Same-sex marriage: Yes or No?

[Nikolay]

I was reading a thread in the Learning section, and the poster asked what Socialist countries permitted/accepted same-sex marriage. And unfortunately many of the past and present socialist countries are not same-sex friendly. The only socialist country I can think of that is tolerant of same-sex marriage is Cuba. So, do you think same-sex marriages should be allowed in socialist countries?

I would, however, like to know my fellow leftists opinions on this. Here's the options (there'll be in the poll as well):


Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Same-sex couples should not be able to marry, and not have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Same-sex couples should be allowed in civil unions, however, with the same rights.
Same-sex couples should be prosecuted and same-sex marriage illegal.


I personally believe same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

EDIT: Made a little boo-boo, could a mod put those four options into a poll. Don't know why mine didn't show.

[Red_Banner]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

[boiler]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[Remus Bleys]

Anyone who says differently than the first should be banned immediately.
There is no excuse to be anti-lgbt at this point.

[RedGuevara]

Same sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. They're people just like myself and anyone else. They love and bleed just as we all do so to judge them based on their love affairs is a bit wrong.

[d3crypt]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Fuck anyone who disagrees.

[RedBen]

i understand if you're new to this, so i will answer with no malice. "same sex couples should be treated as well as everyone else in every way". LGBT people are people first, let us not treat them as if they are not. they deserve the same respect and acceptance and freedoms as every other group of people. in fact i believe the brave "out" people should be respected and revered for being themselves in an oppressive world full of heteronormative societies which would seek to oppress them.

[Nikolay]

i understand if you're new to this, so i will answer with no malice. "same sex couples should be treated as well as everyone else in every way". LGBT people are people first, let us not treat them as if they are not. they deserve the same respect and acceptance and freedoms as every other group of people. in fact i believe the brave "out" people should be respected and revered for being themselves in an oppressive world full of heteronormative societies which would seek to oppress them.

I 100% agree with that. I have gay friends and know gay people who are "Out of the closest" and I have the utmost respect for them. They're admirable and there's nothing wrong with them.

[Sam_b]

I'm not going to attach a poll as the only use for it would be to see who needs restricted.

[RedGuevara]

Same sex marriage should be allowed. It shouldn't even be voted on. It's no different then a man and woman getting married. How could one argue otherwise? Love's love.

[adipocere]

Anyone who says differently than the first should be banned immediately.
There is no excuse to be anti-lgbt at this point.
What is intolerant about #3?

[Goblin]

Of course same-sex marriage should be legal. Hopefully no one here is against it.

[Remus Bleys]

What is intolerant about #3?
The fact that it implies homosexuals (like myself) aren't good enough for "regular" marriage.

[xxxxxx666666]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples, also any novel combination between loving, consenting adults should be allowed to do as they wish and have the same rights as everyone else, nothing less!

So a adult "Creature from Smart Planet X6"-human couple should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

[Taters]

So a adult "Creature from Smart Planet X6"-human couple should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Uh... what? Could you expand on what you're trying to say here?

[Petrol Bomb]

Comrade Marceau, this should not be a question (outside of the learning forum, that is), as very much all of us take the position that homosexuals are to have equal rights in all aspects of life.

[adipocere]

The fact that it implies homosexuals (like myself) aren't good enough for "regular" marriage.
I'm not sure there really is much of a difference except that the word marriage has religious overtones...

[RedGuevara]

(Sorry for the double post:() Marriage does have religious tones but it's became such a broad term now adays that even atheists such as myself use it. Hell even Pagans I know use marriage. Language evolves. Gay went from meaning happy to a man/man couple or a woman/woman couple.

[xxxxxx666666]

Uh... what? Could you expand on what you're trying to say here?

I'm trying to say that any combination of thinking adults, if they are both loving, consenting adults who WANTS to be together should have the same rights and privilages as everyone else who wants to be together.

In other words, I believe that if 8000 year old, 40 year old, and 29 year old or any other combinations of thinking, and consenting adults regardless of sex, race, species, etc., unlikely or otherwise, all wants to marry as in a polygamous relationship then they should ALL have the same rights as heterosexual couples do now.

Also, singles should have the same rights and privilages, regardless of sex or if they are very old, or whatever, as same rights as heterosexual couples. The reason I say this is because in some places (thankfully rare) I've read that singles, especially single women, are viewed as less of a human begins when they are unmarried passed a certain age, as married people, which should change.

