marriage poll

[mr perfidy]

Nothing appears after selecting how many options I wanted my poll to have so I'm going to just write them here inpost and maybe we'll figure out what went wrong later.


Are you opposed to marriage?

1) yes; it is a vehicle of exploitation that engenders microcosms of capitalist hegemony

2) no; more or less mated pairs or groupings are typical human social arrangements

3) undecided

[willowtooth]

under communism marriage will be looked down upon as a cruel and barbaric practice similar to stoning rape victims who dont scream loud enough, or sacrificing newborns for harvest

[General Winter]

under communism marriage will be looked down upon as a cruel and barbaric practice similar to stoning rape victims who dont scream loud enough, or sacrificing newborns for harvest

I wonder how can one at the same time support same sex marriage if it is "a cruel and barbaric practice"?

Some leftists can do everything - to oppose marriage,to fight for the rights of insects,etc - as long as they do not do a real work.

[GLF]

The problem with marriage as an institution rests completely on the way it's been historically misappropriated. Forced/arranged marriages, female subservience, etc. These things are products of the capitalist system and capitalism poisons everything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with two people being married in and of itself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with monogamy. In fact, it's commendable but it shouldn't be forced.

Capitalism poisons everything. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Human love, dedication and commitment is a beautiful and natural thing. Marriage is a human right.

[BIXX]

None of the three options represent me.

I think marriage would not exist post-capital, for a similar reason the state wouldn't exist. Marriage is the way we relate our property (including that of our bodies) to our sexual partners. Without property to relate, we would have no reason for marriage. If someone wants to get married then fine, but I really doubt folks would bother getting married when capitalist moral opposition to "infidelity" (rather, as I see it, using your body as you please) is no longer around. Between the two, marriage would hold no value in human relations. But I'm also not gonna try to stop anyone from getting married.

[willowtooth]

I wonder how can one at the same time support same sex marriage if it is "a cruel and barbaric practice"?

I dont? gay marriage is at best bourgeois liberal reformism, there is no marriage for the poor, gay or not

[GLF]

I dont? gay marriage is at best bourgeois liberal reformism, there is no marriage for the poor, gay or not

So in your mind, equality is liberal reformism? Let me tell you something, and I speak as a queer person, the liberals gave us nothing. Even well into the 21st century most liberals still opposed it, and never became "for it" until it was politically expedient to do so. The only reason gay marriage became a reality was because the people themselves fought claw, tooth and nail to create that reality.

When the working people achieve universal healthcare for themselves, after decades of liberal bourgeois resistance, will that be liberal reformism too? Let's not let our revolutionist and anti-liberal stances cause us to lose sight of the human aspect of our struggle. It's easy to dismiss certain movements and reforms when you're not the one suffering in the mean time.

[BIXX]

I speak as a queer person

Lol, so you can speak for all queers? You certainly don't speak for me.

[willowtooth]

So in your mind, equality is liberal reformism?Of course not, dont be a fucking child
Let me tell you something, and I speak as a queer person,weren't you the one who started this thread https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/197271-Racial-unity-The-white-race-must-be-destroyed about how we need to stop identity politics and even stop using the words white and black? And now you are claiming that because of your identity you occupy some high ground in this argument? I dont care if your gay straight or an a-sexual eunuch. How about we stop using the words gay and straight since we should all talk about class alone right? lol
the liberals gave us nothing. Even well into the 21st century most liberals still opposed it, and never became "for it" until it was politically expedient to do so. who do you think invented the concept of gay marriage in the first place? It certainly wasn't the communists, do you mean the democrats? Even in the USSR it was only a few years after the revolution that they re-outlawed homosexuality. They used to call homosexuality a symptom of bourgeoisie decadence.
The only reason gay marriage became a reality was because the people themselves fought claw, tooth and nail to create that reality.the first recorded gay marriage was Nero almost 2000 years ago. Many tribal societies had homosexual relationships, modern gay marriage reforms (and that's all it is... reforms)started in 1970's as a scheme to award gay couples similar rights with things like immigration rights, tax breaks, insurance benefits etc, it is a product of lawsuits that only exists to reform the current corrupt system ever so slightly


