers are more consumerist than a working class that respects the institution of marriage as a way of discouraging casual sex culturally.

In a democracy know one should be forced to do anything. But it is in the interests of society and the working class that casual sex is discouraged culturally.


And yeah dogg, that means homosexuals, women, people of all races as well. And that means dealing with the specific oppressions and challenges these groups all face.How is heterosexual marriage an oppression?

Women get cheaper car insurance, some night clubs have a man and women only entry system, marriage is for heterosexuals only...at the end of the day you just take yourself elsewhere and get on with it instead of stamping your feet like a spoilt child.

Jesus never said anything hateful, prejudiced or homophobic. Are you saying he's a homophobe because he said in the gospels (Mark chapter 10 and Matthew chapter 19) that marriage should be between a man and a woman? I think applying prejudice to Jesus is a slander and its political propaganda that de-values the egalitarian message that Jesus had.




Traditional abrahamic religious institutions tend to be institutions that reinforce the class-system mentality of superiors and lessers, of patriarchy, of subservience to one's betters. That is why we take issue with these traditionalist religious institutions. Western Europe has become increasingly secular whilst the divide between the rich and the poor has got wider.

What difference does religion make to the bourgeoise. "Capital" is athiest in character. Capitalists are more ruthless and profitable when they are not bogged down by religion. Look at the pious capitalists in the Victorian age who demonstrably gave more to the poor and did more public works than the mostly secular super-rich today (who are demonstrably giving a lot less away than they used to).

Religion doesn't matter anymore like it used to, at least in the UK.