[Taters]

I'm trying to say that any combination of thinking adults, if they are both loving, consenting adults who WANTS to be together should have the same rights and privilages as everyone else who wants to be together.

Couldn't you have just said it like that then? I was certain you were implying that it was an abomination, somehow.

[adipocere]

well there is a difference...a marriage is a catch all word, however, in the US it has distinct connotations as a religious ceremony that is not necessarily recognized by the state. A civil union, on the other hand, is what the state would recognize, that would have rights and privileges attached.
We might sling the word around, but I think the issue, at least in the US, is over the right to a civil union. Gay people have been getting married in marriage ceremonies for decades here, but it was symbolic.
I'm not sure if the OP was making a distinction, but I assumed it, otherwise #3 would be redundant. but I do think #3 is what you should expect from a secular state.

[Sam_b]

I'm not sure there really is much of a difference except that the word marriage has religious overtones...

Except religious LGBT people exist, and should not be denied the right to practice their religion and cement it in marriage if they should wish.

EDIT: Just saw this

but I do think #3 is what you should expect from a secular state.

This is not the hallmark of a secular state at all.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marriage as an institution should be abolished, but as long as it does exist, it should be available to same-sex/gender couples.

[Remus Bleys]

well there is a difference...a marriage is a catch all word, however, in the US it has distinct connotations as a religious ceremony that is not necessarily recognized by the state. A civil union, on the other hand, is what the state would recognize, that would have rights and privileges attached.
We might sling the word around, but I think the issue, at least in the US, is over the right to a civil union. Gay people have been getting married in marriage ceremonies for decades here, but it was symbolic.
I'm not sure if the OP was making a distinction, but I assumed it, otherwise #3 would be redundant. but I do think #3 is what you should expect from a secular state.
Except this is not the case over what marriage means in the US.
Maybe this is a semantics, and thats fine to think we should change meanings, but these things have legal definitions.

[Remus Bleys]

Except religious LGBT people exist, and should not be denied the right to practice their religion and cement it in marriage if they should wish.
I don't know if this is what you were saying, but I'd go a step further than the state and say that all religious institutions should be forced to accept same sex marriage.

[Quail]

This thread is kind of bad. I disagree with the institution of marriage but people should be able to do the same things regardless of sexuality. I don't see why anyone here would disagree with gay marriage.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

well there is a difference...a marriage is a catch all word, however, in the US it has distinct connotations as a religious ceremony that is not necessarily recognized by the state. A civil union, on the other hand, is what the state would recognize, that would have rights and privileges attached.
In the US, a civil union is called a marriage under law whether or not it's performed by clergy.

[helot]

It seems to me that gay marriage is a conservative issue. It seems to be about protecting the institution of marriage.

I of course oppose all LGBT oppression yet i find the debate around same-sex marriage, even among its advocates/activists, fucked up. There seems to be a constant attempt to ignore how the marriage institution discriminates against other forms of relationships.

I don't support people receiving special rights and privileges due to being in a state/church sanctioned relationship whether same sex or not. I'm an egalitarian ffs. Either everyone, even if they're single, receives these same privileges or no one should.

[Brotto Rühle]

abolish marriage.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Hur dur, eh i am against gay marriage, it is a sin ya know if two guys kiss their going to hell, even though it's not my problem i have an urge to impose my will on otherrrs. (End sarcasm)

I support LGBT rights, even though I'm heterosexual, I think love is love, no matter who the partners are.


abolish marriage.

Why?

[Brotto Rühle]

Why?

...:glare:

[Skyhilist]

The question isn't asking if should abolish marriage in general.

You know that's not going to happen any time soon. So the (more practical) question that is being asked is if gays should be able to get married like heterosexuals are allowed to in this country. If you don't support equality in that category, you don't support equality at all. There should be zero debate on this here.

[Sea]

Marriage in itself is repressive no matter what, but there is a lot more good to be gained in at least somewhat disrupting the association between state-sanctioned marriage and heterosexist marital norms than there is bad in the expansion of the institution that would follow this.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I'm trying to say that any combination of thinking adults, if they are both loving, consenting adults who WANTS to be together should have the same rights and privilages as everyone else who wants to be together.

In other words, I believe that if 8000 year old, 40 year old, and 29 year old or any other combinations of thinking, and consenting adults regardless of sex, race, species, etc., unlikely or otherwise, all wants to marry as in a polygamous relationship then they should ALL have the same rights as heterosexual couples do now....

