A homophobe comes to RevLeft -- split from Discrimination [Archive]

Mujer Libre

10th August 2008, 08:59

Well I believe marriage should be between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. Sorry if I offended anyone like I said earlier its my belief.

Why do you believe that? Do you believe that homosexuality, bisexuality etc are wrong?

Also, what is your stance on contraception and abortion? Do you think that people should only fuck to procreate, not for pleasure or bonding?

And, it's not about "offence"- it's about holding views that are fundamentally reactionary and oppresive. That said, I don't think liberation can be achieved through legal equality, especially equality to participate in a hetero-patriachal institution like marriage, but I still think that if heteros are allowed to get married, there's no (logical) reason why queer people shouldn't.

alp

10th August 2008, 09:21

I believe homosexuality, bisexuality and, pedophilia is wrong. I do believe that contraception is a great thing(it helps to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies). I think abortion is bad because there is the choice of putting unwanted babies up for adoption. Yes I think sex should be for procreation only.

Bilan

10th August 2008, 10:25

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass.

Mujer Libre

10th August 2008, 10:31

Wow! Really? You've totally enlightened me.

I don't want to be a leftist anymore, please show me how to be a homophobe too! :rolleyes:

Seriously, why are you even bothering?

Lector Malibu

10th August 2008, 10:33

I believe you're a conservative homophobic moron. You cats are like a dime a dozen.

Sentinel

10th August 2008, 10:35

Welcome to Revleft. I have split your post from discrimination, where you posted despite the rules clearly stating that homophobia isn't tolerated on this board -- consider yourself warned. You may post in this forum, Opposing Ideologies, until further notice however. Now prepare to have your arguments destroyed. :)

Personally I don't believe gays have a right to be married.

Why's that?

I believe homosexuality, bisexuality and, pedophilia is wrong.

Why are homosexuality and bisexuality wrong?

I do believe that contraception is a great thing(it helps to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies).

Yeah, that you got right -- the sun can shine through a pile of branches, as we say in Finland.

I think abortion is bad because there is the choice of putting unwanted babies up for adoption.

Except it's not about the 'baby' but about the womans right to control her own body and what's in it or not -- bodily autonomy.

Yes I think sex should be for procreation only.

Why.

Socialist18

10th August 2008, 11:01

I believe homosexuality, bisexuality and, pedophilia is wrong.
What the fuck does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality? You ignorant bigot!
I can tell you're very narrow minded from this statement, you class all homosexuals in the same category as pedophiles, you clearly think we're all kid fidlers don't you you fool!

communard resolution

10th August 2008, 11:27

Sorry if I offended anyone like I said earlier its my belief.

You're only offending our intelligence by confronting us with your pathetic little opinions.

Ismail

10th August 2008, 12:27

As a note, Communists can be homophobes. It's unfortunate but true. (Most were homophobes up until the 70's, especially in in the east due to the reactionary social views and lack of research on the subject)

ALP, where do you come from? Are you a Communist?

Bud Struggle

10th August 2008, 13:02

Well I believe marriage should be between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. Sorry if I offended anyone like I said earlier its my belief.

Well, that's a point. Marriage could be for procreation and raising babies, etc. Then we could have Civil Unions for everything else--homosexual, heterosexual or non sexual unions (two people living together in a no sexual relationship but who want legal rights together.)

I imagine if two homosexuals want to have children--they also might be ble to get married.

The Spirit of 1918

10th August 2008, 14:26

I do believe that contraception is a great thing(it helps to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies).

Yes I think sex should be for procreation only.Is it just my crappy finglish, but does that somehow make any fucking sense?

Red_or_Dead

10th August 2008, 14:31

I imagine if two homosexuals want to have children--they also might be ble to get married.

Im not sure what youre saying here, but are you implying that marriage is only for couples who have children? Why?

Is it just my crappy finglish, but does that somehow make any fucking sense?

Make a hole in a condom, and it will.

KrazyRabidSheep

10th August 2008, 14:31

Well I believe marriage should be between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. Sorry if I offended anyone like I said earlier its my belief.
Let me let you in on a little secret; people have had babies long before the concept of marriage.

I think you're confusing marriage with sex, and sex with procreation, and procreation with a heaping bowl of propaganda.

Well, that's a point. Marriage could be for procreation and raising babies, etc. Then we could have Civil Unions for everything else--homosexual, heterosexual or non sexual unions (two people living together in a no sexual relationship but who want legal rights together.)

I imagine if two homosexuals want to have children--they also might be ble to get married.I disagree; if you're going to legalize marriage in a nation that claims to have religious tolerance, then I think you need to legally recognize all marriages or no marriages.

However, I will give you credit where credit is due, at least you are trying to propose a compromise (more so then the "homosexuals are sinning bastards" approach.)

Trystan

10th August 2008, 15:11

When you get married, you are afforded more rights than non-married couples. That's why it should be allowed.

But to me marriage is just papers, otherwise.

Chapter 24

10th August 2008, 16:46

The fact that you even proudly declare yourself a homophobe as you do is reprehensible by itself and only makes you look incredibly stupid. That said, time to derail some classic reactionary arguments:

Well I believe marriage should be between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. Sorry if I offended anyone like I said earlier its my belief.

And this is because ? Procreation isn't necessarily the sole reason people choose to get married, in fact if procreation was the only reason two people were together then why even bother with getting married?

I believe homosexuality, bisexuality and, pedophilia is wrong.

