A troubling homophobic arguement

[G4b3n]

I do not mean troubling as in difficult to rhetorically combat, that is easy as always. I mean troubling in the scope of its reach and acceptance, I have heard the proposition before but I had no idea it was considered to be a valid political stance among many people until I heard it proposed and agreed upon by many students in my philosophy class.

The argument is that gays ought to be allowed to get married. However, we ought to "call it something else", in order not to offend all the homophobes and religious fanatics by violating the pure christian sanctity of marriage.

I was literally the only one combating this argument in a room of 40+ students.

Interesting and laughable end to the story though, my philosophy professor asserted that Christians already do such a good job of violating that "sanctity" themselves.

[Comrade #138672]

You say that this is not difficult to rhetorically combat, so what is the problem then? This is just anti-gay rhetoric and can only be combated as such. You should not let the anti-gay advocates decide what should be considered discriminatory and offensive. They are obscuring the basic fact that this still means that gay people should not be allowed to marry, which is the only discriminatory and offensive thing here. This is nothing more than deception.

[G4b3n]

You say that this is not difficult to rhetorically combat, so what is the problem then? This is just anti-gay rhetoric and can only be combated as such. You should not let the anti-gay advocates decide what should be considered discriminatory and offensive. They are obscuring the basic fact that this still means that gay people should not be allowed to marry, which is the only discriminatory and offensive thing here. This is nothing more than deception.

The problem is that the advocates of this notion have convinced themselves that they are somehow asserting equality. The attitude is something like "yay I get to be liberal and fight for gay rights while also not offending my christian heritage".

Perhaps I am just ranting, but I wanted to alert comrades who are not aware of the reach of this argument.

[Slavic]

I always thought that this argument was fairly commonplace in the US. That is why in many states you have Civil Union laws which is basically an alternative form of marriage for homosexual couples. It allows, as you stated, for people to feel good about themselves for being supportive of gay rights while also appeasing the religious appropriation of the concept of marriage. The argument is in a way reminiscent of the old US Separate but Equal laws, laws that theoretically provided whites and african americans equal public services albeit in separate fashions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Fuck gay marriage.

[adipocere]

The same rhetoric of Separate but Equal in the South towards black's rights...we know what a bad racist joke that was. It sounds like a compromise but the reality is just institutionalized discrimination. I'm sure your classmates would gasp at the comparison, but it's the exact same logic just applied to gays in order to not offend the same types of trash that championed segregation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Christians did not invent marriage (the fact that "civil partnerships" or whatever you want to call them are (or can be) functionally identical should be a big clue), so why should Christians get to define it?

[bcbm]

Fuck gay marriage.

only fuck within the confines of gay marriage

[The Feral Underclass]

Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Comrade Chernov]

Marriage is actually separate from being wed. Marriage is the legal contract, Weddings are the religious ceremonies. Churches can protest having to wed same-sex couples all they'd like, but they shouldn't have power over the legal aspect known as Marriage.

[Ritzy Cat]

I think we can use the same thing that was precedented in Brown v. Board of Education... Seperate but equal is inherently unequal, thus creating the difference and disparity between two groups of people based on sexual orientation is only paving the way for an inferiority complex that will create a new division of people and establish superiority in the heterosexual couples because of societal stigmas.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Fuck gay marriage.
Marriage as a bourgeois institution can only be abolished when the bourgeois system itself is abolished. Until then, I'll be amused by the ultra-lefts whose rhetoric places them objectively in the camp of reactionaries. "Fuck the institution of marriage for everyone" and "fuck gay marriage" are two very different things.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Marriage as a bourgeois institution can only be abolished when the bourgeois system itself is abolished. Until then, I'll be amused by the ultra-lefts whose rhetoric places them objectively in the camp of reactionaries. "Fuck the institution of marriage for everyone" and "fuck gay marriage" are two very different things.

Because extending the institution of marriage is by proxy to extend the norms of contemporary heterosexual structures to those who it previously excluded. The historical exclusion of the queer community has allowed for the development of a radical alternative to heteropatriarchal culture, monogamy, sexual norms, and the family. As Communists we wish to abolish the exclusion of queers by extending queerness to the whole of society, not by assimilating it into heterosexuality and thereby destroying it's alternative.

[Marshal of the People]

Fuck gay marriage.

That is offensive!

[Misericordia]

As Communists we wish to abolish the exclusion of queers by extending queerness to the whole of society, not by assimilating it into heterosexuality and thereby destroying it's alternative.
{{Citation needed}}

No thank you, the queers can keep their queerness to themselves, we don't want it. Also, I'm a fan of the family, as I do enjoy mine quite a bit, and monogamy is pretty cool too so there's that. Try again.

[Remus Bleys]

That is offensive!
TAT's queer.
I'm gay.
YABM is trans.
Quail is feminist.
I don't know who Strix is and bcbm seems like a chill person.

So, not really.

[blake 3:17]

Opposition to gay marriage is mad stupid.

We fought the Ontario NDP (social democrats) when they put forward legislation for same sex marriage including right of adoption and didn't impose party discipline when the vote was coming down. The homophobes had a field day with the idea of gay men or lesbians raising children, with both parents having equal rights as parents. The Ontario Liberals made out that this would be a scenario for sexual child abuse. The Conservatives? Yuck.

Within the queer liberation movement there were divisions, and some friends took ultra left positions that were anti marriage and anti family and were totally abstract. I took them seriously at the time but realized it was silly pretty fast.

On the most basic issues, like being next of kin and having visiting rights in hospitals or being able to care for one's children take precedence over some vague idea that a bourgeois institution should be abolished.

It'd be like try to end alienated labour by opposing better wages or work conditions.

[Marshal of the People]

TAT's queer.
I'm gay.
YABM is trans.
Quail is feminist.
I don't know who Strix is and bcbm seems like a chill person.

So, not really.

Well the person said "f*&% gay marriage" but left all other types of marriage alone.

[Remus Bleys]

Well the person said "f*&% gay marriage" but left all other types of marriage alone.
Well the context was gay marriage.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As Communists we wish to abolish the exclusion of queers by extending queerness to the whole of society, not by assimilating it into heterosexuality and thereby destroying it's alternative.
As a communist, I support abolishing the institution of bourgeois marriage, but I understand that can only happen when the bourgeois system itself is abolished.

I've been married once myself because getting married allowed me to share the health benefits of my partner at the time, not because I supported the institution. I'm glad ultra-lefts never have to face real world choices like that. It must be nice to be an ultra-left.

[Remus Bleys]

As a communist, I support abolishing the institution of bourgeois marriage, but I understand that can only happen when the bourgeois system itself is abolished.

I've been married once myself because getting married allowed me to share the health benefits of my partner at the time, not because I supported the institution. I'm glad ultra-lefts never have to face real world choices like that. It must be nice to be an ultra-left.
>YABM
>Ultraleft
Fucking choose one.

Also, this is making the pretentious assumption that ultra-lefts have never had to deal with this issue.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No thank you, the queers can keep their queerness to themselves, we don't want it. Also, I'm a fan of the family, as I do enjoy mine quite a bit, and monogamy is pretty cool too so there's that. Try again.
To imagine a complete revolutionary transformation of society that doesn't also transform concepts of marriage, family, sexuality, etc., is to reject the idea of revolutionary change and be a social conservative.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Also, this is making the pretentious assumption that ultra-lefts have never had to deal with this issue.
Pretentious? No, it's called sarcasm. And I think it's justified here.

[Remus Bleys]

{{Citation needed}} For what, the abolition of the family?


No thank you, the queers can keep their queerness to themselves, we don't want it.
Yeah. Okay. Sexual orientation and gender is totally devoid of all social influence, and we all know that you don;t feel attraction to different things at different times. Even fucking baptist ministers have admitted to me that everyone feels desires towards the same sex. And I'd imagine the opposite is true. things arent so easily divisible into "hetero" "homo" and "bi"

Also, I'm a fan of the family, as I do enjoy mine quite a bit,Okay. But know this, your personal wants mean nothing compared to liberation of women, youth, and to an extent, husbands.

and monogamy is pretty cool too so there's that. Then be monogamous.

Try again.Right back at you

[Marshal of the People]

Well the context was gay marriage.

I don't see your point, if we were talking about a certain group of people and someone said f*$# [certain group of people] how is it okay?

[Remus Bleys]

Pretentious? No, it's called sarcasm. And I think it's justified here.
So instead of agitating for these benefits to be given regardless of marital status, we campaign for gay marriage to be given for us.

Gotcha

[Remus Bleys]

I don't see your point, if we were talking about a certain group of people and someone said f*$# [certain group of people] how is it okay?
He didn't say fuck gays, he said fuck gay marriage. That demand is afaik a recent one, and the fact that was what was rallied around, the heteronormativization of lgbt movement, (hey we are just like you - we have a wife and husband, and we are also monogamous!) which was basically a fuck you to everyone who wasn't a clearly gendered divisible (feminine and masculine) homosexual couple. It had also left the trans community out of the loop, and ostracized bisexuals.

It's also a silly demand in that they think that it will somehow end homophobia, that it thinks that something as benign as a contract with a government approved stamp can end homophobia, instead of the logical (dialectical?) conclusion of class struggle - communism.

So yeah. Fuck gay marriage.

[Yuppie Grinder]

That is offensive!

He doesn't mean that he doesn't want gay people to marry out of fear that it'll corrupt the sacredness of marriage. He means that queer movements have the potential to challenge patriarchal concepts of sexuality and love, and that that's what gay people should worry about if they want to be free, not trying to be straight gay people. If you're a queer person, no matter how hard you try to live up to the dominant heterosexual and patriarchal conceptions of what proper love is, you will never get it right, you will always be seen as an other.
Real acceptance of difference doesn't mean making the other like yourself.
If a gay person wants to get married, go ahead, but the way the queer politics has been hijacked and turned into a single-issue thing has robbed it of it's radical potential and it's time to reclaim queer politics.

[Marshal of the People]

He didn't say fuck gays, he said fuck gay marriage. That demand is afaik a recent one, and the fact that was what was rallied around, the heteronormativization of lgbt movement, (hey we are just like you - we have a wife and husband, and we are also monogamous!) which was basically a fuck you to everyone who wasn't a clearly gendered divisible (feminine and masculine) homosexual couple. It had also left the trans community out of the loop, and ostracized bisexuals.

It's also a silly demand in that they think that it will somehow end homophobia, that it thinks that something as benign as a contract with a government approved stamp can end homophobia, instead of the logical (dialectical?) conclusion of class struggle - communism.

So yeah. Fuck gay marriage.

So we shouldn't let gays get married? How about we also don't let them vote or use services heterosexuals are allowed to use?

[Remus Bleys]

So we shouldn't let gays get married?
what? Abolish marriage. Not making everyone have no sex nor a forced form of communal sex, but a complete transformation of marriage itself. Free love and what not. If two people are in a monogamous relationship for an extended period of time, good for them. But not everyone should have to live up to that, so it shouldn't be the standard. In fact, there shouldnt be a standard.

How about we also don't let them vote or use services heterosexuals are allowed to use?
"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" so its interesting you bring that up.
anyway, kim jong-illmatic covered what I was going to say.

[Marshal of the People]

what? Abolish marriage. Not making everyone have no sex nor a forced form of communal sex, but a complete transformation of marriage itself. Free love and what not. If two people are in a monogamous relationship for an extended period of time, good for them. But not everyone should have to live up to that, so it shouldn't be the standard. In fact, there shouldnt be a standard.

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" so its interesting you bring that up.
anyway, kim jong-illmatic covered what I was going to say.

So you are basically saying that people can't get married, even if they want to? What will happen to all the people who are already married, will they be forced to divorce? What about the religious people to whom marriage is part of their religion?

[Remus Bleys]

So you are basically saying that people can't get married, even if they want to? What will happen to all the people who are already married, will they be forced to divorce? What about the religious people to whom marriage is part of their religion?

If two people are in a monogamous relationship for an extended period of time, good for them. But not everyone should have to live up to that, so it shouldn't be the standard. In fact, there shouldnt be a standard.maybe good for them came off sarcastic, but i was being sincere. if thats what they want then fine, im glad theyre happy. but the whole concept of owning the other person and domestic division of labor, will have to go.

Then be monogamous.

[Yuppie Grinder]

So you are basically saying that people can't get married, even if they want to? What will happen to all the people who are already married, will they be forced to divorce? What about the religious people to whom marriage is part of their religion?

No intelligent communist wants to force the world to conform to his or her 'plan' for a future society, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be struggling against each and every thing that leaves the working people of the world divided, and patriarchy and heterosexual domination are two such things.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So instead of agitating for these benefits to be given regardless of marital status, we campaign for gay marriage to be given for us.
Where did I say that? As communists, we should be agitating for the overthrow of capitalism. The goal of queer liberation can only be achieved by overthrowing existing conditions.

[Marshal of the People]

maybe good for them came off sarcastic, but i was being sincere. if thats what they want then fine, im glad theyre happy. but the whole concept of owning the other person and domestic division of labor, will have to go.

So what would we do with the married people? Would we force them to divorce or kill them?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Where did I say that? As communists, we should be agitating for the overthrow of capitalism. The goal of queer liberation can only be achieved by overthrowing existing conditions.

We need unity between divided sections of the working class if we ever want to overthrow capitalism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So what would we do with the married people? Would we force them to divorce or kill them?
After a revolutionary transformation of society, the bourgeois institution of marriage would simply no longer exist. We wouldn't need to "do" anything to those who had been married under the old system.

[Remus Bleys]

So what would we do with the married people? Would we force them to divorce or kill them?
Oh my fucking god. Jesus fucking christ. You have got to be trolling. But in case of some asshole going "oh no remus don't!" then ill take this to be real.
1. Where did I say this?
2. Where did I imply this?
3. How is that derived?
4. How is that connected?
5. How is that related?
6. Why would I be saying this?
7.
No intelligent communist wants to force the world to conform to his or her 'plan' for a future society, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be struggling against each and every thing that leaves the working people of the world divided, and patriarchy and heterosexual domination are two such things.

[Yuppie Grinder]

So what would we do with the married people? Would we force them to divorce or kill them?

dude no intelligent communist wants to force the world to conform to his ideas, that's not how revolution works
i don't want to be rude but i think either you're not using your reading comprehension skills to the best of your ability right now, or you're so turned off by this crazy new position that you're reading murderous impulses into it where there are absolutely none

[Marshal of the People]

Oh my fucking god. Jesus fucking christ. You have got to be trolling. But in case of some asshole going "oh no remus don't!" then ill take this to be real.
1. Where did I say this?
2. Where did I imply this?
3. How is that derived?
4. How is that connected?
5. How is that related?
6. Why would I be saying this?
7.

Really? Some people would want to stay married (for example the christians) and would not react kindly to having their marriage not recognised, so what would you do with these rebels?

[Remus Bleys]

Really? Some people would want to stay married (for example the christians) and would not react kindly to having their marriage not recognised, so what would you do with these rebels?
Third time posting this

If two people are in a monogamous relationship for an extended period of time, good for them.
Fourth time posting this

Then be monogamous.

[Marshal of the People]

Third time posting this

Fourth time posting this

You haven't answered my "third" post!

[Yuppie Grinder]

Really? Some people would want to stay married (for example the christians) and would not react kindly to having their marriage not recognised, so what would you do with these rebels?

Nothing. The nuclear family is a tool for reproducing the social formations of bourgeois society. If we pull the rug out from those archaic social formations in theory they should simply wither away.

[Marshal of the People]

Nothing. The nuclear family is a tool for reproducing the social formations of bourgeois society. If we pull the rug out from those archaic social formations in theory they should simply wither away.

So the christians would just go against their religion?

[Remus Bleys]

You haven't answered my "third" post!If, under a communist society, two people have determined that they want a monogamous relationship with eachother for an extended period of time, and only have sex with eachother then they are free to fucking do so

[Marshal of the People]

If, under a communist society, two people have determined that they want a monogamous relationship with eachother for an extended period of time, and only have sex with eachother then they are free to fucking do so
But christians are NOT ALLOWED to have sex outside of marriage!

[Remus Bleys]

But christians are NOT ALLOWED to have sex outside of marriage!
Where the fuck did I say that people had to have sex outside of "marriage"? Are you fucking daft or something? Show me where I said that. I'm pretty fucking sure I have said the several times now
this is also assuming christianity would continue to exist.
God I sure hope your really this daft and not a troll because im getting to worked up over this :glare:

[Marshal of the People]

Where the fuck did I say that people had to have sex outside of marriage? Are you fucking daft or something? Show me where I said that. I'm pretty fucking sure I have said the opposite under several occasions.
this is also assuming christianity would continue to exist.
God I sure hope your really this daft and not a troll because im getting to worked up over this :glare:

You did say f*@! marriage, by saying that I assumed you meant ban marriage!


So yeah. Fuck gay marriage.

[Yuppie Grinder]

You did say f*@! marriage, by saying that I assumed you meant ban marriage!

We have repeatedly explained this. Go back and read our posts. Maybe you weren't reading close enough.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

We need unity between divided sections of the working class if we ever want to overthrow capitalism.
Well, there seems to be unity between the Right and ultra-lefts on the issue of same-sex marriage within bourgeois society. Yay!

