Assimilation completed

[The Feral Underclass]

Gay marriage has arrived!

We need to create a word that describes a gay person who desperately wants to live like and be obedient to heterosexuals. What would it be?

[tallguy]

Petit bourgeoisie I guess.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's not very creative.

[tallguy]

That's not very creative.It's about as creative as a desire to be blessed for getting married in a social structure that has been generally (and, quite specifically, in the case of a church) historically devoted to putting a patriarchal, homophobic policeman in everyone's head.

[The Feral Underclass]

Touche.

[Sentinel]

I live in Sweden which has equal marriage legislation, but my family comes from Finland which doesn't and where the issue is debated currently. As opposed to Sweden there is heavy resistance to it there (and generally much more homophobia).

I don't personally care for the concept of marriage much, especially taken to its historical and traditional context, and will probably never marry. But I can sympathise with people who want it in order to 'get even', for the pleasure of seeing the socially conservative forces defeated and forced to accept that their 'sacred' morals are being violated.

Also in some countries there is a need to strive for equal marriage rights for practical reasons; in Finland for example also many left wing lgbt activists see it as an important goal because adoption rights are tied to it. I think there are also other legal disadvantages with the so far allowed registered partnerhood.

Of course a simple 'equality for all before the law, period' would be a more progressive slogan. But for lots of people only full marriage rights mean fully equal rights, so making a common cause with those people is useful.

[The Idler]

Pinkwashing is the phenomenon of making something oppressive and exploitative into something "gay-friendly".

[The Feral Underclass]

Pinkwashing is the phenomenon of making something oppressive and exploitative into something "gay-friendly".

Which is actually something I explored in an article about gay marriage.

[Sasha]

Like Sentinel says, of course its a conformist bone depoliticising queer struggles, but its also is indicative how far broad society has moved towards considering gay people as normal people with civil rights, if I was a queer living in shittown redneckistan I would quite welcome being seen as normal, I would rather be bullied by my parents and church to marry a nice doctor and adopt some kids than be bullied into ex-gay therapy.
It's like, yes the panthers where better than dr king, and bourgeois civilrights for blacks depoliticised the black movement while keeping systemic racism only refined. Still its also good that people don't have to sit in the back of the bus no more, let alone getting lynched.

[The Feral Underclass]

Like Sentinel says, of course its a conformist bone depoliticising queer struggles, but its also is indicative how far broad society has moved towards considering gay people as normal people with civil rights, if I was a queer living in shittown redneckistan I would quite welcome being seen as normal, I would rather be bullied by my parents and church to marry a nice doctor and adopt some kids than be bullied into ex-gay therapy.
It's like, yes the panthers where better than dr king, and bourgeois civilrights for blacks depoliticised the black movement while keeping systemic racism only refined. Still its also good that people don't have to sit in the back of the bus no more, let alone getting lynched.

But the thing is this analysis ignores the way in which it is being celebrated. For example, a friend on Facebook wrote: "Congratulations to society as a whole for reaching Marriage Equality, and welcome to the club my gay friends."

The language of that is indicative of the whole problem. While sure it's an attempt at normalisation and indicative of a more 'positive' approach to gay rights, it is those things within a heteronormative paradigm...The idea that we are now "part of their club" is not liberating. Neither is it positive. It is a direct assault on being queer. The assumption that I want to be part of their club is harrowing. It is a whole sale victory of heterosexist domination...And it is totally unconscious. That is the most sinister aspect of it all.

Another example is that a gay man on the news talked about how gay marriage would help young gay people 'come to terms with their sexualities.' I mean, the premise of that is so unbelievably sinister it is hard to believe it came from the mouth of a gay person...But it did. And this is precisely the point. Gay men are so blind to the fact they are reinforcing heteronormative ideology, they are prepared to make the claim that our sexualities (their sexuality) is something that people have to 'come to terms with'. This is the pernicious nature of the situation and gay marriage is an extension of that.

So yes, we can celebrate, even for its most basic implications, but even on those levels, it remains incredibly dangerous.

[Quail]

Also in some countries there is a need to strive for equal marriage rights for practical reasons; in Finland for example also many left wing lgbt activists see it as an important goal because adoption rights are tied to it. I think there are also other legal disadvantages with the so far allowed registered partnerhood.


In a situation like this, I think it would be better to fight for adoption rights for everyone - because presumably if only married couples can adopt then that also excludes single people and couples who choose not to get married.

---

I think there is a big problem not just with the institution of marriage, but the narrow definition of "acceptable" or "legitimate" forms of love and relationships. The ideal of two people meeting, falling in love and staying together and 100% faithful to one another until they die seems to me like a) a huge lie that young people are sold, leading to disappointment and unhappiness all around and b) an ideal based on economic convenience rather than human desires and needs.