So, any combination of adults? Brother and sister? (Widowed) parent and his/her adult child? Spouses and their adult children?

These are real questions, in response to "any combination" and "love is love, no matter who the partners are."

I am not trying to bait anyone; I just want to know if there are any limits expressed by the writer's formulation of "any combination."

[Joseph Stallion]

We should abolish marriage and replace it with free love, as long as all people involved in a relationship consent to being in it.

[xxxxxx666666]

Why should there be any limit? If it is between adults who can think for themselves and who are not forces, blackmailed, etc. and they want to be together, why not?

During the early years of the Russian Revolution, and maybe the French Revolution as well (maybe some can provide more detail on this), when they overturned and decriminalized all the sex laws, incest wasn't made illegal, neither was homosexuality as long as it is between willing adults. And why should they be? Those sex and marrage laws are stupid to begin with in my opinion and only work to enforce some narrow view that someone though would control the people.

Yes, love IS love in ANY combination, and I mean ANY, and yes people should be allowed, with all the legal rights, benefits, etc. to marry their brother, their sister their great grandmother, their great grandfather, their great uncle, their friend next door, their super smart pet, their home thinking machine, etc. etc. if that is what you are asking.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I support mandatory gay marriage. If you do not have a ready gay partner the government should allocate you one.

[xxxxxx666666]

I support mandatory gay marriage. If you do not have a ready gay partner the government should allocate you one.

That's forced marrage and I don't support it at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So, any combination of adults? Brother and sister? (Widowed) parent and his/her adult child? Spouses and their adult children?

These are real questions, in response to "any combination" and "love is love, no matter who the partners are."

I am not trying to bait anyone; I just want to know if there are any limits expressed by the writer's formulation of "any combination."

I think most people are against forced marriage; apart from that, I think pretty much anything goes. So what if someone wants to marry their brother? If it doesn't hurt anyone, that's no concern of ours. I think, as a very general rule, that if someone wants to restrict the behaviour of other people, the onus is on them to demonstrate that this restriction is warranted, by arguing from the material facts, instead of moral notions.


I support mandatory gay marriage. If you do not have a ready gay partner the government should allocate you one.

I support you actually contributing to the site for once. The gadfly shtick is getting old.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I support mandatory gay marriage. If you do not have a ready gay partner the government should allocate you one.

Well, finally, I won't be alone any longer! Just one question: how do I indicate to the government that I want Brad Pitt as my government-allocated partner? :lol:

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

anyone who wants to be with someone should do it regardless if they are of the same gender or not. Marriage should just be abolished.

Having re-read the Communist Manifesto a week ago I'm sure Marx said very little about same sex marriage. He dismisses marriage anyway because it exploits women only as instruments of producing children.

[Remus Bleys]

He dismisses marriage anyway because it exploits women only as instruments of producing children.

This is irrelevant. Marx was homophobic. And he was married.

[TruProl]

This strikes me as odd because Marx himself stated that the State should have nothing to do with marriage at all, it's between people and this is another example of oppression. The fact that these countries ignored something that was clearly defined by Marx serves as another example of how many failed in so many aspects to be anything other than Authoritarian State Capitalists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Actually, the homophobia of Marx and Engels tends to be overstated; if they were alive today, of course their views would be unacceptable (imagine Marx whining in the Unfair Restrictions thread, ha), but note that the chief of the German Lassalleans was a gay person, and they never used that against him.

As for being married, just like MCM' can't be abolished by asceticism, the bourgeois family unit can't be abolished by not marrying. Of course, even after the abolition of the BFU, symbolic marriages would probably remain, and if someone wants to marry their same-sex twin brothers or something, whatever, that's not my department.

[Sea]

Though its conclusions are correct, I'd like to point out that the liberal argument that uses equal rights as a reason to support same-sex marriage is a poor argument. Here's why. The reactionary statement that is being argued against is as follows:

Non-heterosexual orientations are unacceptable, heterosexuality is acceptable, marriage is acceptable, and therefore, same-sex marriage is unacceptable.

Same-sex marriage is here thought unacceptable, because it implies both marriage and homosexuality, the latter alone being thought unacceptable. The liberal counter-argument that any marriage between to people who love each other is valid is as follows:

Non-heterosexual orientations are acceptable, heterosexuality is acceptable, marriage is acceptable, and therefore, marriage is acceptable regardless of orientation.