[Remus Bleys]

Well, there seems to be unity between the Right and ultra-lefts on the issue of same-sex marriage within bourgeois society. Yay!
Yeah! Because we both oppose it for the same reasons! Yeah, we both propose the same alternatives! Yeah, we both have the same angle and perspective on it!
Fuck off if you're just going to strawman your way through this.

[Marshal of the People]

Yeah! Because we both oppose it for the same reasons! Yeah, we both propose the same alternatives! Yeah, we both have the same angle and perspective on it!
Fuck off if you're just going to strawman your way through this.

Do you know you just almost admitted to being a conservative there?

[Remus Bleys]

Do you know you just almost admitted to being a conservative there?
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Did you know that was sarcasm?

[Marshal of the People]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Did you know that was sarcasm?

Oops, sorry.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yeah! Because we both oppose it for the same reasons! Yeah, we both propose the same alternatives! Yeah, we both have the same angle and perspective on it!
Within society as it exists now, it has the same result. Make your slogan "fuck the institution of marriage" instead of "fuck gay marriage."

[Remus Bleys]

Within society as it exists now, it has the same result. Make your slogan "fuck the institution of marriage" instead of "fuck gay marriage."
uh yeah that pretty much is the slogan
but... but... but... tat said differently on an internet forum!
give me a fucking break

[Marshal of the People]

Within society as it exists now, it has the same result. Make your slogan "fuck the institution of marriage" instead of "fuck gay marriage."

I prefer this post to other posts which were singling out gay marriage but leaving other types of marriage alone.

[Marshal of the People]

I personally don't like marriage (any marriage at all) and think it is harmful to society, I think it should not be recognised by the state in any manner at all.

(NOTE: I just debated on the other side because I wanted to see how other people could react and see if I could successfully debate for a view I don't hold. And also I didn't like certain members singling out of gay marriage over other types of marriage.)

[Remus Bleys]

I prefer this post to other posts which were singling out gay marriage but leaving other types of marriage alone.
You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Here, I do not mention gay marriage. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694445&postcount=24) Here, it can be misconstrued that i was singling out gay marriage, but it really means we oppose marriage, therefore gay marriage as well. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694447&postcount=26) Here I explicitly say abolish marriage. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694454&postcount=30) Here I quoted Kim Jong-Illmatic when he talked about monogamy in a post-capitalist society. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694463&postcount=38) Here I address your question on marriage (note how its marriage in general, not gay marriage). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694466&postcount=41) Here I address your question again. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694470&postcount=45) Here I addressed it yet again. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694472&postcount=47)

I would do it with others, but I just saw this

I personally don't like marriage (any marriage at all) and think it is harmful to society, I think it should not be recognised by the state in any manner at all.

(NOTE: I just debated on the other side because I wanted to see how other people could react and see if I could successfully debate for a view I don't hold. And also I didn't like certain members singling out of gay marriage over other types of marriage.)

I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.
YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DERAILED THIS THREAD TO SEE HOW BAD YOU COULD SUCK. FUCK YOU SO MUCH. I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH. YOU ARE LITERALLY THE WORST POSTER ON THIS ENTIRE BOARD.

just stop posting

[Marshal of the People]

You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Here, I do not mention gay marriage. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694445&postcount=24) Here, it can be misconstrued that i was singling out gay marriage, but it really means we oppose marriage, therefore gay marriage as well. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694447&postcount=26) Here I explicitly say abolish marriage. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694454&postcount=30) Here I quoted Kim Jong-Illmatic when he talked about monogamy in a post-capitalist society. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694463&postcount=38) Here I address your question on marriage (note how its marriage in general, not gay marriage). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694466&postcount=41) Here I address your question again. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694470&postcount=45) Here I addressed it yet again. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2694472&postcount=47)

I would do it with others, but I just saw this

I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.
YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DERAILED THIS THREAD TO SEE HOW BAD YOU COULD SUCK. FUCK YOU SO MUCH. I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH. YOU ARE LITERALLY THE WORST POSTER ON THIS ENTIRE BOARD.

just stop posting

Calm down no need be angry. You should really stop swearing all the time it is not nice.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

uh yeah that pretty much is the slogan
but... but... but... tat said differently on an internet forum!
"So yeah. Fuck gay marriage." Your words. But of course I know what you mean, and I doubt you wave "fuck gay marriage" signs at Pride or pro-same sex marriage events, but it's still a bad formulation even on here.

[Remus Bleys]

"So yeah. Fuck gay marriage." Your words. But of course I know what you mean, and I doubt you wave "fuck gay marriage" signs at Pride or pro-same sex marriage events, but it's still a bad formulation even on here.
Why?So don't say "fuck the movement that seeks to pacify the broader lgbt community"?

[Marshal of the People]

Why?So don't say "fuck the movement that seeks to pacify the broader lgbt community"?

So you say f&^$ the civil rights movement in America because it didn't fight for the civil rights of everyone?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why?So don't say "fuck the movement that seeks to pacify the broader lgbt community"?
Do you believe the movement for same-sex marriage is responsible for the lack of revolutionary consciousness among LGBT people?

[The Feral Underclass]

Marriage as a bourgeois institution can only be abolished when the bourgeois system itself is abolished.

What difference does that make to anything?


Until then, I'll be amused by the ultra-lefts whose rhetoric places them objectively in the camp of reactionaries. "Fuck the institution of marriage for everyone" and "fuck gay marriage" are two very different things.

This is coming from the same person who actively seeks concessions from the bourgeois state? And this guilt by association nonsense is a logical fallacy and doesn't in any way address the core issues.


As a communist, I support abolishing the institution of bourgeois marriage, but I understand that can only happen when the bourgeois system itself is abolished.

If you want to abolish marriage, why do you support it as a state concession? That is literally a contradiction.


I've been married once myself because getting married allowed me to share the health benefits of my partner at the time, not because I supported the institution. I'm glad ultra-lefts never have to face real world choices like that. It must be nice to be an ultra-left.

What a ridiculous thing to say, even in jest. And it says a great deal about what we are dealing with here for you even to consider it something worthy of typing out. What stupidity possessed you to write this?

So far, your argument consists of a non-sequitur and guilt by association fallacy and an implication so absurd it warrants nothing but contempt. This is pathetic, even by liberal standards.


Do you believe the movement for same-sex marriage is responsible for the lack of revolutionary consciousness among LGBT people?

It is most definitely a part of it.


it's still a bad formulation even on here.

Based on your limited tactical understandings, residual liberalism and an inability to conceptualise struggle beyond bourgeois reality.

[The Feral Underclass]

That is offensive!

Good.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is coming from the same person who actively seeks concessions from the bourgeois state?
Huh. I can't think of a single day in my life since I was radicalized over two decades ago where I've been active in a reformist campaign. So that's news to me.


If you want to abolish marriage, why do you support it as a state concession?
I also want to abolish the wage system, but I'm not going to condemn workers who demand a higher wage now.


What stupidity possessed you to write this?
Considering some of the things you've posted before, that's an amusing question to ask me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Huh. I can't think of a single day in my life since I was radicalized over two decades ago where I've been active in a reformist campaign. So that's news to me.

Erm, you're in a thread championing gay marriage...


I also want to abolish the wage system, but I'm not going to condemn workers who demand a higher wage now.

Once again your binary limitations draw you to conclude that if someone is opposed to gay marriage they must be condemning workers. It is customary to understand the position you are criticising before you criticise.


Considering some of the things you've posted before, that's an amusing question to ask me.

I would never be so smug and condescending as to tell a worker that just because he disagrees with you political position he is somehow incapable of understanding or participating in the "real world."

When will you people stop being the victim and start being fucking communists?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Erm, you're in a thread championing gay marriage...
Am I? I thought I was clear that marriage as a bourgeois institution must be abolished. If you mean I'm not condemning same sex marriage in particular, you're right. I'm also not judging why some people may feel they must get married.


It is customary to understand the position you are criticising before you criticise.
Says the person who completely missed the point of the analogy. :lol:

[sosolo]

{{Citation needed}}

No thank you, the queers can keep their queerness to themselves, we don't want it. Also, I'm a fan of the family, as I do enjoy mine quite a bit, and monogamy is pretty cool too so there's that. Try again.

Um, why did only one person even attempt to refute this reactionary bullshit? I will not keep my queerness to myself. Keep your patriachic, bordering on natalist, crap to yourself. No warning or ban? That's shitty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[The Feral Underclass]

Am I? I thought I was clear that marriage as a bourgeois institution must be abolished. If you mean I'm not condemning same sex marriage in particular, you're right. I'm also not judging why some people may feel they must get married.

You simply cannot construct an argument without resorting to emotionalism. Who cares how people "feel." This has nothing to do with whether people feel they must get married or about judging people for crying out loud.

But this is what you said to me once: "When making the demand now, it's a demand of the bourgeois state and its organs. I'm loathe to engage with the state, but I also think it's ultraleft (and, yes, I do see that listed as your tendency) to say "wait until after the revolution" when bourgeois civil rights laws may help some of us now."

Source (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2668896&postcount=3)

So what are you saying here, that you've changed your position on fighting for concessions from the state or that gay marriage isn't included in your "demands of the bourgeois state"?


Says the person who completely missed the point of the analogy. :lol:

What analogy? There was no analogy, you simply implied that people who didn't agree with your position didn't understand reality or had to go through hardship...It was no more complex than that, and if you meant it to be, then you did a bad job of communicating it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Who cares how people "feel."
I think that speaks more to what kind of person you are.


So what are you saying here, that you've changed your position on fighting for concessions from the state or that gay marriage isn't included in your "demands of the bourgeois state"?
I also gave an example of what I meant: "I've personally experienced benefits from civil rights laws in my state that explicitly protect trans people, even though those benefits are incapable of liberating me." Or the example I gave in this thread of only getting access to my partner's health benefits because we got married.

[Brotto Rühle]

We shouldn't outright oppose reforms, be they in the realm of a shift from bourgeois totalitarianism to bourgeois democracy, or in the form of economic and social (minimum wage hike and gay marriage -- or giving gays the same "rights", whether you call it marriage or not I don't care, so long as the same benefits are there).

The point we, the ultra-left, should be focusing on is unabashed criticism of these things and the methods of which others believe they can be achieved, whilst acknowledging the positive effects of both the struggle and achievement of reforms.

Gay marriage good? For working class gay couples, the benefits would certainly be important (as Danielle says). Should we care if it's called marriage or not? No, so long as the same benefits are provided. Should we just support it? No. Should we call for the abolition of all marriage whilst recognizing and acknowledging the importance of said benefits for gay couples? Yes.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that speaks more to what kind of person you are.

Now you can add an ad hominem to the menu of logical fallacies you keep serving up.

But the kind of person I am is one who is a communist trying to forward communism and not a "communist" who panders to every liberal whim that takes peoples' fancy. Being a communist is not about being a social worker. If you want to be a social worker then join social services.


I also gave an example of what I meant: "I've personally experienced benefits from civil rights laws in my state that explicitly protect trans people, even though those benefits are incapable of liberating me." Or the example I gave in this thread of only getting access to my partner's health benefits because we got married.

You didn't answer my question.

You accused me of being on the side of reactionaries, to which I pointed out the irony of that statement since you seek concessions from the bourgeois state. You try and claim that you don't and I present you with documentary evidence of your opinion given by you in which you openly call for concessions from the bourgeois state. Trying to justify yourself doesn't alter that position.

[The Feral Underclass]

Gay marriage good? For working class gay couples, the benefits would certainly be important (as Danielle says).

Your assumption is predicated on the false notion that working class gay couples can live openly in their communities or afford the expense of becoming married. Considering the fact that the UK Office of National Statistics discovered that most gay working class people remain in the closet, not to mention the fact that sections of the working class can't even afford to eat, which working class people are you specifically talking about? I suggest you come to where I grew up and see how many gay couples are happily married there.

This is one of the many issues with the gay marriage agenda: It is constructed on a romanticised narrative of "social progress" that bears no similarities to reality. Gay marriage in the UK was a conservative party pinkwashing tactic used specifically to appeal to middle class couples already in civil partnerships (which incidentally decreased year on year since they were implemented). It is not some giant leap forward or some huge working class gain. That is simply a lie.

I am not opposing gay marriage just so I can be oppositionist. I am opposing gay marriage because it serves the interests of the UK conservative electoral agenda, reinforces heternormative domination and sets back militant queer liberationist politics. It's all fine and well saying don't oppose reforms, but when a reform actively strengthens your opponents and damages your own ideological efforts then it would be incompetent not to.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Now you can add an ad hominem to the menu of logical fallacies you keep serving up.
I stand by what I said. When you say "who cares how people feel," it says more about you than about anyone else.

It makes me doubt the sincerity of that private message you sent to me in September, in which you assured me that you don't mean to come across as being rude.


You didn't answer my question.
I've never been an activist on behalf of a reformist campaign re: LGBT issues, nor have I written letters to politicians on behalf of such campaigns. I certainly co-wrote a statement that expressed that LGBT people should demand things in every sphere, which also includes revolutionary movements that may not take queer liberation seriously as part of the class struggle.

[The Feral Underclass]

I stand by what I said. When you say "who cares how people feel," it says more about you than about anyone else.

And I am perfectly fine with that.


It makes me doubt the sincerity of that private message you sent to me in September, in which you assured me that you don't mean to come across as being rude.

Wait a minute: You're the one who responded to my post by implying I was a reactionary and that I don't understand hardship. Don't try and play the victim now that things aren't going your way.

If you're going to make your bed then you have to be happy to lie in it.


I've never been an activist on behalf of a reformist campaign re: LGBT issues, nor have I written letters to politicians on behalf of such campaigns. I certainly co-wrote a statement that expressed that LGBT people should demand things in every sphere, which also includes revolutionary movements that may not take queer liberation seriously as part of the class struggle.

Strike 2.

Maybe you can actually answer the question next time.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And I am perfectly fine with that.
Then quit whining because you think I called you a reactionary. Keep your feelings out of it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Then quit whining because you think I called you a reactionary. Keep your feelings out of it.

Weak.

I'm not whining about it, mate, I'm simply pointing out the fact that you're a hypocrite.

[Remus Bleys]

Calm down no need be angry. You should really stop swearing all the time it is not nice.
Perhaps I have overreacted. But look at this thread and tell me if I shouldn't be frustrated.

[sosolo]

So I'm getting tired of infantile ultra leftism. Do I want a revolution which abolishes the bourgeois family and marriage? Of course. But I live in a capitalist society, and I stand to gain benefits from being married to my husband. I am automatically his next of kin, and can't be denied access should he be in the hospital. Also, my husband doesn't work right now, and filing joint taxes is a financial boon for us.

As far as calling it marriage, here in the States, this is the only way for us to receive federal benefits. Civil unions are not considered marriage by the government. So, call me selfish, but I definitely stand to gain from such "reforms".

It's easy to sit on a heteronormative ivory tower and proclaim all sorts of things about gay people's lives, but I have to live that life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps I have overreacted.

Perhaps:


I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.
YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DERAILED THIS THREAD TO SEE HOW BAD YOU COULD SUCK. FUCK YOU SO MUCH. I FUCKING HATE YOU SO MUCH. YOU ARE LITERALLY THE WORST POSTER ON THIS ENTIRE BOARD.

This whole thread is sad. The ways in which posters can't even extend basic levels of respect/tolerance to one another and instead due to (what I can only assume) is a lack of vocabulary or ability to articulate themselves, feel the need to lace their posts with insults.

[Remus Bleys]

Perhaps:

This whole thread is sad. The ways in which posters can't even extend common basic levels of respect/tolerance to one another and instead due to (what I can only assume) is a lack of vocabulary or ability to articulate themselves, feel the need to lace their posts with insults.
He was literally trolling the entire time.
Me: "If people want to be monogamous let them"
Him: "SO YOU WANT TO KILL ALL HETEROSEXUALS?!"

Yeah, I have articulated myself throughout the thread like that only for him to reply with that bullshit then found out he is only trolling?

[Remus Bleys]

*Sigh*

So I'm getting tired of infantile ultra leftism.
Watch out guys, we have Lenin 2.0 here.

Do I want a revolution which abolishes the bourgeois family and marriage? Of course. But I live in a capitalist society, and I stand to gain benefits from being married to my husband. I am automatically his next of kin, and can't be denied access should he be in the hospital.
So we champion fo gay marriage and not for this shit to just be the norm.
Gotcha.

Also, my husband doesn't work right now, and filing joint taxes is a financial boon for us.
Isn't it cheaper to file seperately?

As far as calling it marriage, here in the States, this is the only way for us to receive federal benefits. Civil unions are not considered marriage by the government. So, call me selfish, but I definitely stand to gain from such "reforms".

No ones calling you selfish, we are calling you wrong for supporting gay marriage as some great reform.
"If only we had federal benefits, then homophobia would go away!"

It's easy to sit on a heteronormative ivory tower and proclaim all sorts of things about gay people's lives, but I have to live that life.

Fucking both TAT and Me are both queer. And so is Kim.
So, that shit is infantile. You rely on an ivory tower of emotionalism where you can make assumptions that none of us deal with homophobia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Much like marriage, this is bourgeois. ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

So I'm getting tired of infantile ultra leftism. Do I want a revolution which abolishes the bourgeois family and marriage? Of course. But I live in a capitalist society, and I stand to gain benefits from being married to my husband. I am automatically his next of kin, and can't be denied access should he be in the hospital. Also, my husband doesn't work right now, and filing joint taxes is a financial boon for us.