[Sasha]

But the thing is this analysis ignores the way in which it is being celebrated. For example, a friend on Facebook wrote: "Congratulations to society as a whole for reaching Marriage Equality, and welcome to the club my gay friends."

The language of that is indicative of the whole problem. While sure it's an attempt at normalisation and indicative of a more 'positive' approach to gay rights, it is those things within a heteronormative paradigm...The idea that we are now "part of their club" is not liberating. Neither is it positive. It is a direct assault on being queer. The assumption that I want to be part of their club is harrowing. It is a whole sale victory of heterosexist domination...And it is totally unconscious. That is the most sinister aspect of it all.

Another example is that a gay man on the news talked about how gay marriage would help young gay people 'come to terms with their sexualities.' I mean, the premise of that is so unbelievably sinister it is hard to believe it came from the mouth of a gay person...But it did. And this is precisely the point. Gay men are so blind to the fact they are reinforcing heteronormative ideology, they are prepared to make the claim that our sexualities (their sexuality) is something that people have to 'come to terms with'. This is the pernicious nature of the situation and gay marriage is an extension of that.

So yes, we can celebrate, even for its most basic implications, but even on those levels, it remains incredibly dangerous.

Sure, though I also think often the position of radical queers/trans/fems/blacks/etc etc is somewhere between disdain and privilege, yeah it sucks you (not you as a person but out radicals etc) had to liberate yourself through some really fucked up shit but sometimes the arguments are not that much better than scorched earth MLs.

[The Feral Underclass]

But the basis of what you're saying (unless I've misunderstood) is that gay marriage has some basic positive outcomes, and my argument is that it doesn't have any. It's not a question of me just being oppositionist because I'm a queer liberationist, I am saying that even on its most primitive level, gay marriage is not a good thing.

[Sasha]

Though why I'm discussing this while I'm in a bar celebrating my birthday early I dont know, ill get back to this later... :lol:

[Sasha]

One last reply for now, no, I agree gay marriage is nothing good in itself, I do think though its indicative of better mood in society at large, and that's often brushed aside.

[The Feral Underclass]

Though why I'm discussing this while I'm in a bar celebrating my birthday early I dont know, ill get back to this later... :lol:

It's your birthday?! Happy birthday! (It's also my mother's birthday).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Honorary Breeders?

[Tenka]

A word? Ex-queer, maybe. Gays who aspire to fit in perfectly to the machine, get married, own property, have children (with a surrogate mother if they be male; god forbid they adopt and forswear their biological imperative as respectable males to pass on the genes).

[Sasha]

"over steering"?

[synthesis]

What about "heterophiles"?

[Tenka]

What about "heterophiles"?

I like that. It sounds good and nasty, though the etymology is a bit questionable/imprecise.

[The Feral Underclass]

I like heterophiles.

[synthesis]

I like that. It sounds good and nasty, though the etymology is a bit questionable/imprecise.

Yeah, it's kind of stuck between sounding like the opposite of "homophile" - a term whose contemporary status I know nothing about - and already being an unrelated medical term. It seems like it would get the point across in context, but then I'm not the person who'd really be using it.

[Tenka]

Yeah, it's kind of stuck between sounding like the opposite of "homophile" - a term whose contemporary status I know nothing about - and already being an unrelated medical term. It seems like it would get the point across in context, but then I'm not the person who'd really be using it.

In my mind heterophile seems too close to "heterosexual". Though this closeness may be apt to show the intent, there is a lot of room for confusion. I just call 'em traitors when they go all conformist in the way described in my first post in this thread.

[Fakeblock]

Is 'Uncle Tom' too old-fashioned?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not sure about the history of that phrase. Isn't it racist?

[Sentinel]

In a situation like this, I think it would be better to fight for adoption rights for everyone - because presumably if only married couples can adopt then that also excludes single people and couples who choose not to get married.

Well, this is a difference between marxist/trotskyist and anarchist thought on strategy I guess. The equal marriage rights movement in Finland is closing in on it's crucial moment right now, support is substantial and the issues are debated in parliament etc. It is opposed by the socially conservative and racist true finns and other reactionaries who we wish to confront anyway.

Lots of worker gay couples who aren't radicalised in the sense we mean the word either/both want marriage for it's own sake, and/or see this as their chance to get the adoption and other rights while they are still young enough to foster children, basically. It would be tactically wrong to not support their struggle.

I think it's important for leftists to intervene in and support also progressive movements which we don't see as radical enough, while naturally all the time pointing out and debating why the demands aren't sufficient. Basically, I'm arguing that we must not isolate ourselves but intervene in such movements in order to radicalise them, recruit from them etc.

The fight for equal adoption rights for unmarried/singles etc can continue simultaneously and afterwards.