None of these are "wrong". Homosexuality and bisexuality are not "wrong" - nothing they do is typically considered to be harmful to others, and whatever sexual orientation you or I or anyone else has is not "wrong". Sex between two (or more) fully consenting and informed individuals is not "wrong". As for pedophilia, I don't believe that pedophiles should be allowed to prey on children, who can barely even give consent in the first place; but their urges are not "wrong", they are natural and come along with the pedophile's sexual mindset.

I think abortion is bad because there is the choice of putting unwanted babies up for adoption.

It's "bad" that women do with their bodies what they choose to do? And your view that, "Oh well, if you have an unwanted pregnancy then simply putting your baby up for adoption is a way to avoid abortion," is a typical straw man argument not too uncommon for those ignorant on why people choose to get an abortion. It's not so simple to just "give your baby up for adoption," because there's no guarantee the baby will be adopted.

Yes I think sex should be for procreation only.

Yeah I agree, I mean it's not like anybody actually receives pleasure from sex. :rolleyes:

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass.

Seconded.

Lector Malibu

10th August 2008, 16:54

Well I believe marriage should be between a man and a women for the purpose of procreation. Sorry if I offended anyone like I said earlier its my belief.

Marriage should be a special bond between X amount of people of whatever orientation.

Finding a homestead ,finding a woman with good child rearing hips is well a bit out dated and not the purpose of marriage whatsoever.

Sentinel

10th August 2008, 18:13

The fact that you even proudly declare yourself a homophobe as you do is reprehensible by itself and only makes you look incredibly stupid.Hehe well that was my choice of title for this thread, after I split this guys posts from the Discrimination forum. But it's fitting is it not?

I hope he replies to our posts.

Jazzratt

10th August 2008, 18:29

Personally I don't believe gays have a right to be married.

Thank you for your valued opinion. (http://www.stumbleupon.com/demo/?review=1#url=http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php)

Kwisatz Haderach

10th August 2008, 18:31

Well, that's a point. Marriage could be for procreation and raising babies, etc. Then we could have Civil Unions for everything else--homosexual, heterosexual or non sexual unions (two people living together in a no sexual relationship but who want legal rights together.)
Why does it matter what you call it? You have some people who love each other living together and being treated by the law as a single unit in certain respects. That's it. Who cares if it's officially called "marriage" or "civil union" or "zog"?

"Marriage" isn't for anything, it's just a word.

Demogorgon

10th August 2008, 21:32

Well, that's a point. Marriage could be for procreation and raising babies, etc. Then we could have Civil Unions for everything else--homosexual, heterosexual or non sexual unions (two people living together in a no sexual relationship but who want legal rights together.)

I imagine if two homosexuals want to have children--they also might be ble to get married.

How is that going to work? Two people get married and then decide they don't want to have children or that they are infertile or whatever, do they have to downgrade?

Or two people have a civil partnership and subsequently decide that in fact they will have children after all. Do they need to go through the hassle of changing their partnership to marriage?

InTheMatterOfBoots

10th August 2008, 21:48

Personally I don't believe gays have a right to be married.

Well I don't think that homosexuals should be aspiring to replicate patriarchal relationships that exist amongst straight people that are based on property ownership and sexist domination. As far as I am concerned you can keep your "sacred" practice (your frankly bizarre opinions on homosexulaity and bisexuality aside).

Bud Struggle

10th August 2008, 21:48

How is that going to work? Two people get married and then decide they don't want to have children or that they are infertile or whatever, do they have to downgrade?

Or two people have a civil partnership and subsequently decide that in fact they will have children after all. Do they need to go through the hassle of changing their partnership to marriage?

Granted it's not the most completely thought out post I've ever made. Butttttt....After all this abortion talk about the "rights fo the woman", "rights of the woman" how about AFTER the kid is born there's some rights of the kid--and by that I mean a stable home environs.

I have no problem with people hitching up or unhitchin up as they please before a kid is born, but after--the rights of the kid should come into play. I was brought up in a VERY stabel home enviornment and I have a huge advantage against kids that weren't. I see the same thing with my kids.

Marriage is a good thing for people with kids--it created a family bond. You commies may not like it--but kids comming from a secure home life do better in the competitive world--and for the time being--the world is competitive.

InTheMatterOfBoots

10th August 2008, 21:51

Marriage is a good thing for people with kids--it created a family bond. You commies may not like it--but kids comming from a secure home life do better in the competitive world--and for the time being--the world is competitive.

What so communists argue that children should not be brought up in a stable and loving environment? When and how?

Bud Struggle

10th August 2008, 22:01

What so communists argue that children should not be brought up in a stable and loving environment? When and how?

For the most part raising kids in a stable home enviroment is tough to do without long term committed relationships by both parents. While I see a dedicated devotion to abortion and revolution by Communist--I don't see anyone beking restricted on RevLeft for breaking up families or deserting children or being unfaithful to their familiar obligations.

Not much interest there.

Demogorgon

10th August 2008, 22:09

Granted it's not the most completely thought out post I've ever made. Butttttt....After all this abortion talk about the "rights fo the woman", "rights of the woman" how about AFTER the kid is born there's some rights of the kid--and by that I mean a stable home environs.

I have no problem with people hitching up or unhitchin up as they please before a kid is born, but after--the rights of the kid should come into play. I was brought up in a VERY stabel home enviornment and I have a huge advantage against kids that weren't. I see the same thing with my kids.