As far as calling it marriage, here in the States, this is the only way for us to receive federal benefits. Civil unions are not considered marriage by the government. So, call me selfish, but I definitely stand to gain from such "reforms".

It's easy to sit on a heteronormative ivory tower and proclaim all sorts of things about gay people's lives, but I have to live that life.

You need to start thinking more collectively and tactically, and less individualistically.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Fucking both TAT and Me are both queer. And so is Kim.
So am I. I got married to have access to my then-partner's health benefits through her employer. I won't oppose same sex marriage because I know other people face similar choices.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You need to start thinking more collectively and tactically, and less individualistically.
Fine. When I got married to have access to health benefits, what would have been a better option in a collective and tactical sense?

[Remus Bleys]

So am I. I got married to have access to my then-partner's health benefits through her employer. I won't oppose same sex marriage because I know other people face similar choices.

Good thing I was talking to someone who said ultralefts live in an ivory tower of heteronormativity, huh?

[Sabot Cat]

I'm unsure why legally recognized and ceremonially administered voluntary commitment to an individual or individuals is considered so antithetical to the class struggle. I'm a strong proponent of loving and respectful marriages between equal peers, and I don't know why my planned marriage or most marriages would make the world a worse place to live in.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm unsure why legally recognized and ceremonially administered voluntary commitment to an individual or individuals is considered so antithetical to the class struggle. I'm a strong proponent of loving and respectful marriages between equal peers; how would my marriage or most marriages make the world a worse place to live in?

This isn't even scratching the surface of the argument (cuz I'm on my phone) but you are an anarchist wondering what is bad about campaigning for something being legally recognized.
As to why the fight for same sex marriage is cast aside, see the ultralefts posts itt

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Good thing I was talking to someone who said ultralefts live in an ivory tower of heteronormativity, huh?
It's understandable how they come to that assumption, I think.

[Sabot Cat]

This isn't even scratching the surface of the argument (cuz I'm on my phone) but you are an anarchist wondering what is bad about campaigning for something being legally recognized. As to why the fight for same sex marriage is cast aside, see the ultralefts posts itt

When almost any people (besides the bourgeois) don't have legal rights enjoyed by others in society, their cause is worth promoting provisionally. It's not as though there is a strong movement against marriages in general that is likely to take hold, so being against gay marriage because it is marriage is taking advantage of an inequitable decision in the name of liberation without the likely consequences that would make that cause just.

[Bostana]

I think that whole "separate but equal" shit never worked out for the U.S.

[Remus Bleys]

When almost any people (besides the bourgeois) don't have legal rights enjoyed by others in society, their cause is worth promoting provisionally. It's not as though there is a strong movement against marriages in general that is likely to take hold, so being against gay marriage because it is marriage is taking advantage of an inequitable decision in the name of liberation without the likely consequences that would make that cause just.

Right but marriage isn't really going to help. Th argument isn't "fuck gay marriage" its "fuck gay marriage because that cause is reformist" we advocate for revolutionary queer liberation taken by the gay worker, not reformist rights given by the bourgeois states

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Right but marriage isn't really going to help.
No, but for some of us, it got us access to healthcare (in my case), it allowed our partners to visit us in the hospital and make medical decisions, or it kept our kids from being taken away. "Fuck gay marriage" is a childish slogan that comes across as "you should have gone without healthcare" or "your kids should have been taken away."

Also, queer liberationists shouldn't be in the business of bisexual erasure by using an essentially conservative term like "gay marriage," which implies that two people of the same sex in a relationship are gay.

[Remus Bleys]

No, but for some of us, it got us access to healthcare (in my case), it allowed our partners to visit us in the hospital and make medical decisions, or it kept our kids from being taken away. "Fuck gay marriage" is a childish slogan that comes across as "you should have gone without healthcare" or "your kids should have been taken away."

Also, queer liberationists shouldn't be in the business of bisexual erasure by using an essentially conservative term like "gay marriage," which implies that two people of the same sex in a relationship are gay.

1. So healthcare is always granted to marital people? There's no way to married gays can be denied healthcare right? And if gays get married, they will surely be able to "keep" "their" kids, right?
2. Yet another reason to oppose gay marriage.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

1. So healthcare is always granted to marital people?
In the US, employers traditionally only extended benefits to the legal spouses of employees. That's less true now in many places, although many employers draw the line at covering same-sex domestic partners. That was the situation I was faced with, and maybe something Europeans wouldn't be as familiar with.


There's no way to married gays can be denied healthcare right? And if gays get married, they will surely be able to "keep" "their" kids, right?
Why do you, the self-proclaimed queer liberationist, keep assuming both parties in a same-sex relationship are necessarily gay? Or are you deliberately trolling me now to get a rise out of me?

[Remus Bleys]

I was deriding you for acting as if all queers had employment.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was deriding you for acting as if all queers had employment.
Except I didn't. My own personal experience is that being visibly queer, and not the sanctioned kind by hetero/cis-normative culture, can lead to unemployment. So that's not an assumption I would even make.

I was using my own personal experience as the primary example. I was unemployed at the time I got married. So you're deriding someone who was an unemployed queer person for making a choice that allowed them access to health insurance. Yay, you!

[Remus Bleys]

Except I didn't. My own personal experience is that being visibly queer, and not the sanctioned kind by hetero/cis-normative culture, can lead to unemployment. So that's not an assumption I would even make.

I was using my own personal experience as the primary example. I was unemployed at the time I got married. So you're deriding someone who was an unemployed queer person for making a choice that allowed them access to health insurance. Yay, you!

Your personal experience is literally the argument you were using?
Are you missing the point, thoguh? My argument is fundamentally that the fight for lgbt marriage is a counter productive one. You point out about healthcare. I say we should instead fight for free healthcare given to everyone regardless of marital status, as many queers are unemployed, them marrying a different queer who is also unemployed doesn't do anything for them.
Instead of responding to this, you act like a typical infantile centrist were you just strawman me. You take the argument that not all queers have access to healthcare, so two unemployed queers aren't getting healthcare so therefore we should instead fight for healthcare for all into this strawman that I hate you because you got married or that your trans or that you needed healthcare. Which clearly isn't the fucking case.

If you insist on being thick, I won't botther replying.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't understand why we can't legalize gay marriage now, to get the most benefits possible for the most people with the current political climate, and then repeal or disestablish all kinds of marriage later for ideological purity or whatever the rationale is against marriage in general.

I also don't know why we can't fight for both free healthcare for everyone and gay marriage so queer people who are denied these benefits can have them now. Unless you are wanting to maintain unity for the cause by preventing wouldbe married queer couples from getting healthcare beforehand, in which case, that is incredibly cynical and I have no sympathy for it.

[Left Voice]

The argument has been made already, but surely people should support gay marriage for the very same reason that people support wage increases - while people may not agree with the institution itself, the left should be advocating change in the interest of the working class.

Some people seem to overlook the fact that the left has to actually win over the working class - the left has to prove that they are acting for the best interests of the working class. This isn't something that can be taken for granted. Many people on the left claim this for themselves, but this has to be demonstrated with action. The left needs to be active in fighting for wage increases, needs to be fighting for LGBTQ rights, health care, and any other issues that affect people's lives. The one of the reasons why so many people within the working class aren't embracing socialism is because of the perception that many people on the left are indeed disconnected from real worker issues, preaching from ivory towers.

By all means, oppose the institution of marriage. And the wage system. But unless the left actively fights for the well being of workers now, the the left can't possibly claim to be fighting for their interests.

[The Feral Underclass]

Fine. When I got married to have access to health benefits, what would have been a better option in a collective and tactical sense?

I'm not telling people they shouldn't get married. I'm also not going to discuss your personal life. It has nothing to do with this argument. If you can't differentiate between the personal and the political then you are failing as a communist.

[The Feral Underclass]

By all means, oppose the institution of marriage. And the wage system. But unless the left actively fights for the well being of workers now, the the left can't possibly claim to be fighting for their interests.

Gay marriage isn't a working class issue, as I've already addressed in this thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't understand why we can't legalize gay marriage now

You people are stuck in a bourgeois mentality. The issues here aren't whether the state legalise gay marriage or not, the argument is how communists respond to it as an issue. Who gives a fuck what the state does? What is important is how communists address the issue of gay marriage in the context of struggling for queer liberation.

The fundamentally problem here is that most of you in this thread simply cannot view these struggles beyond the confines of bourgeois logic. That is the real issue here, actually.

[Quail]

I've been away the past couple of days so I didn't notice this thread going to shit.

This post is a verbal warning to everyone in this thread - any more rude posts and you will be infracted. I think some posters should have been warned and infracted pages ago tbh.

Also, what the fuck?

No thank you, the queers can keep their queerness to themselves, we don't want it. Also, I'm a fan of the family, as I do enjoy mine quite a bit, and monogamy is pretty cool too so there's that. Try again.

What does "keep their queerness to themselves" even mean if not something absurdly reactionary?

To clarify my position on "gay marriage"... I don't think it should be a priority for revolutionary leftists because we should be opposing marriage as an institution, and I think the focus on marriage is actually harmful to queer people because it has taken the focus away from issues which I think are much more important, like the rates of mental health problems, self-harm, suicide, homelessness, etc. Bourgeois politicians have used gay marriage as a kind of tokenistic gesture to appear to support queer people whilst also ignoring some of the fundamental problems they face.

Personally, I am bisexual but I don't intend to get married to anyone because I am opposed to the institution of marriage and the idea that monogamy is the only legitimate kind of relationship.

[Five Year Plan]

Also, my husband doesn't work right now, and filing joint taxes is a financial boon for us.

Why should all legally single people, including those with fewer financial resources than you, have to subsidize your 'financial boon' just because you choose to enter a relationship the state deems legitimate enough to bestow benefits on?

[helot]

Why should all legally single people, including those with fewer financial resources than you, have to subsidize your 'financial boon' just because you choose to enter a relationship the state deems legitimate enough to bestow benefits on?


sounds a bit like "think of the taxpayer" to me.


I of course don't disagree with you, my opposition to marriage, even same-sex marriage, is that it is still discriminatory. The legal benefits and privileges marriage grants people should be extended to everyone regardless of their marital status.

In this i find the great shame of the push for same-sex marriage: it destroys the potential to challenge the inherently discriminatory nature of the institution.

[sosolo]

I'm just wondering about a few other issues and what you think of them.

Should workers refuse increases in the minimum wage in order to protest wage-labor?

Should leftists not sign up for food stamps, unemployment insurance, public assistance, Medicare/Medicaid, or Social Security?

In other words, should we try to instill class consciousness by making workers' lives as terrible as possible?

I'm being serious, not facetious. If any of your thoughts on the above are in favour of any bourgeois "benefits", then your position is contradictory, and seems to be focused on telling queer people that their struggle (which, like the women's struggle, is part of class struggle) is not important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Five Year Plan]

sounds a bit like "think of the taxpayer" to me.

And this sounds like a dishonest attempt to dodge my question by trying to associate my argument to right-wingers who would want nothing to do with my critique of marriage.

Nevermind, it doesn't sound like one. It is one.

If you want to fault people for bringing up tax bills as justifications for their position on same-sex marriage, try singling out the poster to whom I was responding. It was his or her "think of me and my spouse's tax bill" argument that I was rebutting.

[Sabot Cat]

You people are stuck in a bourgeois mentality. The issues here aren't whether the state legalise gay marriage or not, the argument is how communists respond to it as an issue. Who gives a fuck what the state does? What is important is how communists address the issue of gay marriage in the context of struggling for queer liberation.

The fundamentally problem here is that most of you in this thread simply cannot view these struggles beyond the confines of bourgeois logic. That is the real issue here, actually.

I am viewing it from the perspective of a lesbian woman who wants to be married, and cannot because reactionaries have defined the institution of marriage in a way that favors heterosexual people. I would very much like to get married, and have that be recognized as marriage; there is no reason why that isn't possible other than the widespread prejudice against gay and lesbian people. So no, you're not doing anything to help "liberate" me by siding with homophobic assholes who want to deny me privileges enjoyed by other people on the basis of who I am.



To clarify my position on "gay marriage"... I don't think it should be a priority for revolutionary leftists because we should be opposing marriage as an institution, and I think the focus on marriage is actually harmful to queer people because it has taken the focus away from issues which I think are much more important, like the rates of mental health problems, self-harm, suicide, homelessness, etc. Bourgeois politicians have used gay marriage as a kind of tokenistic gesture to appear to support queer people whilst also ignoring some of the fundamental problems they face.

Having myself self-harmed and almost committed suicide as a queer person (trans people have a 41% attempted suicide rate in the United States :( ), I obviously support trying to mitigate that in our community, as well as the endemic homelessness, unemployment, denial to medical care, and others. It is not as though I can only support addressing one of these causes, and a great way to take the focus off of gay marriage is by legalizing it.


Why should all legally single people, including those with fewer financial resources than you, have to subsidize your 'financial boon' just because you choose to enter a relationship the state deems legitimate enough to bestow benefits on?

Most of the financial benefits I'm aware of relate to the expenses of raising a child and providing for them medically, which are also applicable to single parents. I'm not sure what benefits you have in mind.


I of course don't disagree with you, my opposition to marriage, even same-sex marriage, is that it is still discriminatory. The legal benefits and privileges marriage grants people should be extended to everyone regardless of their marital status.

In this i find the great shame of the push for same-sex marriage: it destroys the potential to challenge the inherently discriminatory nature of the institution.

So you want to take advantage of the vulnerable position queer people find themselves in because of the prejudice in our society, so that you can abstractly further your cause (the validity of which I believe has yet to be proven)?

[Five Year Plan]

I am viewing it from the perspective of a lesbian person who wants to be married, and cannot because reactionaries have defined the institution of marriage in a way that favors heterosexual people. I would very much like to get married, and have that be recognized as marriage; there is no reason why that isn't possible other than the widespread prejudice against gay and lesbian people. So no, you're not doing anything to help "liberate" me by siding with homophobic assholes who want to deny me privileges enjoyed by other people on the basis of who I am.




Having myself self-harmed and almost committed suicide as a queer person (trans people have a 41% attempted suicide rate in the United States :( ), I obviously support trying to mitigate that in our community, as well as the endemic homelessness, unemployment, denial to medical care, and others. It is not as though I can only support one or the others, and a great way to take the focus off of gay marriage is by legalizing it.



Most of the financial benefits I'm aware of relate to the expenses of raising a child and providing for them medically, which are also applicable to single parents.



So you want to take advantage of the vulnerable position queer people find themselves in because of the prejudice in our society, so that you can abstractly further your cause (the validity of which I believe has yet to be proven)?

Same sex marriage is the product of an incestuous relationship between an upwardly mobile, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois group of gays and lesbians who have increasingly become absorbed into the commanding heights of the capitalist hierarchy, and a decaying bourgeois system that has spent the past thirty years co-opting and assimilating the cultural aspects of the aspiring revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s, by neutralizing their revolutionary class content while making symbolic concessions.

Marriage as a civil institution is inherently unequal, and any attempt to expand it as that institution is just widening the circle of privilege to more people in a way that amplifies the stigma and oppression felt by those not included in that circle. Those left out in the cold include anybody who does not desire to engage in serial monogamy, including those in polyamorous relationships and of course single people of every stripe. At best, it is a step sideways in a movement for a liberatory way of life to accompany socialism.

There are some civil benefits that it makes sense to grant people who are have a special relationship with one another. However, these benefits should be decoupled from the number of people in the relationship, and whether that relationships is predicated upon sexual intimacy. In other words, those benefits need to be stripped from marriage, and marriage as a civil institution dismantled.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am viewing it from the perspective of a lesbian person who wants to be married, and cannot because reactionaries have defined the institution of marriage in a way that favors heterosexual people.

Yeah, it's called heteropatriarchy. Welcome to reality.


I would very much like to get married, and have that be recognized as marriage; there is no reason why that isn't possible other than the widespread prejudice against gay and lesbian people.

So your motivation here is personal gain?


So no, you're not doing anything to help "liberate" me by siding with homophobic assholes who want to deny me privileges enjoyed by other people on the basis of who I am.

First of all, trying to make the argument that I am siding with homophobes because I oppose gay marriage is what they call a 'guilty by association' logical fallacy. It is not a defence of your position or a refutation of mine, it is simply a lazy attempt to discredit my argument without actually addressing the substance.

Secondly, on that point, you have not addressed my argument about the fact you operate within bourgeois logic. What you have done is reinforced it. I am trying to fundamentally change the nature of reality in order to liberate human existence, not reform reality to make it more convenient for my individual life -- an incredibly bourgeois, liberal sentiment.

Thirdly, "liberation" from heteronormative society isn't going to be achieved through gaining "privileges" from the bourgeois state, so opposing or supporting gay marriage is irrelevant in that sense.

As communists, our focus shouldn't be about supporting things simply because they benefit us individually or even because our communities support it. We have to look at how the things we do are going to move us forwarded tactically and strategically toward our ultimate objectives. That is the role of communists.

That doesn't mean we should tell people not to get married or defend liberal gay rights activists from homophobia, but it does mean having a very clear, honest and communist line and tactics to overcome the engrained bourgeois notions of "rights" and "privileges" so that we can build a decisive queer liberation tendency.