When the working people achieve universal healthcare for themselves, after decades of liberal bourgeois resistance, will that be liberal reformism too? yes, I dont know who else you think is responsible for universal healthcare? Bahrain has had universal healthcare since the 1960's I dont remember a socialist revolt in Bahrain. Same goes for minimum wage, and things like food stamps. You make it seem like the liberal bourgeoisie is the ruling class. I'm not dismissing these reforms i'm merely identifying them i dont care about gay marriage, or universal healthcare anymore than I do getting my country a fair trade deal with Mexico. It's an interesting phenomena that seems to consolidate gay rights activists and help them organize, it serves as a barometer for which countries are excepting of gay people, the same way sodomy laws do, and as long as marriage still exists then sure why wouldn't i want gay marriage to exist? But i'm not going to pretend that it does not enforce the existence of the institution of marriage, which needs to be abolished. We are not even talking about real marriage here, which is much further down the line, we are talking about the mere state recognition of marriage. would you pro actively create this? If marriage never existed, would you ever say we need a state agency to be created to approve people's sexual relationships and grant certain people privileges that single people, polygamous people, prostitutes etc didn't get? No of course not so why would you want fight defend the existing institution?


Let's not let our revolutionist and anti-liberal stances cause us to lose sight of the human aspect of our struggle.what anti-liberal stances do you have again?

[GLF]

Lol, so you can speak for all queers? You certainly don't speak for me.

I wasn't trying to speak for you. But feel free to inject your own thoughts on the topic of marriage - I'm curious about where we disagree.


lol who do you think invented the concept of gay marriage in the first place? It certainly wasn't the communists, do you mean the democrats? Even in the USSR it was only a few years after the revolution that they re-outlawed homosexuality. They used to call homosexuality a symptom of bourgeoisie decadence.

Are you a fascist?


what anti-liberal stances do you have again?

The thread has been derailed enough. Check my post history if you're curious about my stances.

[willowtooth]

Are you a fascist?No




The thread has been derailed enough. Check my post history if you're curious about my stances.I see a bunch of ranting about liberals and "virtue signalling", lots demands that we need to support the white working class, while simultaneously saying we need to ignore identity politics, claiming multiculturalism and immigration is just a tool of the ruling class, you said "Every major social advancement in the last 300 years has come because enough white people were drawn to support it." in a thread where you ranted about a breitbart article on affirmative action.

You've started thread called "Communist ideas inherent in Christianity (https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/196689-Communist-ideas-inherent-in-Christianity)" you started another thread where you say "we can have ethno-nationalism infused with far-left economics in the developing world (which is of interest to myself as a Maoist), and they are considered just fine and dandy leftists."

(By the way you might want to look up what maoists stance on gay marriage is if your going to be one. I think China just started allowing ex-pats in Beijing only, to register same sex partners as dependents, so a few wealthy foreigners can get some tax breaks.... a few years ago)

and you blatantly said once

"I used to be right wing.

Fiscally speaking, I was always left wing. I always believed in things like universal healthcare and higher taxes for the rich. But socially speaking? I was very reactionary. I held patriotic, even nationalistic beliefs. I was somewhat racialist, though never explicitly racist. I also had ideas that the me of today would consider anti-semitic. Yet, I changed. How?"

.....so yeah how did you "change" there GLF?

[GLF]

You're taking things completely out of context, misrepresenting my reasoning behind certain threads, flat-out lying about things I've said, and summarizing my arguments in such a way as to cast me in the worst possible light. And for what? Because I disagreed with you? Are you really that fucking stupid and petty? And how is any of this even a little bit useful to the thread?

I don't ever recall demanding that white working class people should be particularly supported. My thread on Christianity was directed at religious people to highlight hypocrisy. I never said multiculturalism and immigration should be opposed - I said it's used for cheap labor and creating discord, like a lot of other good things that are used for evil by the capitalists. I also recall saying the negative aspects were due to white racialism and white identity, and that those are the things we should destroy...not multiculturalism. Convenient that you left that part out of your above post.

Additionally, I never said that ethno-nationalism infused with far-left economics brings about fine and dandy leftists - you took it out of context to make it appear as though I said that. I was criticizing the fact that they are considered such. As for Maoism, I was attracted initially to several of the ideas but stopped calling myself a Maoist because I wasn't really anything. I'm just a guy who wants revolution and justice for the people, but still has a lot to learn before I can say that I'm anything.

As for being right-wing, I was raised to be that way in a very conservative lower class family. It's been a struggle to overcome reactionism in me and it's continual learning process. Even now I sometimes have to fight ideas, feelings and thoughts that run counter to what leftism should be. It's a constant struggle to judge everything in the proper light, fighting not only the base nature of oneself but in dealing with close friends and family that are opposed to everything for which one stands. What I do and believe I do so because I care about social justice for everyone and humanity, and I'm not at all ashamed of the things I've had to overcome.