Marriage is a good thing for people with kids--it created a family bond. You commies may not like it--but kids comming from a secure home life do better in the competitive world--and for the time being--the world is competitive.
The trouble with this is that people make the presumption that a two parent family is always best for kids. I was brought up in a stable two parent family and that was great because both my parents were (and are I should add!) good and they got on well.

On the other hand, I know my cousins were never better off than after their idiot of a father took himself out of the equation. Living in a fraught household is far worse than living in a single parent household.

Kwisatz Haderach

10th August 2008, 22:15

For the most part raising kids in a stable home enviroment is tough to do without long term committed relationships by both parents. While I see a dedicated devotion to abortion and revolution by Communist--I don't see anyone beking restricted on RevLeft for breaking up families or deserting children or being unfaithful to their familiar obligations.
We restrict people for the rules they wish to impose on society, not for what they do in their personal lives. And as far as I'm aware no one has ever argued that society should promote or encourage people deserting children or being unfaithful.

Now, as to the issue of a stable home environment, I agree with you that it is very important to the kids, and it is something that should be promoted. Unfortunately, however, the only way to get a stable home environment is if the parents love each other (being married doesn't mean much if the parents can't stand each other, and that kind of family sure as hell isn't good for the kids). And love, or the lack of it, is not something you can fix by legislation or through economic policies. Sure, you can pass laws to make people stay married, or get married more easily, but that won't get you what you want. It won't make them love each other more.

Bud Struggle

10th August 2008, 22:33

The trouble with this is that people make the presumption that a two parent family is always best for kids. I was brought up in a stable two parent family and that was great because both my parents were (and are I should add!) good and they got on well.

On the other hand, I know my cousins were never better off than after their idiot of a father took himself out of the equation. Living in a fraught household is far worse than living in a single parent household.

There's always that singular case that proves the rule. But one onf the MAIN problems with African-Acvancement in America (besides for drugs) has been the devolution of the two parent household in the Black community. Half of all Black children are brought up in single parent households--with a much greater chance of poverty and nor positive male role model.

Such thing are overall just BAD for the community as a whole.

We restrict people for the rules they wish to impose on society, not for what they do in their personal lives. And as far as I'm aware no one has ever argued that society should promote or encourage people deserting children or being unfaithful. No one has ever argued against it, but it isn't a POSITIVE point about Communism. Communism doesn't ENCOURAGE faithful husbands and good fatherhood. It doesn't encourage a well rounded family structure and family support the way the Christian churches do.

This is another one of the gaping holes in the Communist superstructure.

InTheMatterOfBoots

10th August 2008, 23:11

No one has ever argued against it, but it isn't a POSITIVE point about Communism. Communism doesn't ENCOURAGE faithful husbands and good fatherhood. It doesn't encourage a well rounded family structure and family support the way the Christian churches do.

This is another one of the gaping holes in the Communist superstructure.

I can only really speak on anarchist-communism here. But I can certainly say that we encourage and positively promote a compassionate society that seeks to protect the most vulnerable and that this includes children. We also acknowledge that parenthood is a massively stressful time that requires a great deal of emotional and material resources. The answer to this is not a restrictive and patriarchal framework that forces two people to co-habit (and the idea that a child needs a positive male role-model is not only plain wrong but also sexist).

Child psychology is very clear on this point, a child only needs a single primary care-giver (doesn't matter what sex) and other than that requires positive role models and a stable environment. This can be provided by one person, a couple or a group of people sharing the responsibility of childcare. The reason that single-parent households exist in impoverished communities is clearly not a lack of "family values" (a truly repugnant term), but the lack of the real material resources to support a child. It is the patriarchy in our society that enforces this responsibility of childcare solely on women and leaves so many kids supported by single mothers who will already be in lower payed jobs. Poverty creates a great deal of stress and does little to promote good child care. An appeal to a nuclear family structure only reinforces this situation (especially with your "strong" male breadwinner). It also does nothing to gaurantee a truly loving environment for a child. Without a nurturing childhood a infant is not provided with the emotional lexicon needed to develop successful parenting skills for the future and the situation is endlessly replicated with damaged and disfunstional people encountering the same pregudices forced upon them by their class status. The nuclear family doesn't work for eneryone and more often than not it doesn't work at all.

rocker935

11th August 2008, 02:52

I believe in freedom, not oppression. So if two consenting adults want to have sex, get married, or whatever, im not gonna stop them. Thats their concern, not mine. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you find it disgusting. I think its disgusting as fuck for a women to take a dump on a consenting man but why should it be illegal just kuz i don't like it? I have never smoked before, but I still believe in the freedom to do so anyways.

RGacky3

11th August 2008, 02:52

Well I don't think that homosexuals should be aspiring to replicate patriarchal relationships that exist amongst straight people that are based on property ownership and sexist domination.

I don't think YOU should be telling homosexuals what they should be aspiring toward, I think you should treat homosexual couples just as you would straight couples, being homosexual does not equate to being somehow more socially conscious.

It doesn't encourage a well rounded family structure and family support the way the Christian churches do.

But it does a much better job than Capitalism. Also I'm not sure Christianity has had any help in keeping couples together.

I personally think the whole institution of marriage by the state, is rediculous and should be gotten rid of. I think if a straight or homosexual couple want to go through some ceremony they should obviously be allowed to do it, and the state should keep its nose out of it, since when is the state mandated to validate relationships, its non of its business, straight or gay.

Bud Struggle

11th August 2008, 03:34

I can only really speak on anarchist-communism here. But I can certainly say that we encourage and positively promote a compassionate society that seeks to protect the most vulnerable and that this includes children. OK, fine.