[The Feral Underclass]

Same sex marriage is the product of an incestuous relationship between an upwardly mobile, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois group of gays and lesbians who have increasingly become absorbed into the commanding heights of the capitalist hierarchy, and a decaying bourgeois system that has spent the past thirty years co-opting and assimilating the cultural aspects of the aspiring revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s, by neutralizing their revolutionary class content while making symbolic concessions.

I want to highlight this paragraph for its incisive brilliance.

[Sabot Cat]

Same sex marriage is the product of an incestuous relationship between an upwardly mobile, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois group of gays and lesbians who have increasingly become absorbed into the commanding heights of the capitalist hierarchy, and a decaying bourgeois system that has spent the past thirty years co-opting and assimilating the cultural aspects of the aspiring revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s, by neutralizing their revolutionary class content while making symbolic concessions.

Why does that make same sex marriage itself bad?


Marriage as a civil institution is inherently unequal, and any attempt to expand it as that institution is just widening the circle of privilege to more people in a way that amplifies the stigma and oppression felt by those not included in that circle. Those left out in the cold include anybody who does not desire to engage in serial monogamy, including those in polyamorous relationships and of course single people of every stripe. At best, it is a step sideways in a movement for a liberatory way of life to accompany socialism.

I am also an advocate for plural marriage for those who are not monogamous; furthermore, it has yet to be demonstrated why all marriage is inherently unequal.


There are some civil benefits that it makes sense to grant people who are have a special relationship with one another. However, these benefits should be decoupled from the number of people in the relationship, and whether that relationships is predicated upon sexual intimacy. In other words, those benefits need to be stripped from marriage, and marriage as a civil institution dismantled.

So you want to start this fight against those who are vulnerable? This is like mounting an attack on property by siding with those who want to prevent women from having private property, or campaigning against people of color being able to vote because electoral democracy is a bourgeois institution and you don't want to increase its legitimacy. All are reactionary means to far away revolutionary ends.

[Sabot Cat]

Yeah, it's called heteropatriarchy. Welcome to reality.

I'm not unaware of it, obviously.



So your motivation here is personal gain?


You could ask that for almost any cause. "You want to liberate the proletariat because you yourself are a member of the working class, and thus have things to gain from it?" Yes. Yes I do.


First of all, trying to make the argument that I am siding with homophobes because I oppose gay marriage is what they call a 'guilty by association' logical fallacy. It is not a defence of your position or a refutation of mine, it is simply a lazy attempt to discredit my argument without actually addressing the substance.


I actually didn't say your argument was incorrect because you are caucusing with homophobes (which you are), I said that you're doing nothing to help me as a lesbian by being opposed to gay marriage. Hence, my argument does not fall victim to this fallacy.


Secondly, on that point, you have not addressed my argument about the fact you operate within bourgeois logic. What you have done is reinforced it. I am trying to fundamentally change the nature of reality in order to liberate human existence, not reform reality to make it more convenient for my individual life -- an incredibly bourgeois, liberal sentiment.


And you want to do this by... making sure only heterosexual people can get married?


As communists, our focus shouldn't be about supporting things simply because they benefit us individually or even because our communities support it. We have to look at how the things we do are going to move us forwarded tactically and strategically toward our ultimate objectives. That is the role of communists.

Most gay people support gay marriage. Hence, it would be tactically sound to advance the cause in order to maintain their support, if we're going about it from the cynical approach.


Thirdly, "liberation" from heteronormative society isn't going to be achieved through gaining "privileges" from the bourgeois state, so opposing or supporting gay marriage is irrelevant in that sense.


That doesn't mean we should tell people not to get married or defend liberal gay rights activists from homophobia, but it does mean having a very clear, honest and communist line and tactics to overcome the engrained bourgeois notions of "rights" and "privileges" so that we can build a decisive queer liberation tendency.

What does queer liberation entail?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not unaware of it, obviously.

So what's your point?


You could ask that for almost any cause. "You want to liberate the proletariat because you yourself are a member of the working class, and thus have things to gain from it?" Yes. Yes I do.

If your motivation is purely selfish, then at least that is an explanation for your position.


I actually didn't say your argument was incorrect because you are caucusing with homophobes (which you are), I said that you're doing nothing to help me as a lesbian by being opposed to gay marriage. Hence, my argument does not fall victim to this fallacy.

And now here I am having to defend myself against the accusation that I am caucusing or "siding" with homophobes, which is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.

You are attempting to discredit my argument (or me) by associating me with homophobes. It is dishonest.


And you want to do this by... making sure only heterosexual people can get married?

I have no idea what you're talking about.


Most gay people support gay marriage. Hence, it would be tactically sound to advance the cause in order to maintain their support, if we're going about it from the cynical approach.

What is the strategic benefit of gay people supporting us for something we don't believe in?

What does queer liberation entail?

Destroying heteronormative society.

[Five Year Plan]

So you want to start this fight against those who are vulnerable? This is like mounting an attack on property by siding with those who want to prevent women from having private property, or campaigning against people of color being able to vote because electoral democracy is a bourgeois institution and you don't want to increase its legitimacy. All are reactionary means to far away revolutionary ends.

This is as confused a construction as I've seen. My critique has been that the incorporation of same-sex couples into the institution of marriage, while benefiting some same-sex couples (disproportionately the upwardly mobile I mentioned previously) by bestowing upon them the same alienated benefits received by opposite-sex couples, increases the stigma and oppression experienced by those who choose to conduct their intimate lives through other forms of relationship. These latter people, whose burden will be increased by consolidating serial-monogamy marriage, are people you might term "vulnerable."

Why don't they figure into your calculation before launching a broadside against me? Do their relationships not count? Does their vulnerability not count? Only certain people's vulnerability matters, I guess. Two can play the shame game, comrade.

[Sabot Cat]

So what's your point?

You condescendingly implied that I wasn't aware of patriarchy or heterocentrism; I was countering that.


If your motivation is purely selfish, then at least that is an explanation for your position.


My point is that you can't discredit my support for a cause by pointing out I have something to gain from it personally.


And now here I am having to defend myself against the accusation that I am caucusing or "siding" with homophobes, which is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.


It's completely true. Do you support gay marriage, yes or no? If you are voting no, campaigning no, you are voting with those who want to restrict marriage for heterosexual people. I'm not implying you're doing it for the same reasons or motivations, just that the consequences are the same.


You are attempting to discredit my argument (or me) by associating me with homophobes. It is dishonest.


No, the basis of my argument is that you're not helping gay people through your opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage.


Destroying heteronormative society.

Which doesn't entail removing restrictions to institutions typically reserved for heterosexual people?

[Sabot Cat]

This is as confused a construction as I've seen. My critique has been that the incorporation of same-sex couples into the institution of marriage, while benefiting some same-sex couples (disproportionately the upwardly mobile I mentioned previously) by bestowing upon them the same alienated benefits received by opposite-sex couples, increases the stigma and oppression experienced by those who choose to conduct their intimate lives through other forms of relationship. These latter people, whose burden will be increased by consolidating serial-monogamy marriage, are people you might term "vulnerable."

I disagree. The legalization of same-sex marriage has no proven causative relationship with the acceptability of those who are not monogamous or not in marriages, and I have no idea why it would.


Why don't they figure into your calculation before launching a broadside against me? Do their relationships not count? Does their vulnerability not count? Only certain people's vulnerability matters, I guess. Two can play the shame game, comrade.

I just don't want marriage to be a thing only heterosexual people can have. I'm not playing any shame game; I'm just kind of sad that I have to fight conservatives and leftists on this issue.

[The Feral Underclass]

My point is that you can't discredit my support for a cause by pointing out I have something to gain from it personally.

I'm not trying to discredit your support for gay marriage. If your personal gain is your motivation that's your problem. My point is that you are locked in a bourgeois mentality and this is no good if we want to build a genuine communist movement.


No, it is not. Do you support gay marriage, yes or no? If you are voting no, campaigning no, you are voting with those who want to restrict marriage for heterosexual people.

First you would need to demonstrate why not supporting gay marriage also means voting no and campaigning no. Your mind may work in binary, mine does not. I am able to differentiate between support gay rights activists from homophobes and being honest about what I believe.

I do not support gay marriage for the reason I have outlined. That does not mean I actively attack the gay rights movement or refuse to support and defend gay rights activists from attacks.

It is absolutely, fundamentally untrue that I am caucusing or siding with homophobes. It is a fallacious claim and you should stop making it.


No, the basis of my argument is that you're not helping gay people through your opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage.

I've made no pronouncements about the subject of legalising same-sex marriage and in fact have categorically said that what the state does or does not do is of absolutely no consequence to my views.

In fact, I said it to you, when I made the argument that you are stuck in a bourgeois frame (an argument you are yet to address: "You people are stuck in a bourgeois mentality. The issues here aren't whether the state legalise gay marriage or not, the argument is how communists respond to it as an issue. Who gives a fuck what the state does? What is important is how communists address the issue of gay marriage in the context of struggling for queer liberation."


Which doesn't entail expanding access to institutions typically reserved for heterosexual people?

No! Those institutions are heteronormative society.

[Sabot Cat]

Anarchist Tension, if you aren't voting on it or trying to convince others who will, a lot of my arguments are inapplicable to you and I withdraw them. But I look at this in binary because that's how it appears on ballots: yes or no. I would like as much 'yes' support as possible.


"You people are stuck in a bourgeois mentality. The issues here aren't whether the state legalise gay marriage or not, the argument is how communists respond to it as an issue. Who gives a fuck what the state does? What is important is how communists address the issue of gay marriage in the context of struggling for queer liberation."

I care what the state does because I live under the power of a state, and will be subject to it for the foreseeable future.

[blake 3:17]

I care what the state does because I live under the power of a state, and will be subject to it for the foreseeable future.

That's called sanity.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's called sanity.

And that's the reinforcement of bourgeois ideology. That any understanding outside of a bourgeois paradigm is insane.


And really don't worry about TAT -- apparently I oppress him with all sorts of things because I'm not polyamorous.

Oh the drama! You really live in your own little fantasy world, don't you?

[helot]

And this sounds like a dishonest attempt to dodge my question by trying to associate my argument to right-wingers who would want nothing to do with my critique of marriage.

Nevermind, it doesn't sound like one. It is one.

If you want to fault people for bringing up tax bills as justifications for their position on same-sex marriage, try singling out the poster to whom I was responding. It was his or her "think of me and my spouse's tax bill" argument that I was rebutting.



That part of my post was a joke (hence afterwards i said i don't disagree with you). My apologies for its ambiguity.



So you want to take advantage of the vulnerable position queer people find themselves in because of the prejudice in our society, so that you can abstractly further your cause (the validity of which I believe has yet to be proven)?

I am queer. I suppose i'd be taking advantage of myself :p

My cause is equality i'm afraid. Like i said in my post that you quoted

"The legal benefits and privileges marriage grants people should be extended to everyone regardless of their marital status."

Yes, i think the LGBTQ movement was in a good position to fight for the extension of these privileges to everyone.

Tell me, why should some LGBTQ people get access to these privileges while others don't?

[Sabot Cat]

I am queer. I suppose i'd be taking advantage of myself :p

There are other queer people who do want to be married that cannot; they would be the ones being taking advantage of.


My cause is equality i'm afraid. Like i said in my post that you quoted

"The legal benefits and privileges marriage grants people should be extended to everyone regardless of their marital status."

Yes, i think the LGBTQ movement was in a good position to fight for the extension of these privileges to everyone.

Tell me, why should some LGBTQ people get access to these privileges while others don't?

Because that's not an option on the table, and there is no momentum for doing what you propose. If we're being materialists, we should recognize the reality of the situation going on. Queer people can't get married. They should be able to because the reason why we can't right now is because of institutionally entrenched homophobia. However, there's a sizable number of people who want to correct that; there isn't a lot of people or a strong movement calling for the abolition of marriage in general. I am a revolutionary leftist and a queer feminist, but I still have no idea why we should just get rid of marriage in the name of our liberation or equality. Moreover, I believe that we should fight for same-sex marriage because we have a better chance of helping some people out now.

[helot]

There are other queer people who do want to be married that cannot; they would be the ones being taking advantage of. which makes absolutely no sense. How would they be taken advantage of by trying to extend the same legal benefits to everyone?



Because that's not an option on the table, and there is no momentum for doing what you propose. If we're being materialists, we should recognize the reality of the situation going on. Queer people can't get married. They should be able to because the reason why we can't right now is because of institutionally entrenched homophobia. However, there's a sizable number of people who want to correct that; there isn't a lot of people or a strong movement calling for the abolition of marriage in general. I am a revolutionary leftist and a queer feminist, but I still have no idea why we should just get rid of marriage in the name of our liberation or equality. Moreover, I believe that we should fight for same-sex marriage because we have a better chance of helping some people out now.



Im not even calling for the abolition of marriage here. I'm making no revolutionary demand. im calling for the decoupling of the various benefits from marriage which here in the UK will include more tax breaks in the coming years.

I don't give a fuck about ceremonies declaring ones love for another, i don't really give a fuck about registering your sexual intimacy with the state (even if i think it's none of their business). It has just given some LGBTQ people these privileges while denying it to others. Yup, past tense because same sex couples can get the same privileges here allbeit under a term that's just pathetic (civil partnership).




Btw, would you still have a desire to marry if you already had the benefits and legal privileges that come with marriage? That's the only thing that makes me think twice about marriage.

[Sabot Cat]

which makes absolutely no sense. How would they be taken advantage of by trying to extend the same legal benefits to everyone?

Im not even calling for the abolition of marriage here. I'm making no revolutionary demand. im calling for the decoupling of the various benefits from marriage which here in the UK will include more tax breaks in the coming years.


If that's the case, I guess I could see myself being on board with that, but I'm not sure why you would be opposed to same-sex marriage on this basis, unless you aren't...? We can legalize same-sex marriage and then work on the decoupling, can't we?


I don't give a fuck about ceremonies declaring ones love for another, i don't really give a fuck about registering your sexual intimacy with the state (even if i think it's none of their business). It has just given some LGBTQ people these privileges while denying it to others. Yup, past tense because same sex couples can get the same privileges here allbeit under a term that's just pathetic (civil partnership).

Where I live, same-sex marriage is prohibited by state statute. I can't leave here without being hit by heavy tuition. My girlfriend can't be naturalized through marriage because same-sex marriage is prohibited. So... yeah.


Btw, would you still have a desire to marry if you already had the benefits and legal privileges that come with marriage? That's the only thing that makes me think twice about marriage.

Yes, I would, because my girlfriend and I are very emotionally invested in the concept of marriage with the ceremonies and the whole shebang. But the point is that I don't have those benefits and privileges because of heterocentric laws (which the local legislature hopes to codify in our state constitution).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

My girlfriend can't be naturalized through marriage because same-sex marriage is prohibited.
Another example of why I won't oppose same-sex marriage, even though it's not my priority as a revolutionary to support reforms.

[The Feral Underclass]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lying-manipulating-others-t181507/index14.html

Will I get an infract for naming what you are?

Are you seriously telling me that you have taken from that argument that I believe you are oppressing me because you're not polyamorous? Seriously?...You need to get a grip. Or develop better reading comprehension.

[The Feral Underclass]

So aside from all the individualism and personal gain, can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?

[Sabot Cat]

So aside from all the individualism and personal gain, can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?

"So apart from the privileges that would no longer be denied to those oppressed by reactionary hierarchies, what do we have to gain from ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage?"

I'll try to refrain from pointing out how defining marriage in a way that excludes same-sex couples has more negative consequences than positive, because you seem opposed to campaigning for something on the basis of the benefits it could have for people.

My primarily legal argument is this: The only reason gay marriage is prohibited right now is for religious purposes. The acts of the United States government must be both secular (Establishment Clause) and rational (United States v. Carolene Products Company) in purpose, while statue stipulating that marriage must only be between one man and one woman has an expressly religious and irrational end. Hence, the enforcement of said laws signify an overreaching of what the government has the constitution right to do.

Laws should not have a religious purpose because when the authority of the state becomes the cudgel for sectarian oppression, the rationale discourse necessary for the promotion of democracy runs headlong into the irreconcilable fissures between opposing, irrationally accepted dogmas. Common law systems are also often founded upon the basis of precedence, and thus it is important to prevent a precedence of religious law for the above-mentioned purposes.

Moreover, I believe your entire line of argumentation is a red herring. We're not discussing decoupling certain benefits from martial status. We're not discussing how this can be used as a tool for the promotion of an expressly communist cause, because that may not always be salient (although opposing bigotry is always compatible with it). We're discussing why the prohibitions of same-sex marriage should be abolished. The reason why these prohibitions should be abolished is because they are reactionary and bigoted in their creation, irrational and unsecular in their execution, counter to the stated purposes of law in secular nations, and moreover, it is unjust and morally wrong to let them continue on because of the way they enshrine and promote an oppressive hierarchy.

[The Feral Underclass]

You haven't answered my question.

If you're not a communist and you have no interest in building a communist movement or forwarding queer liberation ideology, just say so. I'm not interested in legalistic, social democracy bullshit.

[Five Year Plan]

"So apart from the privileges that would no longer be denied to those oppressed by reactionary hierarchies, what do we have to gain from ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage?"

I'll try to refrain from pointing out how defining marriage in a way that excludes same-sex couples has more negative consequences than positive, because you seem opposed to campaigning for something on the basis of the benefits it could have for people.