Let's not derail the thread anymore. You're acting like an arrogant piece of shit that's petty and pathetic enough to actually go digging for dirt just because someone disagrees with what you have to say. In any case, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the idea that marriage equality is liberal reform and therefore unnecessary, useless, or bad. Please just let it die.

[BIXX]

I wasn't trying to speak for you. But feel free to inject your own thoughts on the topic of marriage - I'm curious about where we disagree.
We disagree on every front of politics that I've seen you post in regards to with the realm of resistance to capital.

On this specific issue, though, I see integrating queers into straight life, which might also be considered the life of capital, as negative. I don't see marriage as desirable. I don't see queers being allowed to serve in the military as desirable- these are all just ways to bring us into the capitalist fold. These aren't something we should be aiming for, we should be using our position as those who have been held outside of capital as a standing ground from which to be on the offensive. It doesn't damage capital for us to be allowed to marry, so why, as communists, should we pursue it?

[mr perfidy]

Well in my case bc state recognition confers what they believe to be privileges that align w actually important things in the life of me and the wife

[GLF]

We disagree on every front of politics that I've seen you post in regards to with the realm of resistance to capital.

On this specific issue, though, I see integrating queers into straight life, which might also be considered the life of capital, as negative. I don't see marriage as desirable. I don't see queers being allowed to serve in the military as desirable- these are all just ways to bring us into the capitalist fold. These aren't something we should be aiming for, we should be using our position as those who have been held outside of capital as a standing ground from which to be on the offensive. It doesn't damage capital for us to be allowed to marry, so why, as communists, should we pursue it?

Okay, so now you've piqued my curiosity. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're another anarchist and are opposed to Leninism, the vanguard party, and a socialist worker's state. If I'm wrong, please correct me. As for resistance to capitalism, I've always wondered just what anarchists have in mind in terms of post-revolutionary social organization. Without a state, how do you deal with enemies at home and abroad? There will be counterrevolutions and fascists to deal with. And capitalism is an international system ... what's stopping the country next door from marching in and raping the land, taking the resources and subjugating the people? Anarchists have never once given me a satisfactory answer to these questions.

Anyway, sorry for getting sidetracked...back to the topic of marriage. I think everyone here is in agreement depending on what someone means by marriage. If one means a legally binding contract handed down by the state or some municipal power, then of course I oppose marriage. The government should stay out of the marriage business altogether - for gays and straights alike. Not to mention the fact that it's historically been a pillar of patriarchal rule. It goes without saying I would be opposed.

But if what we're talking about is a long term monogamous relationship between two people who are committed to one another, then I absolutely don't oppose it. And yes, there are "communists" that claim to oppose even that. Any kind of monogamy is seen at best as passive sexism and that total sexual liberation entails not complaining when your mate wants to have sex with other people. My past partners, male and female, all had the right to be with who they want - but I also had the right to leave them if they did. As for gay marriage, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Even if the government shouldn't have the power, which they shouldn't, the fact remains that if straight people are going to marry and get the benefits that come from marriage, then I really don't see how anyone calling themselves a communist would oppose equal treatment for same sex couples.

It's important to understand one's own privilege even outside the context of our revolutionary worldviews. If someone had a steak stolen from the them and were literally starving to death, would you, with a full belly, actually try and dissuade them from accepting a bologna sandwich from the thief that stole the steak? It's so easy to dismiss certain movements and reforms when you're not the one getting shat upon by society on the daily.

[BIXX]

Let's not derail the thread anymore.

Okay, so now you've piqued my curiosity. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're another anarchist and are opposed to Leninism, the vanguard party, and a socialist worker's state. If I'm wrong, please correct me. As for resistance to capitalism, I've always wondered just what anarchists have in mind in terms of post-revolutionary social organization. Without a state, how do you deal with enemies at home and abroad? There will be counterrevolutions and fascists to deal with. And capitalism is an international system ... what's stopping the country next door from marching in and raping the land, taking the resources and subjugating the people? Anarchists have never once given me a satisfactory answer to these questions.


Is this some sort of failed Jedi mind trick?



Anyway, sorry for getting sidetracked...back to the topic of marriage. I think everyone here is in agreement depending on what someone means by marriage. If one means a legally binding contract


I don’t mean that.