We also acknowledge that parenthood is a massively stressful time that requires a great deal of emotional and material resources. The answer to this is not a restrictive and patriarchal framework that forces two people to co-habit (and the idea that a child needs a positive male role-model is not only plain wrong but also sexist). It may be sexist--but it isn't wrong. Single lead of household families are much more likely to fall into poverty than two parent households. Parental supervision of children is much more likely in two parent households. Those just are the facts in today's society.

Child psychology is very clear on this point, a child only needs a single primary care-giver (doesn't matter what sex) and other than that requires positive role models and a stable environment. This can be provided by one person, a couple or a group of people sharing the responsibility of childcare. In "ideal" situations all the is probable and quite possible--but in real life single head of households are often poor, work full time jobs and have little to know supervision of their children. It's the story of Blacks in America since the 1960's. With enough income single head of households could do just fine--but in the majority of cases the income supplied by the man leaves with the man and the wonan and children are often reduced to problematic situations.

The reason that single-parent households exist in impoverished communities is clearly not a lack of "family values" (a truly repugnant term), but the lack of the real material resources to support a child. I'll agree with that.

It is the patriarchy in our society that enforces this responsibility of childcare solely on women and leaves so many kids supported by single mothers who will already be in lower payed jobs. Poverty creates a great deal of stress and does little to promote good child care. I'll agree here, too. But, that's just the way society's structured--women (for the most part) bear and take care of kids. Men work and povide for their families. Gender based roles are as old as humanity.

An appeal to a nuclear family structure only reinforces this situation (especially with your "strong" male breadwinner). No. It solves a good deal of the problem. Two parent families are much stronger and resilient than single heads of households--especially when one nears the poverty live.

It also does nothing to gaurantee a truly loving environment for a child. Without a nurturing childhood a infant is not provided with the emotional lexicon needed to develop successful parenting skills for the future and the situation is endlessly replicated with damaged and disfunstional people encountering the same pregudices forced upon them by their class status. The nuclear family doesn't work for eneryone and more often than not it doesn't work at all.The nuclear family works a lot better than the single parent family in most cases--again in real life. The added stability is crutial to raising a child effectively. So is the additional income and supervision.

As I said, a two parent family with may be a bit sexist--but that's of minor importance to the raising healthy and well adapted children.

Demogorgon

11th August 2008, 03:48

I am still somewhat troubled by the talk of the nuclear family being best because I really don't see how keeping parents together is to be achieved. Of course it would be great if everybody got married and lived happily ever after, but they don't and "staying together for the sake of the kids" doesn't usually work because living in an extremely tense household isn't good for kids. If parents are not getting along, far better that they divorce but have joint custody, if possible, than putting children through the misery of an unhappy household.

I think encouraging marriage too much makes the problem worse. If you talk up marriage too much, people are more likely to dive into it and that just leads to more divorce later. It would be better I think if there were fewer marriages and people only married after having been together for several years so that they know that is definitely what they want.

Schrödinger's Cat

11th August 2008, 04:10

Marriages shouldn't be recognized by the state. If three transsexuals want to marry and raise, a child, I don't care. If this same trio decides to use their kid as a basketball, there's problems. Same for monogamous heterosexuality, polygamous pansexuality, and singe parents. For benefits, every mutual party should be able to qualify in a civil union.

Authoritarianism.

alp

11th August 2008, 04:33

Wow! Really? You've totally enlightened me.
I don't want to be a leftist anymore, please show me how to be a homophobe too! ￹FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
Seriously, why are you even bothering?
I don't see how what I said is homophobic as I never said I feared them or hated them I just don't believe they should be married.

As a note, Communists can be homophobes. It's unfortunate but true. (Most were homophobes up until the 70's, especially in in the east due to the reactionary social views and lack of research on the subject)
ALP, where do you come from? Are you a Communist?
I come from the US, not yet.

Well, that's a point. Marriage could be for procreation and raising babies, etc. Then we could have Civil Unions for everything else--homosexual, heterosexual or non sexual unions (two people living together in a no sexual relationship but who want legal rights together.)
I imagine if two homosexuals want to have children--they also might be ble to get married.
I'm neutral on civil unions.

Sentinel

11th August 2008, 04:43

No one has ever argued against it, but it isn't a POSITIVE point about Communism. Communism doesn't ENCOURAGE faithful husbands and good fatherhood. It doesn't encourage a well rounded family structure and family support the way the Christian churches do.

This is another one of the gaping holes in the Communist superstructure.

Communists have a well defined position on marriage. Friedrich Engels describes it well in paragraph 21 of his Principles of Communism (http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/xeng1847.htm#21):

What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage, the dependence rooted in private property, of the woman on the man and of the children on the parents. And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the "community of women". Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.
I don't see anything contradictory to anarchism in it either, and agree with it myself. Obviously anarchism is quite diverse, and I'm personally leaning towards autonomist marxism, but perhaps it's not too much to say that this is something all class war revolutionaries can agree upon to be their goal; sexual relations should be a private matter, people should not be able to claim legal rights to each other, and children should not be considered the property of their parents.

This said, as long as we have a capitalist society and marriage is economically beneficial to couples, we shoud thus oppose discrimination against gays in this regard and support equal legal rights for all relations. It doesn't mean that we approve the concept of marriage and would continue it in communism however.

***

Also, alp, could you please reply to my post?