Same-sex marriage has more positive consequences than negative ... for people who choose to express their intimate lives through serial sexual monogamy. It has more negative consequences than positive for everybody else. And that's not even getting into the thorny question of how many of the people who make the "choice" to express their intimate lives through serial monogamy do so precisely because of the social pressures that legitimize that particular lifestyle, and end up very miserable as a result of their decision despite whatever "material" gains you can cite. In your zeal for championing rights within a bourgeois framework, you have lost all contact with a vision of liberation representing the transcendence (or aufhebung) of that framework.

You keep presupposing a bourgeois framework for adjudicating the question of benefits, and when it's pointed out to you that your entire framework is hopelessly flawed and slanted toward the reproduction of capitalism and all its attendant ills, you don't bat an eye before repeating yourself again as if you didn't hear what the other person just said. Some of us here are operating from the framework of wanting to maneuver within capitalism for the purpose of overcoming it not reproducing its social and sexual relations in perpetuity by making it more abstractly equitable while strengthening its alienated essence.


My primarily legal argument is this: The only reason gay marriage is prohibited right now is for religious purposes.The fact that a bad rationale is decisive for why an institution has not been changed in some way does not constitute a good reason for changing the institution in that way. That would require a separate argument.

Also, am I the only person who sees the incredible irony in your inclusion of an Emma Goldman quote in your signature, when she wrote one of the most scathing critiques of the institution of marriage to be published in the past 150 years?

[Sabot Cat]

You haven't answered my question.

If you're not a communist and you have no interest in building a communist movement or forwarding queer liberation ideology, just say so. I'm not interested in legalistic, social democracy bullshit.

First of all, I tried going about it by pointing out the ethical, non-legal reasons. You just called them "personal benefits" and dismissed them out of hand. I even provided consequentialist reasoning for the legal framework itself. Your criticisms on that front are sloppy and amount to little more than name calling.

Secondly, I don't know what queer liberation ideology is, or why it's desirable. I have repeatably asked, and you just tell me that it's for abolishing the institution of marriage or family or what have you. That doesn't tell me why, or how that entails liberation of queer people. I'm for decoupling irrational and hierarchical benefits from martial status, but I don't see how marriage itself harms people.


Same-sex marriage has more positive consequences than negative ... for people who choose to express their intimate lives through serial sexual monogamy. It has more negative consequences than positive for everybody else. And that's not even getting into the thorny question of how many of the people who make the "choice" to express their intimate lives through serial monogamy do so precisely because of the social pressures that legitimize that particular lifestyle, and end up very miserable as a result of their decision despite whatever "material" gains you can cite.

I am in support of polygamy as well, even though I personally wouldn't practice it. Same-sex marriage doesn't disadvantage polygamous same-sex people in any tangible way, other than they don't have marriage too, which is something that can also be fought for.


In your zeal for championing rights within a bourgeois framework, you have lost all contact with a vision of liberation representing the transcendence (or aufhebung) of that framework.

I live within a bourgois framework that I would like to alter as much as possible until it's clear that the zeitgeist will be conducive for a proletarian revolution to overturn it. Am I just supposed to ignore the rather real and powerful agents of legal force that exist around me? Am I supposed to wait until the proletarian revolution comes before we start addressing societal ills?


You keep presupposing a bourgeois framework for adjudicating the question of benefits, and when it's pointed out to you that your entire framework is hopelessly flawed and slanted toward the reproduction of capitalism and all its attendant ills, you don't bat an eye before repeating yourself again as if you didn't hear what the other person just said. Some of us here are operating from the framework of wanting to maneuver within capitalism for the purpose of overcoming it not reproducing its social and sexual relations in perpetuity by making it more abstractly equitable while strengthening its alienated essence.

I wish to abolish capitalist exploitation, and supporting gay marriage isn't antithetical to that cause. Your eloquent critique also misses the fact that I will reiterate: I have to contend with the power of a state for the time being, and I want to do as much as possible to make it less oppressive until we can destroy it.


The fact that a bad rationale is decisive for why an institution has not been changed in some way does not constitute a good reason for changing the institution in that way. That would require a separate argument.

Also, am I the only person who sees the incredible irony in your inclusion of an Emma Goldman quote in your signature, when she wrote one of the most scathing critiques of the institution of marriage to be published in the past 150 years?

Signature inclusion =/= complete agreement with the person being quoted. I am not beholden to other people's opinions unless I find reason to agree with them, even if I respect them.

[The Feral Underclass]

First of all, I tried going about it by pointing out the ethical, non-legal reasons. You just called them "personal benefits" and dismissed them out of hand. I even provided consequentialist reasoning for the legal framework itself. Your criticisms on that front are sloppy and amount to little more than name calling.

My question was very specific: "can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?"

You have not answered that question, you have simply restated the bourgeois framework by which you believe same-sex marriage is a good idea. That framework is not what is at stake here.


Secondly, I don't know what queer liberation ideology is, or why it's desirable. I have repeatably asked, and you just tell me that it's for abolishing the institution of marriage or family or what have you. That doesn't tell me why, or how that entails liberation of queer people. I'm for decoupling irrational and hierarchical benefits from martial status, but I don't see how marriage itself harms people.

You asked me what does queer liberation "entail" and my answer to you was the destruction of heternormative society. That was a simple answer. If you wanted me to elaborate on that, you should have asked me specifically.

I have repeatedly responded to you on these subjects. This is not about marriage being harmful to people, it's not about it being legal or about ethics or about "decoupling". This is about how communists address the issue of gay marriage in the specific context of building a communist movement and forwarding queer liberation ideology. It is about tactics and strategy.

To be clear, creating communism, destroying heternormative society requires us to articulate a critique and build a counter-power that conceptualises a different kind of reality. This means you need to think beyond the bourgeois framework that you are currently operating within, i.e. laws, legalities, the state, rights.

[Sabot Cat]

My question was very specific: "can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?"

I did answer: it doesn't, because that's not what it's about.


You have not answered that question, you have simply restated the bourgeois framework by which you believe same-sex marriage is a good idea. That framework is not what is at stake here.


But then, why are you saying my fundamental flaw is the framework from which I approach this? Wouldn't that imply it's all about the framework?


You asked me what does queer liberation "entail" and my answer to you was the destruction of heternormative society. That was a simple answer. If you wanted me to elaborate on that, you should have asked me specifically.

I have repeatedly responded to you on these subjects. This is not about marriage being harmful to people, it's not about it being legal or about ethics or about "decoupling". This is about how communists address the issue of gay marriage in the specific context of building a communist movement and forwarding queer liberation ideology. It is about tactics and strategy.

I do not apologize for having a life and needs outside of the communist movement, nor should anyone else.


To be clear, creating communism, destroying heternormative society requires us to articulate a critique and build a counter-power that conceptualises a different kind of reality. This means you need to think beyond the bourgeois framework that you are currently operating within, i.e. laws, legalities, the state, rights.

I don't think you can "create" communism; it's a societal condition that emerges after the ideology behind proletarian revolution is entrenched in the hearts and minds of the populace, so that the state can effectively wither away. And in order to achieve a proletarian revolution, we have to know how the bourgeois framework functions, why people buy into it, and what we can do to oppose it. And finally, it's hard to think beyond laws when I'm compelled to follow them, nor do I find it practical or necessary to ignore our opposition. I just want to fight for the best now, in the scope of what can be plausibly achieved.

[Five Year Plan]

First of all, I tried going about it by pointing out the ethical, non-legal reasons. You just called them "personal benefits" and dismissed them out of hand. I even provided consequentialist reasoning for the legal framework itself. Your criticisms on that front are sloppy and amount to little more than name calling.

Secondly, I don't know what queer liberation ideology is, or why it's desirable. I have repeatably asked, and you just tell me that it's for abolishing the institution of marriage or family or what have you. That doesn't tell me why, or how that entails liberation of queer people. I'm for decoupling irrational and hierarchical benefits from martial status, but I don't see how marriage itself harms people.

I am in support of polygamy as well, even though I personally wouldn't practice it. Same-sex marriage doesn't disadvantage polygamous same-sex people in any tangible way, other than they don't have marriage too, which is something that can also be fought for.

I live within a bourgois framework that I would like to alter as much as possible until it's clear that the zeitgeist will be conducive for a proletarian revolution to overturn it. Am I just supposed to ignore the rather real and powerful agents of legal force that exist around me? Am I supposed to wait until the proletarian revolution comes before we start addressing societal ills?



I wish to abolish capitalist exploitation, and supporting gay marriage isn't antithetical to that cause. Your eloquent critique also misses the fact that I will reiterate: I have to contend with the power of a state for the time being, and I want to do as much as possible to make it less oppressive until we can destroy it.



Signature inclusion =/= complete agreement with the person being quoted. I am not beholden to other people's opinions unless I find reason to agree with them, even if I respect them.

You don't seem to understand the contemporary role of marriage as a civil institution in propping up capitalist exploitation, which is troubling for somebody on a revolutionary anti-capitalist discussion forum.

You're also having a problem seeing the tension between your professed personal support of "polygamy" (I think you mean polyamory), and your political support of an institution that by its nature degrades and deligitimizes as second class any sexual lifestyle outside of serial monogamy. If you don't understand how this exclusion stigmatizes and degrades, then you should probably consult the same-sex marriage advocates who have vehemently pointed out how monogamous homosexual relationships suffer the same consequences as a result of being excluded from the civil institution of marriage.

What you are advocating is winning a formal equality for some people at the expense of other oppressed groups, not in solidarity with them. This doesn't even rise to the level of what Leninists like me would call a reform, since there is no way to generalize or extend a 'marriage equality' campaign to a revolutionary conclusion without reversing course, condemning the institution of civil marriage at its ideological and material core, and beginning to pursue reforms aimed at dismantling it.

What is happening instead is a campaign to expand the circle of monogamous couples who can participate in it, providing a symbolic victory for gays and lesbians aspiring to the full and 'equal' (equal to their heterosexual counterparts) serving of the inequitable 'privileges' dished out by bourgeois society and its institutions. The campaign is aimed at stabilizing and strengthening the thoroughly bourgeois and oppressive essence of the institution by polishing off some of the non-essential surface tarnish it has accumulated as a result of social changes that actually ARE moving in the direction of a more liberated society. We call this a 'rearguard defensive action.'

I have said all that I think can be said on this issue without repeating myself. I'll just leave you with a quote from a version of one of my favorite songs, Billy Bragg's revision of The Internationale:

"Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all."

[The Feral Underclass]

I did answer: it doesn't, because that's not what it's about.

If it doesn't help build a communist movement or advance queer liberation ideology, why would we fight for it? Why would we have any other priority?


But then, why are you saying my fundamental flaw is the framework from which I approach this? Wouldn't that imply it's all about the framework?

What...?


I do not apologize for having a life and needs outside of the communist movement, nor should anyone else.

If you are communist militant then your priority must be building for communism.


I don't think you can "create" communism; it's a societal condition that emerges after the ideology behind proletarian revolution is entrenched in the hearts and minds of the populace, so that the state can effectively wither away.

Okay, but then how does fighting for same sex marriage advance that objective?


And in order to achieve a proletarian revolution, we have to know how the bourgeois framework functions, why people buy into it, and what we can do to oppose it.

Yet you seek to reinforce the legitimacy of it by advocating for same-sex marriage, offering no critique of it beyond that bourgeois framework, while at the same time strengthening your opponents and damages the ideological efforts of queer liberationists.


And finally, it's hard to think beyond laws when I'm compelled to follow them, nor do I find it practical or necessary to ignore our opposition.

You're not compelled to follow laws. That is incorrect.

Also, this is absolutely not about ignoring our opposition, I think the point I've been making is that it is about the exact opposite: that it is precisely our understanding of the opposition that provides us with an analysis of same-sex marriage that compels us to oppose it.


I just want to fight for the best now, in the scope of what can be plausibly achieved

You are being defeatist, which is ultimately the character of individualism.

Reformism of this nature can never benefit us tactically or strategically. What history shows us is that it simply strengthens our enemies and de-radicalises the working class.

That's not to say that fighting for immediate improvement to our conditions is something we should not do, but it should only ever be done if it has tactical or strategic benefit for building a counter-power and escalating conflict. We can only compete for hegemony with the ruling class if we are in conflict with them. Reformism of the kind that asks the state for concession is not about escalating conflict, it is about de-escalating it.

[Sabot Cat]

You don't seem to understand the contemporary role of marriage as a civil institution in propping up capitalist exploitation, which is troubling for somebody on a revolutionary anti-capitalist discussion forum.

Formally recognizing love between two or more people has next to nothing to do with the proletariat seizing the means of production, at least directly.


You're also having a problem seeing the tension between your professed personal support of "polygamy" (I think you mean polyamory),

No, I mean polygamy, a marriage between a group of individuals larger than a couple.


and your political support of an institution that by its nature degrades and deligitimizes as second class any sexual lifestyle outside of serial monogamy. If you don't understand how this exclusion stigmatizes and degrades, then you should probably consult the same-sex marriage advocates who have vehemently pointed out how monogamous homosexual relationships suffer the same consequences as a result of being excluded from the civil institution of marriage.

Why would you care about being excluded from an institution you oppose on principle? If you don't want to be married, don't get married. The existence of ceremonially recognized monogamous or polygamous couples does not hurt people who don't want to be married or a static (group of) partner(s) in any tangible way.


What you are advocating is winning a formal equality for some people at the expense of other oppressed groups, not in solidarity with them. This doesn't even rise to the level of what Leninists like me would call a reform, since there is no way to generalize or extend a 'marriage equality' campaign to a revolutionary conclusion without reversing course, condemning the institution of civil marriage at its ideological and material core, and beginning to pursue reforms aimed at dismantling it.


Marriage, even if it is legally noted, isn't counter to the aims of the liberation of all workers.


What is happening instead is a campaign to expand the circle of monogamous couples who can participate in it, providing a symbolic victory for gays and lesbians aspiring to the full and 'equal' (equal to their heterosexual counterparts) serving of the inequitable 'privileges' dished out by bourgeois society and its institutions. The campaign is aimed at stabilizing and strengthening the thoroughly bourgeois and oppressive essence of the institution by polishing off some of the non-essential surface tarnish it has accumulated as a result of social changes that actually ARE moving in the direction of a more liberated society. We call this a 'rearguard defensive action.'


I will level with you: gay marriage is way too big of a priority for the LGBT movement. There's better things we can be doing with our time, and this fight is one mostly being promoted by bourgeois white guys. It's really kind of docile and overly conciliatory for conservatives. I realize all of these things. I'm often frustrated that the biggest thing on the minds of these advocates isn't the capital punishment and life imprisonments still being dolled out upon people in countries where being gay is to be a criminal.

With all of that being said, I still think same-sex marriage is a good idea. Gay people shouldn't be prohibited from doing what heterosexual people are doing because they are gas. That is wrong. Let's right that wrong, because we can.



I have said all that I think can be said on this issue without repeating myself. I'll just leave you with a quote from a version of one of my favorite songs, Billy Bragg's revision of The Internationale:

"Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all."

My being married to someone doesn't inhibit your freedom to not be married to anyone, especially if decoupled with the legal benefits involved.

[Sabot Cat]

If it doesn't help build a communist movement or advance queer liberation ideology, why would we fight for it? Why would we have any other priority?

There can be more immediate or different concerns.



If you are communist militant then your priority must be building for communism.


I'm a revolutionary industrial unionist. I'm more interested in building the One Big Union and preparing the way for a General Strike. I'm not sure if I would describe myself as militant.



Yet you seek to reinforce the legitimacy of it by advocating for same-sex marriage, offering no critique of it beyond that bourgeois framework, while at the same time strengthening your opponents and damages the ideological efforts of queer liberationists.


I don't think I'm in any position to aid queer liberationists, as I'm either being too charitable in seeing that I don't understand it, or I find the fundamental premises not very cogent.


You're not compelled to follow laws. That is incorrect.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t7BU5ojs2W8/UPbeAObheII/AAAAAAAACq4/gqRZHr6jMuE/s1600/police-state.jpg

http://watchdog.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/11/prison-change.jpg


Also, this is absolutely not about ignoring our opposition, I think the point I've been making is that it is about the exact opposite: that it is precisely our understanding of the opposition that provides us with an analysis of same-sex marriage that compels us to oppose it.

You are being defeatist, which is ultimately the character of individualism.

I am recognizing the reality of the situation; this is materialist.


Reformism of this nature can never benefit us tactically or strategically. What history shows us is that it simply strengthens our enemies and de-radicalises the working class.

That's not to say that fighting for immediate improvement to our conditions is something we should not do, but it should only ever be done if it has tactical or strategic benefit for building a counter-power and escalating conflict. We can only compete for hegemony with the ruling class if we are in conflict with them. Reformism of the kind that asks the state for concession is not about escalating conflict, it is about de-escalating it.

It's about righting wrongs to the best of our ability. I'm not going to aid reactionaries by allowing their oppression to be more excessive in order for the proletariat to be more agitated to overthrow them, because the negative consequences are much more likely than the posited positive ones.

[Five Year Plan]

Formally recognizing love between two or more people has next to nothing to do with the proletariat seizing the means of production, at least directly.



No, I mean polygamy, a marriage between a group of individuals larger than a couple.



Why would you care about being excluded from an institution you oppose on principle? If you don't want to be married, don't get married. The existence of ceremonially recognized monogamous or polygamous couples does not hurt people who don't want to be married or a static (group of) partner(s) in any tangible way.



Marriage, even if it is legally noted, isn't counter to the aims of the liberation of all workers.