At first glance, the liberal counter-argument (that any marriage between to people who love each other is valid) seems satisfactory. After all, as we can see by breaking this argument down in to its component parts, it replaces the assumption of heterosexism with an assumption of equality. The problem originates in that it retains the assumption that marriage itself is acceptable. One who is so inclined could counter this with an "ultra-left" argument as follows:

Non-heterosexual orientations are acceptable, heterosexuality is acceptable, marriage is unacceptable, and therefore, same-sex marriage is unacceptable.

After all, the right to be part of an oppressive institution is no right at all. This ultra-left argument likewise takes the liberal argument's structure for granted, and by taking it to its logical conclusion by taking into account that in fact marriage is not to be supported, shows the absurdity of this structure. The liberal's argument, based on the support of equality, degenerates into an argument of "rights", and is defenseless against all sorts of absurd counter-arguments.

It is a much better idea to focus on the effect that the elimination of the public's conception of marriage as a heterosexual institution would have on the institution of marriage generally. We do not support marriage, and to continue to use the liberal argument (which assumes that marriage is a positive thing) is nothing short of laziness.

[Mandarin]

Marriage is a reactionary institution we can do without.

Let all enjoy equal rights regardless of who they are or whom they might love but never, ever confine them to something so reactionary, so oppressive as marriage.

[Tim Cornelis]

How is marriage "reactionary"?

[Sea]

How is marriage "reactionary"?
Well, for one, it serves to enforce bourgeois standards of what a relationship should look like (monogamous, child-bearing, division between wife's work and husband's work, etc).

[Remus Bleys]

Well, for one, it serves to enforce bourgeois standards of what a relationship should look like (monogamous, child-bearing, division between wife's work and husband's work, etc).

Well, like not all married persons have children. Not all married person has a division of labor (I know my parents don't).

And while I have no problem with polygamy, i would never be able to do it.
Does that make me "reactionary"?

[Quail]

There's a difference between a monogamous relationship and the institution of marriage though. A marriage ceremony between a man and a woman is kind of like an exchange of property. The bride's father "gives her away" to the groom.

[Ann Egg]

i think lgbtq folks should marry straight people to ruin straight marriages on purpose because down with the family.

[Sea]

Well, like not all married persons have children. Not all married person has a division of labor (I know my parents don't).

And while I have no problem with polygamy, i would never be able to do it.
Does that make me "reactionary"?I stated that the ideal relationship, to a bourgeois, is, among other things, monogamous. I never stated that a monogamous relationship implies in any way that it's bourgeois. That would be as absurd as stating that the having of children is necessarily bourgeois, just because it is held in especially high regard under bourgeois standards. If we are to survive for more than a generation under glorious higher-stage communism, we should certainly hope it isn't!

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, for one, it serves to enforce bourgeois standards of what a relationship should look like (monogamous, child-bearing, division between wife's work and husband's work, etc).

Absolutely and utterly ridiculous. This is the dominant form of marriage as it takes shapes in a modernised bourgeois society, it does not follow that therefore marriage in itself is "reactionary" or "bourgeois." By extension of this logic we need to oppose a workers' state because the present state is bourgeois, 'therefore states enforce a particular social relationships (wage-labour, etc.).' In a similar fashion, just because the state is bourgeois in its present form does not make the state bourgeois in all its possible forms. Moreover, shape and form of marriage is defined by social norms, not vice versa as you imply. In other words, marriage does not enforce a particular form of relationships, but is merely an expression of social norms concerning marriage. Marriage under different social conditions will be defined differently. Marriage predates capitalism and bourgeois norms by thousands of years -- which should be sufficient refutation of this nonsense. Marriage, in fact, predates class society.
Even in bourgeois society I don't see marriage as inherently as you describe, which seems antiquated in many ways. Open-marriages, childless marriages, and equalised division of labour are compatible with marriage in bourgeois society.


There's a difference between a monogamous relationship and the institution of marriage though. A marriage ceremony between a man and a woman is kind of like an exchange of property. The bride's father "gives her away" to the groom.

Perhaps in some parts of the world. But I've never seen this happen outside of Television. A marriage can perfectly be seen as a union between equals, or at least be organised in such a manner. It does not follow that because for ages marriage was like an exchange of property, that therefore marriage is inherently so.


