The "Gay Agenda"

[money for hunger]

I'm wondering about your thoughts about the so called gay agenda used as justification for denying gay rights?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's utter bullshit. There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it. They're simply projecting their behaviour on others to subconsciously justify their own conduct.

[jake williams]

It's utter bullshit. There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it. They're simply projecting their behaviour on others to subconsciously justify their own conduct.
What are you talking about? Aren't the Gays secretly conspiring to kidnap your children and convert them and America to Gayness?

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's the conspiracism of the Christian fascists. 'Gay' can be easily replaced by feminist, liberal, atheist, satanist. Their entire ideology is based on it.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's a part of the Christian Right Agenda.

[Kassad]

The Christian Right is now reaching a point in which they appear quite similar to the fascist conservatives in countries like Italy. The problem is that most politicians cannot get elected without the support of the church in a lot of areas. The Church is the core of the Republican Party.

Still, this is completely ridiculous. There is no gay agenda, except you know, maybe fighting for equality and respect so they aren't all mistreated like women and African Americans were not too long ago? Fighting for equality in a nation where 'all men are created equal,' unless you're gay.

[The Feral Underclass]

Can someone tell me what this agenda actually consists of?

[Pirate Utopian]

I think it was to get homosexuals on tv and in politics so they could use it to corrupt the youth.
Bullshit like that.

[The Feral Underclass]

For what reason would we want to corrupt "the youth"?

[Pirate Utopian]

I dont know.
Ask them.

[Kassad]

For what reason would we want to corrupt "the youth"?

I think you're missing the point. The LGBT community doesn't go around trying to corrupt the youth to follow in their footsteps, but it is a common argument of the bigoted Christian right and anti-gay communities to claim that allowing homosexuals to spread their "ideology", they will attempt to turn members of the American youth into homosexuals as well, since many of them see it as a recruitment drive. Those who don't understand see it as a game where homosexuals try to "corrupt" people. This was notable, especially during the time of Harvey Milk when the anti-gay equality movements were attempting to get gay teachers out of their jobs, since they believed that the homosexual teachers would attempt to turn their students gay. It's a bigoted, outrageous argument.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you're missing the point.

No. I'm not.


The LGBT community doesn't go around trying to corrupt the youth to follow in their footsteps

Yeah, I'm aware of that.


but it is a common argument of the bigoted Christian right and anti-gay communities to claim that allowing homosexuals to spread their "ideology", they will attempt to turn members of the American youth into homosexuals as well, since many of them see it as a recruitment drive.

Yes, I got that. My question was: Why would we want to do it.

[Kassad]

Yes, I got that. My question was: Why would we want to do it.

Okay, I think I'm losing you. Did someone on here say that or are you trying to figure out why some reactionaries and conservatives believe that you want to corrupt people? If it's the latter, I really don't know. I'm not one of them.

[Pogue]

No. I'm not.



Yeah, I'm aware of that.



Yes, I got that. My question was: Why would we want to do it.

So you can form a Pink Army and march on Washington?

Fuck knows, its fundametalist Christians isn't it, and reactionaries. Like most reactionary idelogies there is a perceived threat from an imagined enemy, used to justify conservativism/strictness. E.g. fascists say we have to be vigilant against 'foreigners', this particular reactionary idelogy says we have to be vigilant against this supposed gay threat. Obviously its bullshit, its not really something that can be logically explained. Being gay is a natural thing (or because you just suddenly decide you find women attractive in place of men one day, etc), a completely personal thing. Obviously homosexuality is also harmless. A threat to no one. But fundies will see it as otherwise in order to justify their existence and authoritarian bent on things. That and they're obsessed with 'sin' and blindly following rules. Fundies accuses homosexuality of being some decadent thing, the irony being that fundies are a decadent lot.

[StalinFanboy]

Can someone tell me what this agenda actually consists of?

The Gay Agenda is

1) Brainwash the youth into being gay

2) Legalize same-sex marriage in order to pave the way for a society that openly accepts pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, and public sex.

3) Collaborate with Communist Islamofascists to bring down the United States.

4) Allow the Devil into public schools.

[Red Robespierre]

It's utter bullshit. There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it. They're simply projecting their behaviour on others to subconsciously justify their own conduct.
This does not correspond to reality. Denying a gay agenda is to deny that homosexuals in the West have organized themselves in support of a campaign to promote their own self interests.

Putting an emphasis on gay rights and other cultural "struggles" shows how impotent and weak the communist movement has become in Western imperialist countries. Western leftist parties focusing on petty issues of "civil rights" in bourgeois society demonstrates how detached they are from the working class as a whole. Essentially, homosexual rights are a non-issue.

[Mujer Libre]

TAT, I think they think teh gays want to make their children gay. Somehow, and for unknown reasons. Oh noes.

Seriously- I think that's what they believe...

[Invincible Summer]

I just don't understand how people can rationalize gay people CHOOSING a life of discrimination just so they can "convert" others into being gay like them. It's pure fantasy.