Lector Malibu

11th August 2008, 04:46

I don't see how what I said is homophobic as I never said I feared them or hated them I just don't believe they should be married.
Why is that you're decision to make? What are you basing that on other than what you think traditional religious marriage is?

I'm neutral on civil unions.

There should be no difference. Traditional religious/state recognized marriage should be done away with as there should be a separation of church and state.

There should be a new union that recognizes all orientations.

alp

11th August 2008, 04:58

Why is that you're decision to make? What are you basing that on other than what you think traditional religious marriage is?

Yes my belief is based on the concept of traditional marriage.

Lector Malibu

11th August 2008, 05:30

Yes my belief is based on the concept of traditional marriage.

Let me try this. I'm asking outside of you're belief of traditional religious marriage what's they motivating factor for you to feel justified in deciding what homosexuals can do concerning issues that effect they're lives?

alp

11th August 2008, 05:51

Welcome to Revleft. I have split your post from discrimination, where you posted despite the rules clearly stating that homophobia isn't tolerated on this board -- consider yourself warned. You may post in this forum, Opposing Ideologies, until further notice however. Now prepare to have your arguments destroyed. :)

Why's that? Marriage should be between a man and a women.

Why are homosexuality and bisexuality wrong? That type of sexuality is just for pleasure and serves no real purpose.

Yeah, that you got right -- the sun can shine through a pile of branches, as we say in Finland.

Except it's not about the 'baby' but about the womans right to control her own body and what's in it or not -- bodily autonomy.

Why.

Well if sex was only for procreation there wouldn't be a need for abortions and sex would not be for pleasure.

Sentinel

11th August 2008, 05:56

Well if sex was only for procreation there wouldn't be a need for abortions and sex would not be for pleasure.How does that adress my post? I am asking you to explain why you think homosexuality is wrong, why sex should be only for procretion and why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Stop stating obvious, irrelevant stuff and answer my questions instead, unless you are trolling.

bobroberts

11th August 2008, 06:05

Homosexual couples can raise kids via adoption, and with help from a third party they can procreate. Why wouldn't you want them to be able to get married, if the point of marriage is to create a stable family in which to raise a kid?

Schrödinger's Cat

11th August 2008, 06:28

Yes my belief is based on the concept of traditional marriage.

Please elaborate on what traditional marriage means. Hunter and gatherers? Greek? Rome? All societies make arbitrary distinctions. Let's hear yours.

alp

11th August 2008, 06:39

How does that adress my post? I am asking you to explain why you think homosexuality is wrong, why sex should be only for procretion and why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Stop stating obvious, irrelevant stuff and answer my questions instead, unless you are trolling.

I do not wish to comment because my answers may be seen as trolling. Is it possible to be a communist but disagree on these issues?

Sentinel

11th August 2008, 06:50

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/misc/progress.gif
Is it possible to be a communist but disagree on these issues?Not really. Communism is scientific and materialistic -- unless you can scientifically prove something to be true, it cannot really be associated with communism.

Also, communism is ultimately the theory of the liberation of the entire proletariat, and most gays are proles. On it's height one can be a communism sympathiser in certain aspects, whilst holding unscientific prejudices against workers belonging to minorities.

A communist is above that kind of nonsense, of course. A communist has to always be able to justify his actions before the proletariat as a whole.

Bilan

11th August 2008, 07:39

Well if sex was only for procreation there wouldn't be a need for abortions and sex would not be for pleasure.

Are you, by chance, a virgin?

How can you attempt to justify such a prepostrous position? Who says, and why, is sex only for procreation?

Sex is healthy; it is enjoyable. There's no logical justification for it to be strictly for "procreation", and further, with whom you have sex with (gender, or what not) is irrelevant to anyone beyond the consenting people.

So please, justify your position.

And even sex was only for procreation (if that were even possible), I can tell you now, it would still be enjoyable. ;)

I do not wish to comment because my answers may be seen as trolling. Is it possible to be a communist but disagree on these issues?

You are trolling already. If you wish to engage in a debate on this (Which you clearly do), then present your evidence for your position.

Yes my belief is based on the concept of traditional marriage.

Traditional? As in...Anglo traditional? Islamic traditional? Indigenous traditional? Greek? Roman?

The nuclear family works a lot better than the single parent family in most cases--again in real life. The added stability is crutial to raising a child effectively. So is the additional income and supervision.

Firstly, that's far from the only type of family structure.
Secondly, the "appropriate family structure", whether nuclear or whatever, is a product of socioeconomic relationships - the most suited being characterised by the said system.

The post-60s era represented a drastic shift away from the Nuclear Family, and the rejection of the traditional patriarchal structure in the West.
However, the modern phase of capitalism continued much of the old nature, and so those who rejected the patriarchal structure immediately jumped into an economic situation of isolation.
There is a longing by those who left for a return because of the conflicting nature of different structures, and their inability to coexist.

In summary, the nuclear family requires class (in our terms, capitalism), the absence of the former (in favour of an egalitarian structure) has tended to isolate individuals, and forced heavier work loads on those with less of an income base (i.e. single parents) because of they're being forced to do twice the work.

That's wage labour, thats capitalism; it doesn't prove that a nuclear family is infact, "better". But it proves that the "nuclear family" is suited better (Although, ironically, it breaks it up) the capitalist system.

What you're botchy analysis negates, however, is that the family structure was rejected for a reason, and that jumping back onto the old ship simply returns to the chaos and authoritarian nature of the traditional family structure.
It was rejected by many because of the constraints forced upon children, because of the very nature of the family.