I will level with you: gay marriage is way too big of a priority for the LGBT movement. There's better things we can be doing with our time, and this fight is one mostly being promoted by bourgeois white guys. It's really kind of docile and overly conciliatory for conservatives. I realize all of these things. I'm often frustrated that the biggest thing on the minds of these advocates isn't the capital punishment and life imprisonments still being dolled out upon people in countries where being gay is to be a criminal.

With all of that being said, I still think same-sex marriage is a good idea. Gay people shouldn't be prohibited from doing what heterosexual people are doing because they are gas. That is wrong. Let's right that wrong, because we can.



My being married to someone doesn't inhibit your freedom to not be married to anyone, especially if decoupled with the legal benefits involved.

Your arguments here would make sense if marriage were just a private ceremony between consenting individuals. As it stands, it is a public institution sanctioned by bourgeois states throughout the world. That means it has a link, albeit a mediated one, with capitalism, which is also sanctioned by bourgeois states throughout the world. So many other leftists have written on the economic and bourgeois functions of the civil institution of marriage that I can't be bothered to continue this dialogue without you first making a good-faith effort to read that literature, without which effort it appears you are just hell bent on organizing your facts around an already arrived at conclusion.

You might also want to read Emma Goldman's exposition on marriage.

Sorry if this seems curt or impolite. I have other priorities, both on and off the forum, that prevent me from providing the kind of systematic and thorough introduction to these issues from a revolutionary perspective you so badly need to acquire.

[Sabot Cat]

Your arguments here would make sense if marriage were just a private ceremony between consenting individuals. As it stands, it is a public institution sanctioned by bourgeois states throughout the world. That means it has a link, albeit a mediated one, with capitalism, which is also sanctioned by bourgeois states throughout the world. So many other leftists have written on the economic and bourgeois functions of the civil institution of marriage that I can't be bothered to continue this dialogue without you first making a good-faith effort to read that literature, without which effort it appears you are just hell bent on organizing your facts around an already arrived at conclusion.

You might also want to read Emma Goldman's exposition on marriage.

Sorry if this seems curt or impolite. I have other priorities, both on and off the forum, that prevent me from providing the kind of systematic and thorough introduction to these issues from a revolutionary perspective you so badly need to acquire.

I appreciate discussing this matter with you anyway, and I don't perceive you to be impolite. :)

Emma Goldman's critique of marriage (if it be best represented in the essay "Marriage and Love, which I have read) is much more applicable when it is an exploitative marriage between a woman and a man due to the patriarchal structures that exist around it, coalescing with the idealization of marriage as a life goal when there is so much more for one to achieve than that. As Mary Wollstonecraft delineated, it's dehumanizing when marriage is the sole topic of young girls' education and the sole object of their hopes. When marriage is used as a tool to coerce women to be dependents and thus be deprived of autonomy, I am opposed to it; and indeed, that is how marriage if often used: as a contractarian means of subjugating women.

But a marriage between those who belong to the same sex are often party to a more equitable power dynamic, and although there is obviously more work to be done in fighting the reactionary use of marriage as a form of patriarchial exploitation when those involved are not all of the same sex, I do not see how legalizing same-sex marriage would exacerbate this exploitation. The enemy here isn't marriage, it's the way that patriarchy uses and conceptualizes it. I say we don't cede an institution so universally recognized and emotionally invested in. Let us capitalize upon it as a symbol of how we can change society, how we can transform a tool of oppression into an indicator of liberation. When two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or three women, or two women and one man, or four men and a genderfluid person, or what have you, are married, but they all do so out of passionate, mutual love more than any legal benefits or economic coercion, we have reclaimed marriage for ourselves and our movement, taking society away from reactionary oppressors one bit at a time.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And that's the reinforcement of bourgeois ideology. That any understanding outside of a bourgeois paradigm is insane.No, it's an understanding that today we must survive within what is. Every one of us, you included, in some way reinforces what is in our daily lives.

[The Feral Underclass]

There can be more immediate or different concerns.

But you don't recognise that the only concerns that are relevant are those that are tactically and strategically beneficial?


I'm a revolutionary industrial unionist. I'm more interested in building the One Big Union and preparing the way for a General Strike.

I'm also an IWW member (in good standing) and my biggest criticism of the IWW is its fetishism for form over content. The One Big Union suddenly takes the place of the actual proletariat. It's not really about working tactically and strategically, building class solidarity and unity, it's about making sure the IWW has members and the proper procedures etcetc.

I say this because I think it's a symptom of your social democratic politics.


I'm not sure if I would describe myself as militant.

I see.


I don't think I'm in any position to aid queer liberationist...

Then with all due respect, you are part of the problem.


...as I'm either being too charitable in seeing that I don't understand it, or I find the fundamental premises not very cogent.

What specifically do you find "un"-cogent about the premise of queer liberation...?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t7BU5ojs2W8/UPbeAObheII/AAAAAAAACq4/gqRZHr6jMuE/s1600/police-state.jpg

http://watchdog.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/11/prison-change.jpg

Do you imagine conflict with the state will be easy and simple? If you are under some illusion that I am unfamiliar with the nature of the state, then you do yourself a disservice. Yes, they have guns and soldiers. That's why we need guns and soldiers. We cannot change the world without them.


I am recognizing the reality of the situation; this is materialist.

That's not a materialist approach. Recognising reality should produce the opposite effect in you. Seeing reality for what it is should inspire you to change the world, not settle for what you can get.


It's about righting wrongs to the best of our ability.

Then you and I have profoundly different objectives. If you do not want to change the fundamental nature of reality as it is now, then you are a reactionary.


I'm not going to aid reactionaries by allowing their oppression to be more excessive in order for the proletariat to be more agitated to overthrow them, because the negative consequences are much more likely than the posited positive ones.

That is not what I have proposed.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, it's an understanding that today we must survive within what is.

Survive what? Our goal is to destroy reality and create a new one, not survive the existing one.


Every one of us, you included, in some way reinforces what is in our daily lives.

And the point is to overcome that, not actively assimilate it into our lives.

[Remus Bleys]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/50911/7-reasons-gay-marriage-will-help-you-even-if-you-re-straight

Top 7 Reasons for same sex legalization are:

1. Promotes Equality and Non-Discrimination in Society

Well, I'm unsure how it does this to be honest. It says "Legalizing same-sex marriage communicates to millions of people across the country that gay relationships are of equal value to straight relationships" well thank you straight people for accepting us I guess. But isn't the argument liberals use also that marriage doesn't affect homophobes? So how can it promote equality if it leaves homophobes alone?

2. Fosters Psychological, Physical, and Social Wellbeing Amongst LGBT People

Well, that is if you are married. If your stingle, monogamous, free spirit or whatever then I guess you are out of luck. Also I fail to see how this fosters wellbeing among the gay prostitute or the homeless trans* person. In addition, this seems to suggest that someone needs the bourgeois state to look over them in order to be happy.

3. Promotes Family Stability and Validates LGBT Family Units

Need I go on?

4. Provides Economic and Business Opportunities

LOL

5. Fosters True Freedom of Religion

LOOOOL

6. Assists With the De-politicization of LGBT Rights

Yes it does. So it is actually detrimental to queer liberation, because it fails to see what needs to be done.

7. Strengthens National Identity and International Reputation

Yes, yes.



I think it is funny how liberals proudly list why same sex marriage is so awesome, and all their reasoning is inherently confused and petty-bourgeois. Yet communists don't really understand it at all. The cognitive dissonance is great.

[Thirsty Crow]

So aside from all the individualism and personal gain, can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?
Probably the only argument I could think of, and exclusively in relation to the former (building a communist movement)*, would run along these lines: the campaign to legalize same sex marriage could have an important "side effect" in defusing and dismantling homophobic prejudice, which itself is a stick to beat the combative working class with; it reinforces division, which in its turn reinforces working class weakness in the face of capital.

Honestly, I'm not so sure about this argument and wouldn't advocate it necessarily.

* as for advancing queer liberation ideology, my experience with it is limited and I'd rather not pass judgement on what would advance it or not.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And the point is to overcome that, not actively assimilate it into our lives.
Of course the point is to overcome it, but we need a large number of radicalized people to accomplish that. Do you think if same-sex marriage is blocked it will radicalize LGBT people (those who aren't already queer liberationist communists) to abolish the bourgeois system?

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course the point is to overcome it, but we need a large number of radicalized people to accomplish that. Do you think if same-sex marriage is blocked it will radicalize LGBT people (those who aren't already queer liberationist communists) to abolish the bourgeois system?

You are not reading my posts. I cannot be bothered to keep talking to you if I have to recap on what I have already said every time I respond to a new post of yours. It's such a pain in the arse to keep repeating myself over and over again. Are you doing it on purpose?

[The Feral Underclass]

Probably the only argument I could think of, and exclusively in relation to the former (building a communist movement)*, would run along these lines: the campaign to legalize same sex marriage could have an important "side effect" in defusing and dismantling homophobic prejudice, which itself is a stick to beat the combative working class with; it reinforces division, which in its turn reinforces working class weakness in the face of capital

In what way would it defuse and dismantle homophobic prejudice?

[Comrade #138672]

{{Citation needed}}

No thank you, the queers can keep their queerness to themselves, we don't want it. Also, I'm a fan of the family, as I do enjoy mine quite a bit, and monogamy is pretty cool too so there's that. Try again.What the fuck is this?

[Sabot Cat]

But you don't recognise that the only concerns that are relevant are those that are tactically and strategically beneficial?

I dispute the premise that same-sex marriage is somehow bad for the communist movement.


I'm also an IWW member (in good standing) and my biggest criticism of the IWW is its fetishism for form over content. The One Big Union suddenly takes the place of the actual proletariat. It's not really about working tactically and strategically, building class solidarity and unity, it's about making sure the IWW has members and the proper procedures etcetc.


I'm obviously for all of that, and I'm open to any tactics that will probably work. I believe mass protests and general strikes have long been an effective tool in accomplishing major structural changes.


I say this because I think it's a symptom of your social democratic politics.


I am not a social democrat, and resent the association because I believe reform will not bring about the liberation of proletariat.



Then with all due respect, you are part of the problem.


What specifically do you find "un"-cogent about the premise of queer liberation...?

How are you liberating any queer person by supporting the prohibition of same-sex marriage and questioning the motives of the overwhelming majority of most gay and lesbian people who want legally recognized marriages?



Do you imagine conflict with the state will be easy and simple? If you are under some illusion that I am unfamiliar with the nature of the state, then you do yourself a disservice. Yes, they have guns and soldiers. That's why we need guns and soldiers. We cannot change the world without them.


Right, but at this current juncture of time and space I happen to find myself party to, the U.S. military and police force reigns supreme.


That's not a materialist approach. Recognising reality should produce the opposite effect in you. Seeing reality for what it is should inspire you to change the world, not settle for what you can get.

I'm not settling when I say I want some changes now and some changes later, instead of doing nothing in anticipation of a more perfect revolution.


Then you and I have profoundly different objectives. If you do not want to change the fundamental nature of reality as it is now, then you are a reactionary.


You can't change the "fundamental nature" of reality. Reality, and your actions within it, are all the irreversible effects of impersonal initial forces; free will is a flawed doctrine of metaphysics that cannot be reconciled with the principle of parsimony. Furthermore, the fundamental nature of reality is that it is real; one cannot make it unreal.

I realize that you probably aren't talking about metaphysics and so these literal critiques aren't necessarily applicable; you're probably using metaphysical language for the grandeur of it, and I won't fault you on that because I'm most certainly guilty of doing that too sometimes. However, I think it can be kind of confusing for me to discern your arims when you aren't articulating them in a clear, materialist way.

I also take issue with your frequent restoration to appellations (social democrat, reactionary) in lieu of debate. Saying that I want to right wrongs to the best of our ability does not in any way make me a reactionary. It doesn't really make me anything because that objective is admittedly vague by itself. However, I believe I've sufficiently fleshed out my argument, and nothing about same-sex marriage in of itself is clearly counter to the interests of queer people or the proletariat.


That is not what I have proposed.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting you in that case.


In what way would it defuse and dismantle homophobic prejudice?

The gay marriage debate compels people to think about queer people, and in a relatable context of love and family, as opposed to the more clinical perspectives of eras before this was a mainstream talking point. I know you probably resent the concepts of "family" as well as its regressive baggage and, the notion of making anything relatable for heterosexual people, but it has had a positive impact overall.

[The Feral Underclass]

I dispute the premise that same-sex marriage is somehow bad for the communist movement.

I asked you: "can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?" And your response was: "It doesn't."

How can something that does not have tactical or strategic benefit for building a communist movement be good?


How are you liberating any queer person by supporting the prohibition of same-sex marriage and questioning the motives of the overwhelming majority of most gay and lesbian people who want legally recognized marriages?

This is becoming unbelievable.

The simple answer to that question, which incidentally I've already answered at least twice, is that I am not supporting the prohibition of same-sex marriage.

I realise that this being a fact is central to your argument, but it isn't a fact, so you will have to find a different way to substantiate your argument.


Right, but at this current juncture of time and space I happen to find myself party to, the U.S. military and police force reigns supreme.

That is simply a repetition of your argument. I am aware of your predicament. You have already told me this once.


I'm not settling when I say I want some changes now and some changes later, instead of doing nothing in anticipation of a more perfect revolution.

The position isn't fight for changes now and for later or do nothing. The issue here, and I'll say it again, is deciding on what will tactically or strategically benefit building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology.


I realize that you probably aren't talking about metaphysics and so these literal critiques aren't necessarily applicable; you're probably using metaphysical language for the grandeur of it, and I won't fault you on that because I'm most certainly guilty of doing that too sometimes. However, I think it would be good if you found a more literal way of putting this so your aims are more clear.

If my meaning is understood to you, then I see no reason to change the way I express certain ideas.


The gay marriage debate compels people to think about queer people, and in a relatable context of love and family, as opposed to the more clinical perspectives of eras before this was a mainstream talking point. I know you probably resent the concepts of "family" as well as its regressive baggage and, making anything relatable for heterosexual people, but it has had a positive impact overall.

I have already addressed the fallacious argument that this is a working class issue. Many working class communities are no more tolerant of homosexuality now than they ever were, or they certainly do not provide for an open environment in which these relationships can survive.

Also, aufheben's short, yet incisive critique, continues to stands:

"Same sex marriage is the product of an incestuous relationship between an upwardly mobile, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois group of gays and lesbians who have increasingly become absorbed into the commanding heights of the capitalist hierarchy, and a decaying bourgeois system that has spent the past thirty years co-opting and assimilating the cultural aspects of the aspiring revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s, by neutralising their revolutionary class content while making symbolic concessions."

So the question here is: For whom has it had a positive impact?

[Sabot Cat]

I asked you: "can any of you please explain how supporting the principle of same-sex marriage is tactically or strategically beneficial to building a communist movement or advancing queer liberation ideology?" And your response was: "It doesn't."

How can something that does not have tactical or strategic benefit for building a communist movement be good?

There are plenty of good causes that have no explicit link with communism like malaria vaccinations or domestic violence support, or something more banal yet generally good like libraries, meat-inspection, seatbelts or even water fluoridation. None of these are communist per se, but I support them and we're clearly better off with them.



I have already addressed the fallacious argument that this is a working class issue. Many working class communities are no more tolerant of homosexuality now than they ever were, or they certainly do not provide for an open environment in which these relationships can survive.
So the question here is: For whom has it had a positive impact


These communities don't constitute a majority in the nation that I live in, where most people are shifting their attitudes towards queer people for the better through the fight for same-sex marriage, because these marriages often prompt us to tell our families or friends because of the public nature of the ceremony as well as the debate, thus increasing our presence in the public consciousness.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gallup-Same-Sex-Marriage-Poll.gif

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/06/PRC_Gay_Trend2.png

http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-20-13-2.png

"Do you personally know anyone who is gay or lesbian?"
(http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/gay-marriage-key-data-points-from-pew-research/)

June 1993
Yes- 61%
No/DK-38%

May 2013
Yes-87%
No/DK-13%

"Is your overall opinion of lesbian women favorable or unfavorable?"

2003
Favorable-39%
Unfavorable-51%

2013
Favorable-55%
Unfavorable-32%

"Is your overall opinion of gay men favorable or unfavorable?"

2003
Favorable-37%
Unfavorable-51%

2013
Favorable-55%
Unfavorable-32%


So who has the advocates for same-sex marriage helped? In the U.S. at least, I think the rallying effects of debate prompted by making same-sex marriage a mainstream political issue has clearly helped to increase visibility and repute of lesbian and gay people in general.

[Logical seal]

Marriage is culture, CUlture is race, Race is segeration.


Culture needs to be destroyed, End of story :)

[The Feral Underclass]

There are plenty of good causes that have no explicit link with communism like malaria vaccinations or domestic violence support, or something more banal yet generally good like libraries, meat-inspection, seatbelts or even water fluoridation. None of these are communist per se, but I support them and we're clearly better off with them.

Right, but we're not social workers or charity workers...


These communities don't constitute a majority in the nation that I live in, where most people are shifting their attitudes towards queer people for the better through the fight for same-sex marriage, because these marriages often prompt us to tell our families or friends because of the public nature of the ceremony as well as the debate, thus increasing our presence in the public consciousness.

Only 34% of the US population is covered by same-sex marriage over 15 states and territories. 35 states exist without same-sex marriage legislation, with 19 states having amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.