But if what we're talking about is a long term monogamous relationship between two people who are committed to one another


That clearly isn’t what marriage is. Marriage is a relation of property. Just because you want it to mean a long term monogamous relationship doesn’t mean it is. If I wanna change what ‘capital’ means, or change what ‘police’ means, I can say I support capital and police. However that ignores historical reality. Any other interpretation is bourgeois idealism.



Even if the government shouldn't have the power, which they shouldn't, the fact remains that if straight people are going to marry and get the benefits that come from marriage, then I really don't see how anyone calling themselves a communist would oppose equal treatment for same sex couples.


Equality under capitalism is just the equality to be dominated.



It's important to understand one's own privilege even outside the context of our revolutionary worldviews. If someone had a steak stolen from the them and were literally starving to death, would you, with a full belly, actually try and dissuade them from accepting a bologna sandwich from the thief that stole the steak? It's so easy to dismiss certain movements and reforms when you're not the one getting shat upon by society on the daily.


So what you're saying is that my privilege makes me ineligible to speak on queer issues? That's stupid for two reasons: I'm a queer, and I'm presenting an argument about marriage and queerness, whether I'm queer or not really doesn't matter. I can play that game too. For example, doesn’t assimilation into straight society make one less like a queer than actively refusing to accept bourgeois heteronormative traditions? Doesn't your position actually stand in opposition to your queerness? Obviously I don't believe that you aren't queer, but I am saying that your position serves to de-queer queers. Quit trying to use your stupid identity to defeat an argument.


Furthermore, your analogy is completely off. It’s more like this: a society that has been trying to exterminate you since its inception, hunting, murdering, burning, and raping you from day one, reaches capitalism. And capitalism is doing pretty good for itself, continuing the process, and in fact, that process being part of what is needed to come into existence, allowing itself to try exterminate you in the name of the common good. Then, after 10,000 years, that society has a pretty good reason to bring to into its domain, rather than trying to exclude you: the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. Suddenly it realizes you are a market. It doesn’t want to stop hating you but it realizes that it can continue abusing you whilst selling to you. So it offers "marriage", "equality", in exchange for your submission. To assimilate means to submit to capital.

[willowtooth]

Let's not derail the thread anymore. You're acting like an arrogant piece of shit that's petty and pathetic enough to actually go digging for dirt just because someone disagrees with what you have to say. In any case, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the idea that marriage equality is liberal reform and therefore unnecessary, useless, or bad. Please just let it die.
Im just curious what your life was like back when you were nazi and why you became anarchist hating Leninist after that?

[GLF]

Oh please. I was never a Nazi. Nazis were big industry, union busting, class-collaborationist racist nationalists. Yes, I come from a very reactionary upbringing but nothing like that. I've always held to ideas of justice and left-wing economics and always despised explicit racism. But I wasn't revolutionary. I still believed in reforming the system and was more a moderate on social issues. What about you? Were you born a communist?

....Oh I forgot - you're an anarchist. You believe in disbanding all forms of social organization so that the fash can march in and take everything over. My bad.

I don't hate anarchists, Willowtooth. All communists are anarchists, but not all anarchists are communists. You cannot have a truly stateless, communist society until the entire developed world becomes socialist. I'd be happy to debate it in the proper thread.

[pastradamus]

under communism marriage will be looked down upon as a cruel and barbaric practice similar to stoning rape victims who dont scream loud enough, or sacrificing newborns for harvest

Are you honestly being serious? Marriage is a formal agreement and commitment between two people to express their devotion to one another, it should be allowed between anyone and fair. What in fucks name are you bringing rape victims into this for?

[pastradamus]

Fiscally speaking, I was always left wing. I always believed in things like universal healthcare and higher taxes for the rich. But socially speaking? I was very reactionary. I held patriotic, even nationalistic beliefs. I was somewhat racialist, though never explicitly racist. I also had ideas that the me of today would consider anti-semitic. Yet, I changed. How?"

.....so yeah how did you "change" there GLF?




People are allowed change. Both Willowtooth and GLF. Please stop arguing about this, we don't care about your past view -only current views. Thats the same as attacking me for being a former Catholic, stop it guys and lets not play the blame game but further the discussion.

[General Winter]

Three men voted for " a vehicle of exploitation".Well,perhaps they want to say that kids derive surplus value from their working parents.No comment.

[willowtooth]

Marriage is a formal agreement and commitment between two people to express their devotion to one another, it should be allowed between anyone and fair. it is a religious institution that has not always been between two people
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.


Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm


People are allowed change. Both Willowtooth and GLF. Please stop arguing about this, we don't care about your past view -only current views. Thats the same as attacking me for being a former Catholic, stop it guys and lets not play the blame game but further the discussion.If you were quoting bible passages while simultaneously calling everyone who disagrees with you a fascist christian i would ask you about all those bible passages you've been quoting, I dont see what's wrong with that?




....Oh I forgot - you're an anarchist. You believe in disbanding all forms of social organization so that the fash can march in and take everything over. My bad.
I thought I was a fascist? now I'm an anarchist? I wonder what I will be according to you tomorrow?

[GLF]

it is a religious institution that has not always been between two people


It's not necessarily a religious institution. It's a social institution and like all social institutions varies from culture to culture, place to place and must be examined with respect to it's historical use, it's nature and the present day circumstances. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are specific qualities to marriage (as well as the family concept) as it exists in society and not all of them are bad. Dynasties? Bad. Forced/arranged marriages? Bad. Inheritance? Patriarchy? Bad. Two people who love each other and are committed to one another? None of your fucking business so goosestep the fuck out of here with your sweeping generalizations and blanketed dismissals of human rights and human social behavior.


If you were quoting bible passages while simultaneously calling everyone who disagrees with you a fascist christian i would ask you about all those bible passages you've been quoting, I dont see what's wrong with that

What the fuck does that even mean? Bible verses? Christian fascism? You've lost it.


I thought I was a fascist? now I'm an anarchist? I wonder what I will be according to you tomorrow?

I never said you were a fascist. I asked if you were a fascist because you dismissed the LGBTQ struggle for equality, and you also stated the following:


lol who do you think invented the concept of gay marriage in the first place? It certainly wasn't the communists, do you mean the democrats? Even in the USSR it was only a few years after the revolution that they re-outlawed homosexuality. They used to call homosexuality a symptom of bourgeoisie decadence.


That came out of nowhere and for no conceivable reason relative to the discussion other than to highlight some kind of perceived hypocrisy on my part (being queer and communist). And in doing so, you were at worst justifying homophobia and at best criticizing communism. Either one is something a fascist would do.

I can't stand people who lose sight of the humanity factor. If I ever had to choose between a political faction and advocating for humanity and human rights, I'd piss on the political faction. If supporting marriage equality for LGBTQ people I'm somehow a bad communist because I'm trying to reform an inherently broken system, then fine. I'm a bad communist or not one at all. I really don't care to be honest. Yes, I believe in revolution but if it's not for people, for social justice and betterment of all lives, then what's it all for? Just so you can wear a snazzy uniform and sing "The Internationale"? Just so you can posture online and be Marxier than thou? No thanks.

[willowtooth]

It's not necessarily a religious institution. It's a social institution and like all social institutions varies from culture to culture, place to place and must be examined with respect to it's historical use, it's nature and the present day circumstances. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are specific qualities to marriage (as well as the family concept) as it exists in society and not all of them are bad. Dynasties? Bad. Forced/arranged marriages? Bad. Inheritance? Patriarchy? Bad. Two people who love each other and are committed to one another? None of your fucking business so goosestep the fuck out of here with your sweeping generalizations and blanketed dismissals of human rights and human social behavior.



What the fuck does that even mean? Bible verses? Christian fascism? You've lost it.



I never said you were a fascist. I asked if you were a fascist because you dismissed the LGBTQ struggle for equality, and you also stated the following:




That came out of nowhere and for no conceivable reason relative to the discussion other than to highlight some kind of perceived hypocrisy on my part (being queer and communist). And in doing so, you were at worst justifying homophobia and at best criticizing communism. Either one is something a fascist would do.

I can't stand people who lose sight of the humanity factor. If I ever had to choose between a political faction and advocating for humanity and human rights, I'd piss on the political faction. If supporting marriage equality for LGBTQ people I'm somehow a bad communist because I'm trying to reform an inherently broken system, then fine. I'm a bad communist or not one at all. I really don't care to be honest. Yes, I believe in revolution but if it's not for people, for social justice and betterment of all lives, then what's it all for? Just so you can wear a snazzy uniform and sing "The Internationale"? Just so you can posture online and be Marxier than thou? No thanks.

alright let's break this down.... what are the benefits that gay marriage gives you? Taxes, insurance, immigration all things that are provided by the state. if we impose no immigration laws to begin with you dont need immigration rights, if you abolish private insurance there's no need for your insurance benefits to be changed, if you abolish money there's no need for tax breaks. I challenge you to find me one benefit that is gained through gay marriage (or any marriage) that you cannot say the same thing about

So what is left? without any connection to the state there is only religious and romantic ceremonies, now I hope you don't think I want to outlaw romance? And have procreation done only through cloning or something like that? But i do want to rid the world of organized religion. Outlawing religion is only one of many ways people have thought of to do so, but obviously that also requires a state.