As I said, a two parent family with may be a bit sexist--but that's of minor importance to the raising healthy and well adapted children.

To add to this, I've lived with both. I've lived half my life with a single parent, and the first half with two parents.
I can tell you now, though single parents do it fucking tough, your an absolute cockroach to insult those them because they're struggling; and anyhow, many of which do a fucking fantastic job.

Two parents =/= better adapted.
Prick.

anarchomaniac

11th August 2008, 08:06

Personally I don't believe gays have a right to be married.

Personally, I hope you get shot.

Why not? I mean, I'm bisexual myself (OMG SHOCK)
and i find that really offensive, but then again, anything you do is offensive you worthless scum. Like your opinion is going to change the fact that we're human as well. Go fuck yourself.

Also, being helpful, i must say that you are NOT a communist, and are in fact very confused about your ideology. Go figure yourself out.

</rant>

Sentinel

11th August 2008, 09:23

Let's remember that flaming is not allowed, and is counterproductive. Let's give this new member the benefit of doubt, that he despite his reactionary position on social issues still came here with 'the best intentions' and isn't trolling -- provided he agrees to answer our questions of course.

Alp, this is a discussion forum. A part of the agenda is, that you may not simply assert stuff -- you will have to justify it in debate as well.

As long as you at least try to do this we won't ban you for trolling. We might make a democratic decision to ban you, if you turn out to be a fascist or show to be persistant in similar, extremely reactionary positions however.

But I for one would then at least respect your honesty.

Yazman

11th August 2008, 10:06

And, it's not about "offence"- it's about holding views that are fundamentally reactionary and oppresive. That said, I don't think liberation can be achieved through legal equality,

How else could it be achieved, then? These are socio-cultural phenomena we are talking about here, not political or economic systems. I fail to see any real course that we can take that could effect real change in terms of people's views on social phenomena en masse - unless we start telling people what to think and controlling what they can and cannot view, and do. That is exactly the opposite of what we seek to achieve.

Unfortunately a communist or anarchist society does not guarantee such things will "go away." We do need to work as hard as we can to do away with such things but I would like to know how you propose to do this, if not through legislation.

especially equality to participate in a hetero-patriachal institution like marriage, but I still think that if heteros are allowed to get married, there's no (logical) reason why queer people shouldn't.

A hetero-patriarchal institution? I do not disagree that marriage can be "hetero-patriarchal" but it is not necessarily so, and when it is this is usually due to the influence of religion. Marriage is a ritualised form of union between two people, and it does not necessarily have to be a religious ritual - it can be and commonly is a civic ritual and I see no reason as to what makes it inherently hetero-patriarchal.

Also, communism is ultimately the theory of the liberation of the entire proletariat, and most gays are proles.

I'm sorry man but I can't take this comment serious. Most gays are proles? This has to be one of the most laughable statements i have seen posted on the boards lately.

The Feral Underclass

11th August 2008, 10:23

I put my willy in boys bums and I like it. :blushing:

Invader Zim

11th August 2008, 10:44

Is it possible to be a communist but disagree on these issues?

No.

Lector Malibu

11th August 2008, 11:04

I do not wish to comment because my answers may be seen as trolling. Is it possible to be a communist but disagree on these issues?

Communist are not homophobic as far as I know. They don't seek to govern peoples sexuality. Anarchist don't either. Please explain you're positions. There is a form of trolling that is well doing what your doing now :lol:

Seriously though, Tell me why you think that I should not be allowed to marry if I chose. And why that decision would be wrong.

Sentinel

11th August 2008, 11:14

I'm sorry man but I can't take this comment serious. Most gays are proles? This has to be one of the most laughable statements i have seen posted on the boards lately.Workers constitute a majority of people, therefore most gays are proles. The only thing that is laughable here is your failure to realise this.

Wtf, I'm quite surprised of your reaction to this topic.

Mujer Libre

11th August 2008, 11:24

Workers constitute a majority of people, therefore most gays are proles. The only thing that is laughable here is your failure to realise this.

Wtf, I'm quite surprised of your reaction to this topic.

Indeed. What's the alternative to most gay people being proles- queerness as bourgeois decadence, or some sort of elite "gay mafia" arrangement?

It's clearly nonsense.

Bilan

11th August 2008, 11:28

Unfortunately a communist or anarchist society does not guarantee such things will "go away." We do need to work as hard as we can to do away with such things but I would like to know how you propose to do this, if not through legislation.

Psh. I dont know. Education?

A hetero-patriarchal institution? I do not disagree that marriage can be "hetero-patriarchal" but it is not necessarily so, and when it is this is usually due to the influence of religion. Marriage is a ritualised form of union between two people, and it does not necessarily have to be a religious ritual - it can be and commonly is a civic ritual and I see no reason as to what makes it inherently hetero-patriarchal.

Things you've ignored.
1# Inherently, within a patriachal society, relationships are fundamentally altered by that nature: Patriarchy.
2# Marriage, in most countries, is between two adults of "opposite" genders - Male and Female. It is thus, heterosexual.
3# Institution does not imply "religion"

I'm sorry man but I can't take this comment serious. Most gays are proles? This has to be one of the most laughable statements i have seen posted on the boards lately.

Majority of the population of the world: Proletariat.
Sexuality is not defined by class, it is a natural product of humans.
Logically, the largest portion of a sexuality would be, therefore, in the largest class; that would infact be the proletariat.

Get it?