I suggest you read this article (an article I found when researching a paper I wrote about same-sex marriage, which you can read here (http://www.anarchistcommunist.org/5/post/2013/07/the-cynicism-of-gay-marriage.html)): http://urbanhabitat.org/node/5822

Brian Bassinger, executive director of the San Francisco AIDS Housing Coalition, said:


"The majority of people with HIV and AIDS in San Francisco are living in extreme poverty. There’s this mythology that gay men are wealthy. The reality is that gay men living in poverty are twice the national average. We are poor. And poor people see marriage equality as a middle class and upper class issue."

Joseph DeFilippis, former executive director of Queers for Economic Justice, said:


"When homophobia is your only target, its removal will only benefit people for whom it was the sole issue. If you’re homeless and a person of color, or a person of color who is an immigrant and queer, getting rid of homophobia doesn’t change the immigration battles you face, or the racism you have to contend with, or your struggle to pay for your apartment!"

Interestingly, there appears to be no real, comprehensive study done on gay marriage in working class communities in the US. The charts you provide are supposed to be a reflection of what, exactly? Even if it's the case that gay people living in areas of poverty -- ghettos and other working class communities, were able to be open about their relationships (do you really believe that?), gay marriage is the least for their concerns. It is absolutely not a priority.


So who has the advocates for same-sex marriage helped? In the U.S. at least, I think the rallying effects of debate prompted by making same-sex marriage a mainstream political issue has clearly helped to increase visibility and repute of lesbian and gay people in general.

It has helped affluent gays and lesbians who have no other concerns but their right to become married. As Dean Spade says, "if mainstream LGBT movement is really concerned about the survival and basic needs of queer and trans people,"


"their top priority would have been to deal with the violence against queer and trans people, immigration detention...and the massive criminal punishment system."

But let's focus on being able to get married. That's a really important issue :rolleyes:

[Sabot Cat]

Right, but we're not social workers or charity workers...

I disagree with the premise of your ethical theory, that it is only good to do what one's duty is; one should do whatever's best to do based upon the likely resulting consequences, even if no one has assigned you that role.



Only 34% of the US population is covered by same-sex marriage over 15 states and territories. 35 states exist without same-sex marriage legislation, with 19 states having amended their state constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.


Or in other words, the amount of people able to have lawful same-sex marriage has been rapidly increasing.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/blogs/538-chart1/538-chart1-blog480.png




Interestingly, there appears to be no real, comprehensive study done on gay marriage in working class communities in the US. The charts you provide are supposed to be a reflection of what, exactly? Even if it's the case that gay people living in areas of poverty -- ghettos and other working class communities, were able to be open about their relationships (do you really believe that?), gay marriage is the least for their concerns. It is absolutely not a priority.

I agree that there's greater priorities than same-sex marriage, such as poverty or a lack of heating in homes, but overall, the fight for same-sex marriage has increased the visibility and acceptability of all queer people in the United States which is overall a positive effect. In so doing, they're helping to increase support for the more important struggles.

In the 1960s, the fight for overturning statute that made voting nearly impossible for people of color so they could nominally participate in the bourgeois "democracy" went hand in hand with encouraging the admittedly liberal (and flawed) programs that sought to mitigate poverty and disadvantages that people of color face. The latter is obviously the more important struggle, but the former was pivotal in drawing attention to it.

All queer people don't necessarily face the same struggles that people of color do unless they are both, and I know that the analogy might seem to encourage that false equvilance. My point in illuminating this is not to say that they are the same, but that even the causes of the privileged can help aid those who are less so (which is not optimal admittedly, but it's a state of affairs that can be best corrected through a proletarian revolution.

http://www.cgdev.org/globalhealth/files/2010/05/US-funding-for-AIDS.png

http://img.thebody.com/cria/2011/funding_graph.jpg

One can see how the politicization of same-sex marriage helped to stimulate increases in funding for AIDS research, at least. It is hard to point to specifically queer people in poverty, because then the disaffected public may simply question why we aren't focused on everyone in poverty and why we should "bring being queer into it". But same-sex marriage is an indisputably queer cause that can draw attention to ourselves as queer.


I suggest you read this article (an article I found when researching a paper I wrote about same-sex marriage, which you can read here (http://www.anarchistcommunist.org/5/post/2013/07/the-cynicism-of-gay-marriage.html)): http://urbanhabitat.org/node/5822

Brian Bassinger, executive director of the San Francisco AIDS Housing Coalition, said:


Joseph DeFilippis, former executive director of Queers for Economic Justice, said:


It has helped affluent gays and lesbians who have no other concerns but their right to become married. As Dean Spade says, "if mainstream LGBT movement is really concerned about the survival and basic needs of queer and trans people,"




But let's focus on being able to get married. That's a really important issue :rolleyes:

First of all, I never said that gay marriage should be an overriding priority, I just said that we shouldn't try to counter the movement that's pushing to legalize it. Secondly, your entire argument falls victim to the fallacy of relative privation. Just because there are worse problems doesn't mean that gay marriage isn't worth focusing on at all.

[Five Year Plan]

I disagree with the premise of your ethical theory, that it is only good to do what one's duty is; one should do whatever's best to do based upon the likely resulting consequences, even if no one has assigned you that role.




Or in other words, the amount of people able to have lawful same-sex marriage has been rapidly increasing.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/06/26/blogs/538-chart1/538-chart1-blog480.png





I agree that there's greater priorities than same-sex marriage, such as poverty or a lack of heating in homes, but overall, the fight for same-sex marriage has increased the visibility and acceptability of all queer people in the United States which is overall a positive effect. In so doing, they're helping to increase support for the more important struggles.

In the 1960s, the fight for overturning statute that made voting nearly impossible for people of color so they could nominally participate in the bourgeois "democracy" went hand in hand with encouraging the admittedly liberal (and flawed) programs that sought to mitigate poverty and disadvantages that people of color face. The latter is obviously the more important struggle, but the former was pivotal in drawing attention to it.

All queer people don't necessarily face the same struggles that people of color do unless they are both, and I know that the analogy might seem to encourage that false equvilance. My point in illuminating this is not to say that they are the same, but that even the causes of the privileged can help aid those who are less so (which is not optimal admittedly, but it's a state of affairs that can be best corrected through a proletarian revolution.

http://www.cgdev.org/globalhealth/files/2010/05/US-funding-for-AIDS.png

http://img.thebody.com/cria/2011/funding_graph.jpg

One can see how the politicization of same-sex marriage helped to stimulate increases in funding for AIDS research, at least. It is hard to point to specifically queer people in poverty, because then the disaffected public may simply question why we aren't focused on everyone in poverty and why we should "bring being queer into it". But same-sex marriage is an indisputably queer cause that can draw attention to ourselves as queer.



First of all, I never said that gay marriage should be an overriding priority, I just said that we shouldn't try to counter the movement that's pushing to legalize it. Secondly, your entire argument falls victim to the fallacy of relative privation. Just because there are worse problems doesn't mean that gay marriage isn't worth focusing on at all.

I suppose if I showed you polls that indicated a massive majority of working class people not presently wanting a socialist revolution, you would respond by saying we would be wrong to fight for it?

[Sabot Cat]

I suppose if I showed you polls that indicated a massive majority of working class people not presently wanting a socialist revolution, you would respond by saying we would be wrong to fight for it?

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my argument which is essentially that: (1) same-sex marriage isn't morally wrong or reactionary in of itself and (2) same-sex marriage has aided in increasing the visibility and acceptability of queer people in at least the United States with positive effects on the more consequential struggles.

[The Feral Underclass]

This post is curt. It is so because I have lost patience with talking to you. I refuse to reduce my arguments down to your bourgeois logic. If you are not prepared to elevate your views, then there is really little more I have left to say to you.


I disagree with the premise of your ethical theory, that it is only good to do what one's duty is

This is precisely why our movement is doomed to failure.


one should do whatever's best to do based upon the likely resulting consequences, even if no one has assigned you that role.

Liberal nonsense.


(1) same-sex marriage isn't morally wrong or reactionary in of itself

And in doing so, you have consistently ignored the centrality of people's arguments against your views.


same-sex marriage has aided in increasing the visibility and acceptability of queer people in at least the United States with positive effects on the more consequential struggles.

A hollow victory.

[Sabot Cat]

This post is curt. It is so because I have lost patience with talking to you. I refuse to reduce my arguments down to your bourgeois logic.

"Bourgeois logic"? There's no such thing. Logic is universal.


If you are not prepared to elevate your views, then there is really little more I have left to say to you.

You haven't convinced me of the truth of your argument, and I don't think it's because of any personal failings. I haven't convinced you either, and I don't think it's because you aren't willing to change your mind in light of better evidence or lack certain characteristics that would enable you to do so.



This is precisely why our movement is doomed to failure.


Liberal nonsense.

Deontological ethics are categorically flawed in their epistemic justification, while I find consequentialist ethics to be more consistent with what is real. This thought-terminating engagement in labeling and personally critical tactics continue to fail to do your arguments, which could very well have merit, any justice.


And in doing so, you have consistently ignored the centrality of people's arguments against your views.


No, I have attempted to the best of my ability, in great detail, to prove why same-sex marriage is morally right, and how its legalization and the fight for its legalization has more positive consequences than negative ones.


A hollow victory.

A victory, nonetheless.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, I have attempted to the best of my ability, in great detail, to prove why same-sex marriage is morally right, and how its legalization and the fight for its legalization has more positive consequences than negative ones.

Which was never the basis of the disagreement in the first place.

[Sabot Cat]

Which was never the basis of the disagreement in the first place.

If we agree that the fight for same-sex marriage and same-sex marriage itself are both not morally wrong and have more benefits than negative consequences, then I believe we don't disagree in any way necessary for continuing an argument. In which case, that's excellent and I'm glad to have learned more about your views, and I apologize if I've made you frustrated at certain points. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

No, I am afraid we do not agree, but as I said, I refuse to allow my arguments to be dragged down to the bourgeois logic that you operate within. I am not interested in arguing the moral virtues of same-sex marriage nor the petty degrees by which you consider it positive or negative -- these are not things that should be of concern. What is of concern to me is how we build a communist movement and forward queer liberation ideology. Two things you are seemingly uninterested in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Essentially what this discussion has concluded is that queer socialists are perfectly content to fight for a legality that benefits the middle classes, excludes working class people, strengthens our opposition, weakens the queer liberation argument and sidelines the structural oppression of working class queer issues.

Imagine if queer people had put their resources, time and effort into building networks, groups and dual power institutions that pro-actively responded to queer economic issues, combated street violence and helped build unity and solidarity amongst disparate, isolated queer people? Imagine if all those resources and effort went into building a militant, organised and proactive movement of queer people that was clear in its purpose and objective in fighting the root causes of heteronormative domination, instead of building a pro-state, reformist movement that begs for concessions and fights for an issue that has no basis in working class priorities and that has assimilated the idea of liberation into a heteronormative paradigm.

I am so sick of this bullshit.

[Sabot Cat]

No, I am afraid we do not agree, but as I said, I refuse to allow my arguments to be dragged down to the bourgeois logic that you operate within.

This doesn't make sense. I reaffirm that "bourgeois logic" is a nonsensical phrase.


I am not interested in arguing the moral virtues of same-sex marriage nor the petty degrees by which you consider it positive or negative -- these are not things that should be of concern. What is of concern to me is how we build a communist movement and forward queer liberation ideology. Two things you are seemingly uninterested in.

The positive or negative consequences of any action is always relevant to whether or not it's a good thing to do. I am not uninterested in them, I just don't believe queer liberation ideology is self-evident in its justice or desirability, while the communist movement isn't always relevant to doing what's best.


Essentially what this discussion has concluded is that queer socialists are perfectly content to fight for a legality that benefits the middle classes, excludes working class people, strengthens our opposition, weakens the queer liberation argument and sidelines the structural oppression of working class queer issues.

How does it do all of these things? It's well and good to claim they do and cite people that say they do too, but it's another thing to prove that the movement for same-sex marriage has damaged these causes.


Imagine if queer people had put their resources, time and effort into building networks, groups and dual power institutions that pro-actively responded to queer economic issues, combated street violence and helped build unity and solidarity amongst disparate, isolated queer people? Imagine if all those resources and effort went into building a militant, organised and proactive movement of queer people that was clear in its purpose and objective in fighting the root causes of heteronormative domination, instead of building a pro-state, reformist movement that begs for concessions and fights for an issue that has no basis in working class priorities and that has assimilated the idea of liberation into a heteronormative paradigm.

If same-sex marriage isn't an issue of concern for working class people, it's not an obstacle in doing all of this. If the campaigns for same-sex marriage isn't something primarily carried out by the bourgeois, it's not taking resources away from the proletariat that aren't already in their hands, and thus you can't claim the resources of the working class are allegedly being squandered. If the working class does care about same-sex marriage and are the primary agitators of change, then your line of argumentation is invalid because if it's not antithetical to their self-interest as workers and it's something the queer proletariat wants, with well-demonstrated positive consequences for queer people as a whole, then it is worth pursuing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Imagine if queer people had put their resources, time and effort into building networks, groups and dual power institutions that pro-actively responded to queer economic issues, combated street violence and helped build unity and solidarity amongst disparate, isolated queer people?
So how do we get to that? The push for same sex marriage isn't the cause of the bourgeoisification of LGBT people, it's a symptom of it. How do we radicalize LGBT workers?

[Art Vandelay]

Essentially what this discussion has concluded is that queer socialists are perfectly content to fight for a legality that benefits the middle classes, excludes working class people, strengthens our opposition, weakens the queer liberation argument and sidelines the structural oppression of working class queer issues.

What are the 'middle classes'? The middle class is a fictitious construct.

[Remus Bleys]

What are the 'middle classes'? The middle class is a fictitious construct.
small businesses arent a thing i guess

[Art Vandelay]

small businesses arent a thing i guess

Small business owners constitute the petite bourgeosie, not some vague 'middle class.' I was just genuinely curious as to what exactly tat meant by the phrase, cause its not one usually used by Marxists.

[Remus Bleys]

Small business owners constitute the petite bourgeosie, not some vague 'middle class.' I was just genuinely curious as to what exactly tat meant by the phrase, cause its not one usually used by Marxists.
lool lool :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Restricting ourselves to modern capitalist society (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capitalism), the middle-classes may include:


the small business people (Petit-bourgeoisie), the “little people”, who like the proletariat, do real work (private labour (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#private-labour)), but possibly also employ wage-workers, thereby sharing social interests with the bourgeoisie, but being “little people” are constantly being “done over” by the big firms, and frequently find themselves thrown into the ranks of the proletariat;



http://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm heres a piece of work by Bela Kun.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htm work by Pannekoek

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1966/no026/mather.htm by the trotskyist Alan Mather

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.firstwave/source2.htm stalinist work that mentions the middle class

http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1923/07/fascism.htm here is radek going on about the fascists being middle class, which he also calls petty bourgeois. ie in the middle of the "big capitalists" and proletarian

http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/commentator/chapter4.htm another stalinist source

and lets see what trotsky had to say on it
"Contemporary society is composed of three classes: the big bourgeoisie, the proletariat and the ‘middle classes’, or the petty bourgeoisie. The relations among these three classes determine in the final analysis the political situation in the country. The fundamental classes of society are the big bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Only these two classes can have a clear, consistent, independent policy of their own. The petty bourgeoisie is distinguished by its economic dependence and its social heterogeneity. Its upper stratum is linked directly to the big bourgeoisie. Its lower stratum merges with the proletariat and even falls to the status of lumpen proletariat. In accordance with its economic situation, the petty bourgeoisie can have no policy of its own. It always oscillates between the capitalists and the workers. Its own upper stratum pushes it to the right; its lower strata, oppressed and exploited, are capable in certain conditions of turning sharply to the left. "


This claim you make that there is no marxist understanding of the middle class or that the petty-bourgeois =/= middle class is fucking ridiculous.

It is quite clear you are saving face for saying something stupid when you bust into this thread and go "hurr durr i gotta act like thats some fundamental thing tat said"

You don't even have to agree with these sources (i dont) but to go "hurr durr marxism has no middle class. wait shit no remus the pb arent middle class" is just stupid, and infantile. It kinda is revealing about your blatant liberalism (what can one expect from CWI trotter?) that you would automatically assume that TAT meant income.

[Comrade #138672]

What are the 'middle classes'? The middle class is a fictitious construct.I usually equate the middle class with the labor aristocracy, which is more than a fictitious construct and has a real material basis.

[Quail]

lool lool :laugh::laugh::laugh:


http://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/1918/05/04.htm heres a piece of work by Bela Kun.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1909/new-middle-class.htm work by Pannekoek

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1966/no026/mather.htm by the trotskyist Alan Mather

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.firstwave/source2.htm stalinist work that mentions the middle class

http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1923/07/fascism.htm here is radek going on about the fascists being middle class, which he also calls petty bourgeois. ie in the middle of the "big capitalists" and proletarian

http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/commentator/chapter4.htm another stalinist source

and lets see what trotsky had to say on it
"Contemporary society is composed of three classes: the big bourgeoisie, the proletariat and the ‘middle classes’, or the petty bourgeoisie. The relations among these three classes determine in the final analysis the political situation in the country. The fundamental classes of society are the big bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Only these two classes can have a clear, consistent, independent policy of their own. The petty bourgeoisie is distinguished by its economic dependence and its social heterogeneity. Its upper stratum is linked directly to the big bourgeoisie. Its lower stratum merges with the proletariat and even falls to the status of lumpen proletariat. In accordance with its economic situation, the petty bourgeoisie can have no policy of its own. It always oscillates between the capitalists and the workers. Its own upper stratum pushes it to the right; its lower strata, oppressed and exploited, are capable in certain conditions of turning sharply to the left. "


This claim you make that there is no marxist understanding of the middle class or that the petty-bourgeois =/= middle class is fucking ridiculous.