I stated that the ideal relationship, to a bourgeois, is, among other things, monogamous. I never stated that a monogamous relationship implies in any way that it's bourgeois. That would be as absurd as stating that the having of children is necessarily bourgeois, just because it is held in especially high regard under bourgeois standards. If we are to survive for more than a generation under glorious higher-stage communism, we should certainly hope it isn't!

Who is a "bourgeois"? An owner of means of production or an ideologue? And why is an ideal relationship, to him, monogamous?

[Comrade Jacob]

EDIT: Made a little boo-boo, could a mod put those four options into a poll. Don't know why mine didn't show.

First off, they should have equal rights, it's a non-question at this point.

You should be able to add a poll by using "Thread Tools".

[Popularis]

Actually, the homophobia of Marx and Engels tends to be overstated; if they were alive today, of course their views would be unacceptable (imagine Marx whining in the Unfair Restrictions thread, ha), but note that the chief of the German Lassalleans was a gay person, and they never used that against him.

As for being married, just like MCM' can't be abolished by asceticism, the bourgeois family unit can't be abolished by not marrying. Of course, even after the abolition of the BFU, symbolic marriages would probably remain, and if someone wants to marry their same-sex twin brothers or something, whatever, that's not my department.
Because millions of communists have died now for the cause up til now and their last word, up to the last man, were "I have no regrets because my sacrifice will help bring about a world order where freaks can fuck dogs, corpses, and dog carcasses in public, marry their twins, mothers, fathers, and clones and other such wonderful and delightful things".

[Quail]

Perhaps in some parts of the world. But I've never seen this happen outside of Television. A marriage can perfectly be seen as a union between equals, or at least be organised in such a manner. It does not follow that because for ages marriage was like an exchange of property, that therefore marriage is inherently so.

The symbolism was still there in the ceremonies I've been to, but it is a while since I went to a wedding. But besides being a throwback to a time when women were property, I don't see any need for it. Relationships are between people, however they want to arrange things. Besides, if you reject the legitimacy of the state why would you care about making your relationship "official"?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because millions of communists have died now for the cause up til now and their last word, up to the last man, were "I have no regrets because my sacrifice will help bring about a world order where freaks can fuck dogs, corpses, and dog carcasses in public, marry their twins, mothers, fathers, and clones and other such wonderful and delightful things".

Well, their last words were certainly not "I hope my sacrifice enables someone to enforce their petty morality on the workers in the communist society". Save the Blut und Ehre speeches for someone who gives two damns.

Honestly, what is it with people who want to control the sex lives of other people? It's just skin rubbing against skin. If no one is getting hurt against their will, save your moralist rage for the congregation.

[Left right left right]

Some people said here that the institution of marriage should be abolished. Can you please provide arguments about your opinion?
Also some others said that homosexual couples should have the same rights as straight couples. What are these rights? And what is the advantage of being married? Thanks!

[Remus Bleys]

The symbolism was still there in the ceremonies I've been to, but it is a while since I went to a wedding. But besides being a throwback to a time when women were property, I don't see any need for it. Relationships are between people, however they want to arrange things. Besides, if you reject the legitimacy of the state why would you care about making your relationship "official"?
People are weird.
My aunt had a wedding. She loved it so much. It made her absolutely happy.

Thing was, they (her and her boyfriend now husband) have lived together for the past 5 years, and her kid refers to him as "Dad." So they were already in a committed relationship.

People like to make things "official" and have a party.
I fail to see how that is reactionary.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

I doubt anyone disagrees that people of whatever sexuality should be allowed to marry one another. Although it is fair to say that the equal marriage movement to a large degree is a high-jacking of the LGBT liberation movement by 'liberals' who want to show their credentials by co-opting a genuinely progressive movement and allying it to a reactionary institution.

Why, really, should any LGBT person - who have been for so long abused and demonised by the apparatus of the state - suddenly crave the state's approval for their relationship?

[Klaatu]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Also, all anti-gay laws in every state should be struck down.

[Left right left right]

I doubt anyone disagrees that people of whatever sexuality should be allowed to marry one another.

I think that the majority here disagrees but they are afraid to say it because of fascist attitude of some members:


Anyone who says differently than the first should be banned immediately.
There is no excuse to be anti-lgbt at this point.


Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Fuck anyone who disagrees.