Djehuti

11th August 2008, 11:43

Personally I don't believe gays have a right to be married.

Personally I don't understand why gays want to be married. I can't understand why gay marriage has become such a big question, for me it is one of the least important gay-liberation questions.

Sure gays should be able to reach the same juridical status as married people, but marriage itself is something sanctioned by priests. Some priests allow it, some don't.

Sentinel

11th August 2008, 11:45

Sure gays should be able to reach the same juridical status as married people, but marriage itself is something sanctioned by priests. Some priests allow it, some don't.Agreed, see my posts in the Discrimination forum thread on Gay marriage which I split this from. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/gay-marriage-t86200/index.html)

InTheMatterOfBoots

11th August 2008, 11:59

I don't think YOU should be telling homosexuals what they should be aspiring toward, I think you should treat homosexual couples just as you would straight couples, being homosexual does not equate to being somehow more socially conscious.

I am not telling anyone to do anything I am expressing an opinion. I would express this very same opinion to a straight couple. Marriage is an outdated, reactionary institution and should be disregarded.

Bud Struggle

11th August 2008, 12:22

Why is that you're decision to make? What are you basing that on other than what you think traditional religious marriage is? Such things aren't an individual's decision--but the decision of society in general. In the United States I believe save one instance gay marriage has been voted down in every state referendum.

There should be no difference. Traditional religious/state recognized marriage should be done away with as there should be a separation of church and state. Then who would wittness the legal contract that goes on in marriage?

There should be a new union that recognizes all orientations. How about each union having its own name, too? Hetero unions would be called "marriages". Homosexual unions would be called something else, etc. all the way down the line. :)

Lector Malibu

11th August 2008, 13:08

Such things aren't an individual's decision--but the decision of society in general. In the United States I believe save one instance gay marriage has been voted down in every state referendum.

And what does that tell you?

Then who would wittness the legal contract that goes on in marriage?Actually as it stands now unless I'm mistaken people do not have to have a legal marriage over seen by a priest. What I'm driving at is taking the church out of marriage. if it needs to not be called marriage because of the religious implications than so be it. However the alternative should be the same for everybody regardless of orientation.

How about each union having its own name, too? Hetero unions would be called "marriages". Homosexual unions would be called something else, etc. all the way down the line. :)Why would it bother you if you and you're wife happened to be married at the same level that I and some other pleasant fellow happened to be? How would our marriage take away from you're marriage ? And why would we need something less than in importance and legal status?

*Yes you could come to my wedding Tom:p

Bud Struggle

11th August 2008, 13:22

And what does that tell you? I'm not disagreeing--I'm just saying that it's a problem. If you want to "impose" some law, well that's a problem and if you want society to "decide" that's a problem, too.

Actually as it stands now unless I'm mistaken people do not have to have a legal marriage over seen by a priest. What I'm driving at is taking the church out of marriage. if it needs to not be called marriage because of the religious implications than so be it. However the alternative should be the same for everybody regardless of orientation. Well, right now the Church is out of marriage if you want it out--and the Church is a big part of marriage if that's what you want--I believe we have the best situation in the way we work marriage today.

Why would it bother you if you and you're wife happened to be married at the same level that I and some other pleasant fellow happened to be? How would our marriage take away from you're marriage ? And why would we need something less than in importance and legal status? No, no, no, not anything more or less--all equal before the state--I just like the idea of different names for the ceremonies, why not?

*Yes you could come to my wedding Tom:p Thank you! You kind of missed mine, but if I had known you then--you certainly (alone with all the rest of revLeft) would have been invitited to it. :))

Labor Shall Rule

11th August 2008, 20:00

The institution of 'marriage' should end - the ideal of the traditional nuclear family is re-enforced by federal assistance programs and special tax privileges that favor the heteosexual married couple over the single-parent, female-centered household. It should be a private matter, in which there are neither winners or losers from getting hitched.

But it's hard to find an American that thinks like that - Christian or not, everybody knows stories from the Bible, and it's simple to find Bible-thumpers on any television set or radio. While many have extramarital affairs, the 'culture war' around them minimizes the wider gay and women's liberation struggle to a matter of simple legalities - this is a strict philosophical debate (i.e. "the Bible says that marriage is something between a man and woman") rather than a up-hill fight for legal equality within the frame-work of the capitalist system.

Bud Struggle

11th August 2008, 22:25

John Lenin

11th August 2008, 22:32

If marriage really is "sacred"

then they should outlaw divorce.

Bud Struggle

11th August 2008, 22:36

If marriage really is "sacred"

then they should outlaw divorce.

And that, of course, is the position of the Catholic Church! :)

Jazzratt

12th August 2008, 00:20

And that, of course, is the position of the Catholic Church! :)

Is it a position you, as a Catholic, support? If so, why? Divorce strikes me as a fairly sensible decision for a lot of marriages.

Bud Struggle

12th August 2008, 01:01

Is it a position you, as a Catholic, support? If so, why? Divorce strikes me as a fairly sensible decision for a lot of marriages.

I personally have no problem with people getting divorced, I was commenting on John Lenin's post that if marriage was sacred that divorce should be outlawed--the Catholic Church believes that marriage is sacred and marriage is outlawed (for Catholics.)

Now as to me personally, as a Catholic I would never get a divorce. But that is how I choose to live my life--I have no interest in telling others how to live theirs.