Now if the state and the church were to be totally abolished what possible form would any marriage take? would there be monogamy as well as polygamy? Would it only exist in this romeo and juliet romantic sense, where you propose with a ring and say your vows in front of your friends and family, that is common in western christian nations? Would there be polygamy like in Saudi Arabia where you can marry ten 9 year olds? What about arranged marriages like in India where the parents force two kids to be married from a very young age sometimes even to their own cousins? What about the countless tribal marriage ceremonies, customs, and traditions that are either frowned upon or completely outlawed in the good ole anglo christian USA?

For Joseph Smiths sake!!! Mitt Romney's grandad had to flee to Mexico to seek "religious freedom" to practice polygamy and still polygamy is outlawed in the Us today. You're saying you want mongamous homosexual marriage I'm saying you should be allowed to marry 100 men, 15 women, and a hermaphrodite if you wish. But again without the state and the church I dont know if the word "marriage" would even still apply

[pastradamus]

it is a religious institution that has not always been between two people

Not necessarily. I don't know about your part of the world but here two athiests can get married.


Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm

I have taken the liberty of boldface at every point you missed when posting this. I shall further if requested.



If you were quoting bible passages while simultaneously calling everyone who disagrees with you a fascist christian i would ask you about all those bible passages you've been quoting, I dont see what's wrong with that?


Stay on point, on subject.

[GLF]

alright let's break this down.... what are the benefits that gay marriage gives you? Taxes, insurance, immigration all things that are provided by the state. if we impose no immigration laws to begin with you dont need immigration rights, if you abolish private insurance there's no need for your insurance benefits to be changed, if you abolish money there's no need for tax breaks. I challenge you to find me one benefit that is gained through gay marriage (or any marriage) that you cannot say the same thing about

So what is left? without any connection to the state there is only religious and romantic ceremonies, now I hope you don't think I want to outlaw romance? And have procreation done only through cloning or something like that? But i do want to rid the world of organized religion. Outlawing religion is only one of many ways people have thought of to do so, but obviously that also requires a state.

Now if the state and the church were to be totally abolished what possible form would any marriage take? would there be monogamy as well as polygamy? Would it only exist in this romeo and juliet romantic sense, where you propose with a ring and say your vows in front of your friends and family, that is common in western christian nations? Would there be polygamy like in Saudi Arabia where you can marry ten 9 year olds? What about arranged marriages like in India where the parents force two kids to be married from a very young age sometimes even to their own cousins? What about the countless tribal marriage ceremonies, customs, and traditions that are either frowned upon or completely outlawed in the good ole anglo christian USA?

For Joseph Smiths sake!!! Mitt Romney's grandad had to flee to Mexico to seek "religious freedom" to practice polygamy and still polygamy is outlawed in the Us today. You're saying you want mongamous homosexual marriage I'm saying you should be allowed to marry 100 men, 15 women, and a hermaphrodite if you wish. But again without the state and the church I dont know if the word "marriage" would even still apply

Okay so that's a little more reasonable.

What does marriage do for me personally? I will never get married so nothing. But if nothing else, gay marriage is a win for communism because it undermines traditionalism and traditionalist institutions are the very things that bind the international workers to god and country rather than each other. It's also a win for human rights because what's good for one demographic should likewise be good for the other. I can see no logical reason for opposing gay marriage. Does it strengthen the state? Does it strengthen the social institutions that bind? No. At best it harms them and at worst it does nothing at all. It was not without a great fight and reluctance that the state granted this right and for a reason. And if in the mean time it pisses off religious people and gives a sense of justice to LGBTQ people, then why would you ever oppose that? Simply because you're opposed to the concept in the first place? Forbidding gays to marry will do nothing to weaken marriage and if anything it would strengthen the insidious aspects as they pertain to the religious and social aspects that you so despise.

I have always held the position that reform is bad, and that should eschew identity politics and work to abolish the capitalist state rather than make it better for certain demographics in class-ignorant way. But you can't oppose human rights in the mean time. You're not strengthening the working class by opposing equal rights under capitalism. Continuing to disempower certain groups in favor of others can in the mean time only serve to strengthen the very system you claim to want to destroy.