I'm not going to attach a poll as the only use for it would be to see who needs restricted.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I think that the majority here disagrees but they are afraid to say it because of fascist attitude of some members:


I don't think you even know what fascism is.

Also, this site has a no-tolerance policy when it comes to homophobia, sexism, and racism. So, you care to expand on what you've said?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think that the majority here disagrees but they are afraid to say it because of fascist attitude of some members:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying most members of RevLeft are homophobic?

[argeiphontes]

I think most people are against forced marriage; apart from that, I think pretty much anything goes. So what if someone wants to marry their brother? If it doesn't hurt anyone, that's no concern of ours. I think, as a very general rule, that if someone wants to restrict the behaviour of other people, the onus is on them to demonstrate that this restriction is warranted, by arguing from the material facts, instead of moral notions.

I agree. Incest and other things are handled at the level of taboos or social morés. There's no reason for a government to get involved at all with sexual choice, that I can see. It also shouldn't sanction any religious ceremonies or unions, including marriage.

In the U.S., if they wanted to give tax breaks to people for pairing up, there should just be a general category like 'multi-person household' which could include married people, singles with children, cohabitating couples or multiples, or even anyone who wants to live with others for economic efficiency.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I agree. Incest and other things are handled at the level of taboos or social morés.

I think it is better that they are not handled at all. If an action hurts another person without their consent, the public power should be involved. If not, well, what's the use of taboos and mores? So you can act smug and condemn people for not following fairly arbitrary rules?


I don't think you even know what fascism is.

Fascism, of course, is us mean leftists calling macho homophobic boneheads bad names. I wonder where I've seen this sort of rhetoric before (hint: the interminable sockpuppets of one particularly homophobic member).

[Left right left right]

I don't think you even know what fascism is.

Also, this site has a no-tolerance policy when it comes to homophobia, sexism, and racism. So, you care to expand on what you've said?

Dear ВАЛТЕР, I wont expand because I don't want to get banned or be insulted by other members. And no, I am not homophobic...



Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying most members of RevLeft are homophobic?

I don't know and you don't want to know...

[argeiphontes]

If not, well, what's the use of taboos and mores? So you can act smug and condemn people for not following fairly arbitrary rules?

I'm not advocating for any particular taboos or mores, or saying I agree with the current ones. Part of their function is indeed so you can act smug and condemn people, I assume. But sometimes they serve a purpose and have always existed, so I'm not expecting them to disappear any time soon.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Dear ВАЛТЕР, I wont expand because I don't want to get banned or be insulted by other members. And no, I am not homophobic...


But you have already hinted at a very certain fact, that would not be worse for telling it outright.

Enjoy your restriction and the fruitful discussion with other like-minded reactionary scum.

[fahadsul3man]

Allowed to be married and also allowed to adopt kids and given all rights as those of heterosexual couples , homophobia is one of the worst forms discrimination , Lenin decriminalized homosexuality and first country to do so I believe but let's save that for another topic.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't give a fuck about gay marriage. The purpose of the gay liberation movement should be to deconstruct heteronormative conceptions of sex and relationships, not to desperately struggle to live up to heteronormative society's ideas of what relationships should be.
Some of you people are liberals who think some far-left figures from the past are cool.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not advocating for any particular taboos or mores, or saying I agree with the current ones. Part of their function is indeed so you can act smug and condemn people, I assume. But sometimes they serve a purpose and have always existed, so I'm not expecting them to disappear any time soon.

What purpose do they serve? "They have always existed" is a fairly weak argument - many things have "always" existed, from intercommunal violence to control over women's reproductive capacities. To me it seems that, if something has existed from the start of human history, it has probably overstayed its welcome.

[argeiphontes]

What purpose do they serve?

Social control. The taboo against murder, for example. Just because some of these are bad or irrational doesn't damn the whole enterprise.



"They have always existed" is a fairly weak argument - many things have "always" existed, from intercommunal violence to control over women's reproductive capacities.

I didn't mean it as a justification of any particular more. If something has always existed, it's a clue that there's something deeper at work. There will always be mores, except that the rules themselves will change. Though some could be unchangeable, of course.

[brigadista]

why does ANYONE want to get married?

[JPSartre12]

I don't give a fuck about gay marriage. The purpose of the gay liberation movement should be to deconstruct heteronormative conceptions of sex and relationships, not to desperately struggle to live up to heteronormative society's ideas of what relationships should be.
Some of you people are liberals who think some far-left figures from the past are cool.