Socialist18

12th August 2008, 01:19

Being a Bi-sexual I never understood why the GLBT community fights for marriage, all marriage is a stupid idea in my opinion. Marriage is overrated and I feel you don't need a piece of paper to show how much you love someone, you either love them and want to be with them or you don't and paper isn't going to reinforce something thats not there.

Sure, I understand we want as equal rights as heterosexual couples but even heterosexual marriage is a stupid institution. The GLBT community should make its priority for equal rights in every aspect of life in my opinion, we should be treated just like everyone else, not treated different because we are queer!
I feel the GLBT community put to much importance on marriage.

Jazzratt

12th August 2008, 01:25

I personally have no problem with people getting divorced, I was commenting on John Lenin's post that if marriage was sacred that divorce should be outlawed--the Catholic Church believes that marriage is sacred and marriage is outlawed (for Catholics.)

Now as to me personally, as a Catholic I would never get a divorce. But that is how I choose to live my life--I have no interest in telling others how to live theirs.

Oki.

[QUOTE]It is a private matter--just because something receives tax privileges doesn't change it into a public matter. Oil companies receive tax advantages, that doesn't stop them from being private enterprises./QUOTE]

Well, no. By giving tax breaks to a group that can otherwise afford to pay normal taxes (the married, oil companies, the top 1%, whatever) the government is therefore giving tacit approval to them. As the government is supposed to recognise the public, and in the eyes of the voters it does, this makes it impossible to say that any particular government encouraged act (marrying, drilling oil, exploiting workers, whaterver) is entirely a private mater.

Bud Struggle

12th August 2008, 02:14

Well, no. By giving tax breaks to a group that can otherwise afford to pay normal taxes (the married, oil companies, the top 1%, whatever) the government is therefore giving tacit approval to them. As the government is supposed to recognise the public, and in the eyes of the voters it does, this makes it impossible to say that any particular government encouraged act (marrying, drilling oil, exploiting workers, whaterver) is entirely a private mater.

Well, good point. What the government looks to discourage (e.g. cigarette smoking) it taxes. What the government seeks to encourage e.g. marriage or oil drilling) it give relief from taxes. It's the way that government engineers certain behaviors in society that finds favorable or unfavorable.

The government is in favor of "marriage" because it first and foremost creates a stable enviornment for the raising of children. Well behaved children are a MUCH less of an economic drag on society than truant and misbehaving children. Well behaved children study hard, don't get involved with the law, grow up and become productive members of society. They don't "cost" society as much in real dollars and as such get their parents a "tax break."

The lost of some tax revenue is money well spent if the children grow to be productive members of society.

Jazzratt

12th August 2008, 02:40

Well, good point. What the government looks to discourage (e.g. cigarette smoking) it taxes. What the government seeks to encourage e.g. marriage or oil drilling) it give relief from taxes. It's the way that government engineers certain behaviors in society that finds favorable or unfavorable.

Yes, and because a government is nominally sanctioned by its people then anything it does can be said to be a "public" action, meaning that whe it is encouraging or discouraging things (through tax breaks, legislation or anything else) it is making them a "public matter".

The government is in favor of "marriage" because it first and foremost creates a stable enviornment for the raising of children. Well behaved children are a MUCH less of an economic drag on society than truant and misbehaving children. Well behaved children study hard, don't get involved with the law, grow up and become productive members of society. They don't "cost" society as much in real dollars and as such get their parents a "tax break."

The thing is that, as another member pointed out, from a child psychology point of view the nuclear family does not have any actual advantage over a single parent + strong role model arrangement. With this in mind it is obvious that encouraging management is, at best, a very lazy attempt at making children productive adults, but this has never really been the logic behind encouraging marriage - given the patriarchal paradigm it is obvious that encouraging marriage is simply an attempt to secure the judeo-christian patriarchal view of relationships as what is acceptable. It's clearly been working.

The lost of some tax revenue is money well spent if the children grow to be productive members of society.

If you assume that how someone is going to grow up is a result of their material conditions, why do you not accept that how someone is likely to behave during/benefit from a leftist revolution is determined by their material conditions?

Labor Shall Rule

12th August 2008, 07:33

Why is being gay a "sin"?

alp

12th August 2008, 07:39

Bilan

12th August 2008, 09:21

GPDP

12th August 2008, 09:26

This thread = lol

Trystan

12th August 2008, 15:28

Why the fuck would you post an argumentative thread if you're to much of a coward to face up to it?

Or too much of an idiot, perhaps. :lol:

Sentinel

13th August 2008, 00:04

Baconator

13th August 2008, 00:23

Would it be possible to close this thread, as my views are unlikely to change, I'm bad at debating and, my answers to peoples questions probably would be seen as trolling. Also in the future if I'm not banned I'll think before I'll post and if I do post I'll be prepared to justfy it.

Well at least this is some honesty. You're basically saying you don't debate to further knowledge but to just shove your view down people's throats based on selfish whims. But at least you're being honest about it which is a virtue. :thumbup1:

Wish some others can do that here. :rolleyes:

Btw, may I suggest that you don't wed yourself to any conclusions? The whole point of rational debate is to change minds , either yours or the person your debating. No debate can be constructive if there is no agreed upon objective methodology for determining truth from falsehood and logic and empiricism is the only methodology capable of this. I only post on this forum so someone can actually prove me wrong , I want to be proved wrong and have it rubbed in my face. :p But the counter argument has to be logically consistent and empirical or it cannot be considered truth. No one has done so yet but I cross my fingers for the future. :thumbup:

Don't be a slave to conclusions , be a slave to a rational and objective methodology. ;)