It is quite clear you are saving face for saying something stupid when you bust into this thread and go "hurr durr i gotta act like thats some fundamental thing tat said"

You don't even have to agree with these sources (i dont) but to go "hurr durr marxism has no middle class. wait shit no remus the pb arent middle class" is just stupid, and infantile. It kinda is revealing about your blatant liberalism (what can one expect from CWI trotter?) that you would automatically assume that TAT meant income.

I did issue a general verbal warning earlier in this thread to be polite, so I'm going to give you an infraction for flaming.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marriage under capitalism is fundamentally a contract. Until such a time that the working class has any meaningful ability to abolish property relations and thus actually abolish or transform the role of marriage, opposing equal marriage as part of opposing marriage only serves to reinforce at least one plank of the status quo in which gay people are second-class citizens in most parts of the world.

As for marriage not being a working class thing, that's stretching it. According to this page (https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships//weddings-and-civil-partnership-ceremonies), in the UK it costs £49 for a ceremony at the register office and a certificate on the same day. Now unless you're defining "working class" as something other than a signifier of a particular property relation under capitalism (which the term "middle class" is not), then that's certainly within the resources of a majority of UK workers.

Sure, equal marriage won't help abolish capitalism. But having limitations on the ability of working class gay people to enter into contracts won't do that either. If gay workers were legally unable to work in certain jobs (i.e. enter into particular contracts), based on little more than tradition and prejudice, while their heterosexual peers suffered no such restrictions, then what sense would it make to oppose them being lifted?

The idea that equal marriage will somehow serve to neutralise radicalism seems to be based on a narrow view that ignores the wider social and economic forces that a decaying capitalism produces, and which could serve as the catalyst for working class radicalisation regardless of the status of equal marriage. Considering also that there are still plenty of places in the world where merely being open about one's non-heterosexuality could lead to physical assaults or worse, then the fact that equal marriage is on the agenda in some other parts of the world just goes to show that they're ahead of the curve, social development not happening in an even fashion around the world and all that. By the time it comes to pass that equal marriage is a dead issue in most of the world, the unsustainable nature of global capitalism means that there'll likely be plenty of other flashpoints which could serve as ignition sources for working class militancy.

[The Feral Underclass]

As for marriage not being a working class thing, that's stretching it. According to this page (https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships//weddings-and-civil-partnership-ceremonies), in the UK it costs £49 for a ceremony at the register office and a certificate on the same day. Now unless you're defining "working class" as something other than a signifier of a particular property relation under capitalism (which the term "middle class" is not), then that's certainly within the resources of a majority of UK workers

You are simply detached from reality.

When people don't have jobs, are having their benefits and wages slashed, are having to go to food banks in order to eat, as well as contending with rising fuel and rent prices, do you think spending £49 on a piece of paper is a priority? £49 is not far off being a weeks worth of JSA or almost 8 hours of work on minimum wage...

When queer people are faced with institutional and structural homophobia in the work place, in the benefits system, in the immigration system; when they are unable to find work, feed themselves, defend themselves from homophobic violence, how is it that getting married is a working class issue?

Your comments are also devoid of understanding the realpolitik of same-sex marriage in the UK. It is a strategy adopted by the conservatives that is called pinkwashing. It is specifically designed to attract the middle class voters (those who would have originally been referred to as the bourgeoisie, which we may now refer to as the "petite-bourgeoisie", "professional class" or the "managerial class"), and to present a nasty right-wing organisation as being tolerant and accommodating -- it is an ideological ploy.

So the reality here is that for queer working class people, there are far bigger issues, of which same-sex marriage is not really one, and the same-sex marriage agenda has been used to bolster the electoral aspirations of the conservative party and strengthen their ideological argument as being compassionate and modern.

That is the reality. If you want to argue that same-sex marriage is a queer working class priority or that same-sex marriage has not bolstered the conservative party, then make that argument, but all this other guff about morals and positives (which Red Rose and others were making) are irrelevant to the actual issues at hand.

If your first priority is not what is of immediate concern to the working class, as well as defending yourself from ideological incursion by our enemies, then you are fundamentally failing as a communist. And that should be of serious concern.


The idea that equal marriage will somehow serve to neutralise radicalism seems to be based on a narrow view that ignores the wider social and economic forces that a decaying capitalism produces, and which could serve as the catalyst for working class radicalisation regardless of the status of equal marriage.

Please, tell me about your extensive experience within the gay rights movement and the queer liberation movement that has allowed you to come to this conclusion? A cursory look at the history of the queer movement can demonstrates quite clearly that "gay rights" have neutralised radicalism. Compare the 70s with now and we can very evidently see that the accumulation of "rights" has de-escalated radicalism and assimilated the movement into the bourgeois paradigm. Are you really trying to deny that?

The gay rights agenda negates queer liberation ideology and practice. Both of which are necessary if we are to overcome heternormativity. Removing capitalism is simply one aspect of the struggle of queer people -- we still have centuries of oppression to overcome, a large portion of which is internalised, auto-oppression (this thread being a prime example).


Considering also that there are still plenty of places in the world where merely being open about one's non-heterosexuality could lead to physical assaults or worse

The implication of this sentence is that the UK is a place where being open about your sexuality wouldn't lead to physical assault. Since 2010, homophobic hate crime has increased[1] (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/02/uk-around-100-lgbt-hate-crimes-are-recorded-each-week-by-police/). Many working class communities remain no go areas for openly gay couples. Thinking otherwise is delusional.

[Art Vandelay]

This claim you make that there is no marxist understanding of the middle class or that the petty-bourgeois =/= middle class is fucking ridiculous.

The 'middle class' gets peddled within the general societal discourse, despite the fact that it has no real material basis in society. Its a concept which muddies the water of the reality of class society. If middle class is simply meant as a euphemism for petite-bourgeoisie,then thats fine, its just not something I've heard before. I was simply asking a question.


It is quite clear you are saving face for saying something stupid when you bust into this thread and go "hurr durr i gotta act like thats some fundamental thing tat said"

It actually was pretty fundamental to what tat said, which is why I asked for clarification. Tat was putting forth a fairly cogent argument, which is premised on the idea that socialists are content fighting for reforms to benefit the 'middle classes.' It seems pretty obvious to me that if one wants to understand his point, they'd need to have an understanding of what he meant by 'middle classes.'


You don't even have to agree with these sources (i dont) but to go "hurr durr marxism has no middle class. wait shit no remus the pb arent middle class" is just stupid,

I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong. As I said, equating the petite-bourgeoisie with the 'middle class' isn't something I've heard before. Apparently it has known to be done in the past, but obviously in the modern context (at least where I'm from) middle class has differing connotations.


and infantile. It kinda is revealing about your blatant liberalism (what can one expect from CWI trotter?) that you would automatically assume that TAT meant income.

I didn't automatically assume anything, I simply asked a question.

[AntiFascism]

I do think calling it marriage confuses things. Marriage is the cultural/religious ceremony which I think should be optional and heterosexual couples who choose it still have to do the legal bit (I'm talking about the UK here, don't know about other countries), of course, same-sex couples should have the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples in a capitalist society.

I think the broader issue is interesting: gay marriage should not be the be and end all when it comes to emancipation. For one thing, it's only of benefit to same-sex people who wish to marry. What about single gays, polyamorous gays, or gay people who just don't want to marry? Speaking as someone part of the LGBT community, I have absolutely no intention to get married at all.

We need to be careful about how gay marriage is becoming part and parcel of bourgeois patriarchy and heteronormativity. Marriage is still an institution of oppression and a method for rich, elite families to preserve their wealth and property. Same sex marriage proponents are in danger of conforming to straight stereotypes and about gay people by marginalizing and sidelining alternative and non-mainstream sexual identities and perpetuating the idea that they're are only two sides to this debate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are simply detached from reality.

When people don't have jobs, are having their benefits and wages slashed, are having to go to food banks in order to eat, as well as contending with rising fuel and rent prices, do you think spending £49 on a piece of paper is a priority? £49 is not far off being a weeks worth of JSA or almost 8 hours of work on minimum wage...

Not all workers are on JSA or minimum wage, just the poorer ones. Class is defined by the quality of economic relations, not by the quantity of relative wealth. Workers in desperate situations have more important things to worry about than getting married, true, but that in itself is not a good enough reason to oppose equal marriage.


When queer people are faced with institutional and structural homophobia in the work place, in the benefits system, in the immigration system; when they are unable to find work, feed themselves, defend themselves from homophobic violence, how is it that getting married is a working class issue?

Because whether you personally like it or not, there are working class people who want to get married? And that your position of "fuck marriage" is opposed to that very real desire?

If you're especially concerned about the poorer sections of the working class on this particular issue, then wouldn't it make more sense to advocate for the barriers of entry to be lowered, i.e. for the cost of marriage to be brought down?


Your comments are also devoid of understanding the realpolitik of same-sex marriage in the UK. It is a strategy adopted by the conservatives that is called pinkwashing. It is specifically designed to attract the middle class voters (those who would have originally been referred to as the bourgeoisie, which we may now refer to as the "petite-bourgeoisie", "professional class" or the "managerial class"), and to present a nasty right-wing organisation as being tolerant and accommodating -- it is an ideological ploy.

Since you seem to care so much about the machinations of bourgeois party politics, then if you look at the polls, you'll see that it ain't working. Despite the uneven playing field including a supine/compliant news media, the Conservatives are consistently trailing. Might I suggest a little more confidence on your part in the ability of the workers to see past such "ploys"?


So the reality here is that for queer working class people, there are far bigger issues, of which same-sex marriage is not really one, and the same-sex marriage agenda has been used to bolster the electoral aspirations of the conservative party and strengthen their ideological argument as being compassionate and modern.

That is the reality. If you want to argue that same-sex marriage is a queer working class priority or that same-sex marriage has not bolstered the conservative party, then make that argument, but all this other guff about morals and positives (which Red Rose and others were making) are irrelevant to the actual issues at hand.

If your first priority is not what is of immediate concern to the working class, as well as defending yourself from ideological incursion by our enemies, then you are fundamentally failing as a communist. And that should be of serious concern.

Since workers are not some amorphous, undifferentiated mass, then it follows that their "immediate concerns" are going to vary depending on a number of factors. For those in more precarious situations, it's going to be about where their next meal is coming from. For others, they might be concerned about marriage. Those aren't mutually exclusive concerns, and I fear that by portraying it as such, you are simply doing the work of the ruling classes for them by dividing poorer workers against the richer ones.


Please, tell me about your extensive experience within the gay rights movement and the queer liberation movement that has allowed you to come to this conclusion? A cursory look at the history of the queer movement can demonstrates quite clearly that "gay rights" have neutralised radicalism. Compare the 70s with now and we can very evidently see that the accumulation of "rights" has de-escalated radicalism and assimilated the movement into the bourgeois paradigm. Are you really trying to deny that?

The pacification of workerist radicalisation is a much wider phenomenon than that. Do you really think that the erosion and subversion of workers' consciousness would have been slowed down at all had gay workers never been given the time of day? What makes you so certain that had gay workers not been granted any rights at all, that such a situation would not have been fashioned by the ruling classes into yet another instrument of division?

Class antagonism being what it is, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I prefer the option in which there are fewer barriers for and between workers.


The gay rights agenda negates queer liberation ideology and practice. Both of which are necessary if we are to overcome heternormativity. Removing capitalism is simply one aspect of the struggle of queer people -- we still have centuries of oppression to overcome, a large portion of which is internalised, auto-oppression (this thread being a prime example).

The implication of this statement being that you know what's best for people better than the people themselves. Such overweening arrogance!


The implication of this sentence is that the UK is a place where being open about your sexuality wouldn't lead to physical assault. Since 2010, homophobic hate crime has increased[1] (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/02/uk-around-100-lgbt-hate-crimes-are-recorded-each-week-by-police/). Many working class communities remain no go areas for openly gay couples. Thinking otherwise is delusional.

Imply all you want, but actually, since the global situation is geographically varied, it should come as no surprise that this pattern of variation extends to within subdivisions as well. Also, since this plainly shows that there is still considerable work to be done, then equal marriage won't efface that fact, no more than equal marriage between ethnicities has effaced the need to fight racism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not all workers are on JSA or minimum wage, just the poorer ones. Class is defined by the quality of economic relations, not by the quantity of relative wealth.

:rolleyes: My point is that the majority of workers are in fact on minimum wage. 20% of the 29.7 million work force are earning less than the living wage.


Workers in desperate situations have more important things to worry about than getting married, true, but that in itself is not a good enough reason to oppose equal marriage.

Firstly, no one here is talking about "opposing" equal marriage. As I have stated frequently in this thread, what the state does or does not do is of absolutely no relevance to my position. I am not going to tell people not to get married if that's their choice. Secondly, in terms of my actual argument, which is what is best for building a communist movement and advancing queer liberation ideology, actively struggling for same-sex marriage and not providing the necessary critique is antithetical to our efforts. Same-sex marriage should be criticised, not embraced as "progress", because it isn't progress. Not for any one who actually wants to create a society beyond heternormativity. The fact that is is not a priority issue for the vast majority of workers is just one reason why that is the case.


Because whether you personally like it or not, there are working class people who want to get married? And that your position of "fuck marriage" is opposed to that very real desire?

Working class people also embrace or are apathetic to their own exploitation. Just because working class people want to get married isn't a reason not to criticise that. I am not interested in cynical political expedience.


If you're especially concerned about the poorer sections of the working class on this particular issue, then wouldn't it make more sense to advocate for the barriers of entry to be lowered, i.e. for the cost of marriage to be brought down?

That is absolutely not what would make sense. My goal is not to patch up capitalism, my goal is to destroy it.


Since you seem to care so much about the machinations of bourgeois party politics, then if you look at the polls, you'll see that it ain't working. Despite the uneven playing field including a supine/compliant news media, the Conservatives are consistently trailing. Might I suggest a little more confidence on your part in the ability of the workers to see past such "ploys"?

Are you implying that there is essential difference between labour, the liberal democrats and the conservatives? My criticism applies to all of them. They are all fundamentally conservative.

In any case, you have not paid close enough attention to what I said. This isn't a ploy to win working class votes, it's a ploy to win the votes of the emerging and/or aspiring professionals coming out of the Tories engineered economic policies, who are socially liberal but economically conservative.


Since workers are not some amorphous, undifferentiated mass, then it follows that their "immediate concerns" are going to vary depending on a number of factors. For those in more precarious situations, it's going to be about where their next meal is coming from. For others, they might be concerned about marriage. Those aren't mutually exclusive concerns, and I fear that by portraying it as such, you are simply doing the work of the ruling classes for them by dividing poorer workers against the richer ones.

I have not argued that they are mutually exclusive, I have argued it is tactically and strategically incompetent.


The pacification of workerist radicalisation is a much wider phenomenon than that. Do you really think that the erosion and subversion of workers' consciousness would have been slowed down at all had gay workers never been given the time of day? What makes you so certain that had gay workers not been granted any rights at all, that such a situation would not have been fashioned by the ruling classes into yet another instrument of division?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The fighting for the rights isn't necessarily the issue here. Of course it was right and proper that queer people fought for concessions from the state since that was in itself radical and was part of a radical movement and strategy. The gay rights movement has now been assimilated into the bourgeois logic. It's abandoned it's radical objectives -- the campaign for equal rights is no longer tied to a radical platform for societal change. That's the issue.


Class antagonism being what it is, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I prefer the option in which there are fewer barriers for and between workers.

But that is not how we build a revolutionary communist movement or advance queer liberation ideology.


The implication of this statement being that you know what's best for people better than the people themselves. Such overweening arrogance!

Mate, that statement comes from being engaged in class struggle. It's not arrogance, it's experience.


Imply all you want but actually, since the global situation is geographically varied, it should come as no surprise that this pattern of variation extends to within subdivisions as well. Also, since this plainly shows that there is still considerable work to be done, then equal marriage won't efface that fact, no more than equal marriage between ethnicities has effaced the need to fight racism.

Please understand me. This is not a moral argument, it is not a question of the right thing or the wrong thing to do; it is not about what is convenient or possible. It is about what is tactically and strategically competent in achieving our objectives.

[Comrade Chernov]

Marriage is stupid, end of story. I'm not going to pander to the will of a few crazy people with a powerful imaginary friend.

Equality, on the other hand, is necessary. So, yes, I support marriage, until the revolution comes along, at which point I will no longer support the institution of marriage at all.

Personally, I'd much rather see society be less heterosexual anyway.

[Remus Bleys]

But marriage is inherently unequal, so doesn't your argument for supporting marriage fall apart?

[Sabot Cat]

But marriage is inherently unequal, so doesn't your argument for supporting marriage fall apart?

Why is marriage inherently unequal? I can't emphasize how much I would rather not subjugate anyone through being in a marriage, and thus I would like to know why you believe this to be true.