I'm glad someone said this. You hit the nail on the head, comrade.

[tachosomoza]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't belong here.

[Popular Front of Judea]

You’d think in the “age of the 99%,” we teeming masses would be able to see that what’s good for the few isn’t good for us all. It’s true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.

The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman’s words, “[...] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States.” That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few. Are there really members of our society undeserving of health care?

Only the most privileged among us could possibly see the fight for the right to party as a movement for social justice. Proponents tout the implications for healthcare and immigration status while members of our queer and trans communities are denied basic treatment in prison, while they are harassed and ejected by ICE. Loving couples making a public commitment to one another is a beautiful thing, but it is erroneously touted by gay rights groups as the single most pressing justice issue facing queer people. Issues of access to healthcare, education, and housing go unmentioned.


Stonewall Was A Wedding? | Jacobin (http://jacobinmag.com/2012/05/stonewall-was-a-wedding/)

[Yuppie Grinder]

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't belong here.

You're looking at things from a liberal perspective. You can't see the options outside of "gay people should get married" and "straight people should get married but gay people can't".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I got married once, and it gave me access to my spouse's health care plan at a time when I really needed it due to health issues. Despite that, I think marriage should be abolished, but it's not as black and white as some think.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Anyone who says differently than the first should be banned immediately.
There is no excuse to be anti-lgbt at this point.

So your saying that you are not allowed to believe in what you want (are you against freedom of speech and expression of your own ideas?), so if someone is against same sex marriage he will get banned from this forum. as long they doesn't discriminate or write offensive post against same-sex couples i'm fine with them being on this forum.
Im not against same sex marriages.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You're looking at things from a liberal perspective. You can't see the options outside of "gay people should get married" and "straight people should get married but gay people can't".But this is the context of the thread and the larger social question. I could say that "I don't believe that we should need civil rights (because we should have a society free of racial oppression) " but if someone says "Civil Rights for US Blacks, Yes or No" I would reply, "Yes". For immigration, I think that borders should be abolished and there should be no nations at all... but if someone put out the question, "should immigrants have full rights as native workers" then the answer would have to be "yes" in this context.

The larger social question around marriage equality as it is now is not "LGBT marriage" or "Abolition of of Marriage"/"Abolition of the modern nuclear family", it's "marriage as a segregated institution" or "marriage as a non-segregated institution" basically.

[Quail]

So your saying that you are not allowed to believe in what you want (are you against freedom of speech and expression of your own ideas?), so if someone is against same sex marriage he will get banned from this forum. as long they doesn't discriminate or write offensive post against same-sex couples i'm fine with them being on this forum.
Im not against same sex marriages.
But disagreeing with same sex marriage on the basis that you think heterosexual couples deserve to get married but homosexual couples don't is homophobic, and revolutionary leftists shouldn't accept homophobia.

[RedGuevara]

It shouldn't even be a debate. Same sex couples aren't different from hetero couples except they don't usually contribute to the world's over population and they adopt children who have been abandoned by means of the system, death, or crappy parents. It'd be idiot like to argue otherwise.

[Stalinist Speaker]

But disagreeing with same sex marriage on the basis that you think heterosexual couples deserve to get married but homosexual couples don't is homophobic, and revolutionary leftists shouldn't accept homophobia.

But if you are against same sex marriage and keeps that opinion to yourself it wont hurt anyone, well if you look at history revolutionary leftist have been against same sax marriage, but i agree we should not discriminate, but some can have their own opinion.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just to rock the boat a bit, I frankly don't see a point to LGBTQ community insisting on marriage if other forms of familial community which do offer important material rights exist.

This is based on what's been going on here where I live, with the referendum on marriage being a union between a man and a woman. Obviously, LGBT organizations put up a public campaign, but a kind of a tension developed between people who push for marriage right and those who claim the law provides these other forms I mentioned and that the campaign for marriage actually represents a subordination to heteronormative practices. I'm not sure to what extent do these rights stretch out though. If it is deemed not enough, of course same sex marriage should be supported.

[Quail]

But if you are against same sex marriage and keeps that opinion to yourself it wont hurt anyone, well if you look at history revolutionary leftist have been against same sax marriage, but i agree we should not discriminate, but some can have their own opinion.
If you are against same sex marriage purely because the couple is same sex, though, you should really have a think about why that is. If you want to deny same sex couples certain "rights" then what other attitudes might you have towards gay and bisexual people that might be harmful? You don't have to beat up gay couples on the street to be a homophobe.