[synthesis]

I'm not sure about the history of that phrase. Isn't it racist?

It's definitely something white people shouldn't say.

(More (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin#Creation_and_popularization_of _stereotypes))

[Fakeblock]

I can see how you could take issue with white people accusing black people of being Uncle Toms, but I don't think it's necessarily a racist term, nor do I think it can only be used in matters involving racism. The term seems perfectly applicable to the phenomenon the OP describes.

[Queen Mab]

Perhaps I'm about to commit a huge faux-pas and reveal my awful homophobic tendencies...but is anti-capitalism an essential part of homosexual identity? Genuine question. I mean a priori it would seem that capitalism is not opposed essentially to a multiplicity of sexual identities like feudalism or other pre-capitalist modes of production were. You can extract just as much value from a queer worker as from a straight one. And I know we can talk about 'really existing capitalism' and the historical bias and maintenance of the family and working unit through enforced sexuality...but that still leaves room for a theoretical future functioning captialism that is LGBTQ-friendly. I don't know where I'm going. I guess it it seems kind of harsh to me to call people 'ex-queers' because they want to get married. It's not like they've stopped being homosexual. And I hate bougie liberals as much as the next person.

[synthesis]

I can see how you could take issue with white people accusing black people of being Uncle Toms, but I don't think it's necessarily a racist term, nor do I think it can only be used in matters involving racism. The term seems perfectly applicable to the phenomenon the OP describes.

I think it would be cringe-worthy if white people used it in a way that is at all analogous to how it is used among black people, however applicable it might be. I don't really see any difference between that and white people calling someone a "house slave" in a similar manner. Obviously I'm not going to be the first and last word on the subject, but I'd recommend against it.

[Tenka]

Perhaps I'm about to commit a huge faux-pas and reveal my awful homophobic tendencies...but is anti-capitalism an essential part of homosexual identity? Genuine question. I mean a priori it would seem that capitalism is not opposed essentially to a multiplicity of sexual identities like feudalism or other pre-capitalist modes of production were. You can extract just as much value from a queer worker as from a straight one.

No, to the bold. I don't believe in a homosexual identity. It's just an orientation that is seen as a threat to the order if its adherents are given the same recognition and bourgeois rights as heterosexuals (for a host of reasons). Maybe that's an unpopular opinion--I don't know many people. Anti-capitalism is, however, an essential part of gay/queer liberation, which genuine struggles are obscured by this fixation on marriage equality and making gays productive members of society (phrase should be used as a slur). Of course, holding this view does not mean being against gay marriage (any more than I am against marriage in general). I am only actively opposed to celebrating it.


And I know we can talk about 'really existing capitalism' and the historical bias and maintenance of the family and working unit through enforced sexuality...but that still leaves room for a theoretical future functioning captialism that is LGBTQ-friendly. I don't know where I'm going. I guess it it seems kind of harsh to me to call people 'ex-queers' because they want to get married. It's not like they've stopped being homosexual. And I hate bougie liberals as much as the next person.

It's not like they've stopped being homosexual, but in "fitting in" the way they will, being "just like normal people", they are intentionally discarding queerness.

[PhoenixAsh]

This thread reminds me of the debate about women choosing traditional gender roles being non-feminist...so basically identity politics sectarian style. And it is awfully generalizing.
(also...why is this in non-poli? Seeing as this will quickly turn out very political)

[Sabot Cat]

Gay marriage has arrived!

We need to create a word that describes a gay person who desperately wants to live like and be obedient to heterosexuals. What would it be?

Better question: why should it be? Is there any purpose to this, other than being self-righteous and smarmy?

[Tenka]

Better question: why should it be? Is there any purpose to this, other than being self-righteous and smarmy?

I am not sure there is, which might be the reason for it being posted in non-political. Pretty irritated by gays reproducing heterosexist modes of living though, striving for total integration. I think it is primarily driven by rich gays who want to be full-fledged bourgeois men and women, but it's perfectly understandable how it can benefit the less privileged. I just don't see it as a victory.

[The Feral Underclass]

but is anti-capitalism an essential part of homosexual identity?

I think it probably ought to be essential to how queer people understand their liberation, but it definitely isn't.

[The Feral Underclass]

Better question: why should it be?

Because it doesn't exist already, so it's necessary to create it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Isn't this just a logical outcome of essentialist identity politics which is by and large striving for liberation within the set culture and institutions (ergo within bourgeois, capitalist society) divorced from the revolutionary class struggle? From an identity political perspective marriage equality is a real victory as it offers the same options and legal recognition to the gay and lesbian community from an individualist perspective.

I can understand the criticism of the results of identity politics from a queer perspective...but I can not understand the need to then place a label on another group. This seems to be an antithesis to the queer perspective and raison d'etre: denying labels and conformity to these labels.