[helot]

It shouldn't even be a debate. Same sex couples aren't different from hetero couples except they don't usually contribute to the world's over population and they adopt children who have been abandoned by means of the system, death, or crappy parents. It'd be idiot like to argue otherwise.

Over population is a myth, a smokescreen to distract us from the actual problem: capitalism. It's pushing blame onto poor people for having children as opposed to the cause of their poverty.

[Remus Bleys]

So your saying that you are not allowed to believe in what you want
Getting banned from revleft =/= not being able to believe what you want.

(are you against freedom of speech and expression of your own ideas?) This is oddly worded, but I am going to take this as "Are you against freedom of speech?"
Not in all cases, I'm not, but in some cases, I am. You call yourself "Stalinist" (Stalin banned books, btw) so I would assume you are against free speech.

so if someone is against same sex marriage he will get banned from this forum. as long they doesn't discriminate or write offensive post against same-sex couples i'm fine with them being on this forum. So if someone is against same sex couples being married on the grounds it is same sex couples, then that is discrimination, and they should be banned.

Im not against same sex marriages. Could have fooled me.


But if you are against same sex marriage and keeps that opinion to yourself it wont hurt anyone, well if you look at history revolutionary leftist have been against same sax marriage, but i agree we should not discriminate, but some can have their own opinion. These historical figures weren't gods and goddesses, they were products of their time. I am sure that this is forgivable to them, as they really didn't know any better, as with the case of some "backwards" countries. If a "backwards" country discriminated against lgbtq people, it would be somewhat "justified" as these "backward" countries don't know any better, but even then it is still not okay (as many third world countries are trying to get rid of homophobia).

Since we are debating something so inane as same sex marriage, I would assume you are first world, and thus have no excuse for homophobia.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Obviously, there are short term benefits denied to queers by their exclusion from the institution of marriage - this says something about marriage, in my opinion. Of course, it's worth fighting for those benefits because there are situations where they're real necessities (eg citizenship, healthcare). On the other hand, we should totally be thinking about how to destroy the gender binary that underwrites existing marriage, not to mention the hegemonic discourses that will still exclude so many queers from social life for being "freaks" etc. - the HRC's "Look, gays are just as straight as heterosexuals!" bullshit needs to be overcome.

[Stalinist Speaker]

If you are against same sex marriage purely because the couple is same sex, though, you should really have a think about why that is. If you want to deny same sex couples certain "rights" then what other attitudes might you have towards gay and bisexual people that might be harmful? You don't have to beat up gay couples on the street to be a homophobe.
My point is since i'm an anti-trotskyist (as expected) does that mean i am offensive against them? no, and since i'm not offending them there are no problem with me being it (on this forum). same thing with people that are against same sex marriage.

[Quail]

My point is since i'm an anti-trotskyist (as expected) does that mean i am offensive against them? no, and since i'm not offending them there are no problem with me being it (on this forum). same thing with people that are against same sex marriage.
Being an "anti-trotskyist" isn't discriminatory against a marginalised group of people though. I have political differences with trotskyists, but as much as I dislike the local trot groups... it's a completely irrelevant opinion (outside of political organising) that has nothing to do with discrimination and how I relate to homosexual couples. On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason to be against same sex couples getting married just because they aren't heterosexual, so being against same sex marriage suggests that someone is somewhat homophobic, whether they realise it or not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

why does ANYONE want to get married?

None of your business?

[Klaatu]

why does ANYONE want to get married?

Let me expand on that point: I am divorced (happily!) and yet people that are married get a tax break on their income tax. Why not single people? (or gay people) get these tax breaks? It's blatant discrimination that I have to pay a higher income tax than a hetero married couple earning a similar income as mine!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Brigadista makes a good point, actually. Where I live, it's more beneficial for couples - same-sex or otherwise - to not be recognised as married. You get far more economic benefits that way.

I still think the restriction of the marriage institution to straight people is blatant homophobia and should be completely and unilaterally opposed.

[Niall]

Simple

Same-sex couples should be able to marry, and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

[Entfremdung]

I think people should be allowed to get married if the want to regardless of their sex/gender.

I don't think there should be tax breaks for married couples though because it discriminates against single-parents and cohabiting couples.