This does not correspond to reality. Denying a gay agenda is to deny that homosexuals in the West have organized themselves in support of a campaign to promote their own self interests.

Yes, but they're not out to "convert" people into being gay.


Putting an emphasis on gay rights and other cultural "struggles" shows how impotent and weak the communist movement has become in Western imperialist countries. Western leftist parties focusing on petty issues of "civil rights" in bourgeois society demonstrates how detached they are from the working class as a whole. Essentially, homosexual rights are a non-issue.

So you think we should leave them as a discriminated group in society?

[The Feral Underclass]

I want to make ALL of your children gay and have sex with my bum. This is my agenda.

[Red Robespierre]

Yes, but they're not out to "convert" people into being gay.

They're not trying to convert heterosexuals- they're simply playing identity politics to gain bourgeois recognition. This struggle is not my own, and is of no interest to me.



So you think we should leave them as a discriminated group in society?

If not being able to get married is "discrimination," while simultaneously no legal barriers to co-habitation and sodomy are enforced, then the term has pretty much lost all meaning. Besides, outside the Bible belt, homosexuality has an important place in modern bourgeois culture.

[The Feral Underclass]

Western leftist parties focusing on petty issues of "civil rights" in bourgeois society demonstrates how detached they are from the working class as a whole. Essentially, homosexual rights are a non-issue.

What about gay working class people? Social oppression is intrinsically linked to class society. You cannot detach the two issues.


homosexuality has an important place in modern bourgeois culture.What are you trying to imply? Was it the same role it played in Ancient, classic cultures?

[Pogue]

They're not trying to convert heterosexuals- they're simply playing identity politics to gain bourgeois recognition. This struggle is not my own, and is of no interest to me.



If not being able to get married is "discrimination," while simultaneously no legal barriers to co-habitation and sodomy are enforced, then the term has pretty much lost all meaning. Besides, outside the Bible belt, homosexuality has an important place in modern bourgeois culture.

I suspect a homophobe troll.

[money for hunger]

what pisses me off is the right wing christians. They think that just because they push their ideals on everyone, and don't accept alternative lifestyles. the gays, liberals, etc. must also be the same way.
but that is obviously wrong because not everyone try to spread their ideals
I mean shit, you don't see gay missionarys going from house to house trying to convert everybody
but you do see christian ones

I think what we should be worried about is the "Right wing fundalmentalist Christian Agenda" Ha Ha

[peaccenicked]

Identity politics always has a class angle. The media generates fear of other. This
works against class unity as an actuality and potentiality. Let us face it ignorance and fear of homosexuals is a real thing that is a reactionary influence on the working class.
The portrayal of homosexuality and the inclusion of homosexuals in the media is sometimes less than stereotyping but not often. The signifiers seldom match the signified.
Thus creating prejudices. The same is done with the poor who generally appear as criminals. We dont get to see poor gays being bullied at school or signing on, or joining a trade union. Homosexuals are generally portrayed middle class, camp and self effacing comedians. I think they represent a pernicious role model for working class gays as they fetishize frivolity. Role models and bourgeois stamped identities are all pretty pernicious and hide class reality and social oppression.

A genuine gay agenda has to be class based. The majority of gays come from the working class.
The source of all contradictions is class oppression. The working class has no need for fear of other. We have of course to cope with criminals and our criminal rulers.
The class struggle hopes to defeat both of these real threats.
The fear of other outside of this is an ideological weapon of our ruling class against us all

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This does not correspond to reality.

You are an idiot. Did you actually read what I posted?


Denying a gay agenda is to deny that homosexuals in the West have organized themselves in support of a campaign to promote their own self interests.

Had you actually had been paying attention, you would hagve noticed that I said "There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it" - in other words, no the gays don't want to bumrape all our kids while worshipping the Devil.

I did not deny the existance of campaigns for equal rights, only batshit conspiracy theories and moral hysteria.


Putting an emphasis on gay rights and other cultural "struggles" shows how impotent and weak the communist movement has become in Western imperialist countries. Western leftist parties focusing on petty issues of "civil rights" in bourgeois society demonstrates how detached they are from the working class as a whole. Essentially, homosexual rights are a non-issue.

Like fuck they are. :rolleyes:

[Red Robespierre]

"There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it" - in other words, no the gays don't want to bumrape all our kids while worshipping the Devil.Yes, but your generalization of the "gay agenda"as "chickenshit Christians and dubshit conservatives" describe it" is off. Firstly, only a very minor fraction of Christians believe that homosexuals want to rape children. Most, if you've paid any attention to what they have to say, is based in arguments of tradition - and that the gay agenda is inherently contrary to the morals they believe to be true. Secondly, I wasn't talking about merely the campaigns for "equality," but of the broader campaign for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles that is inextricably linked with the campaign for equal recogntion of status under the common law.

For many in the U.S., constitutionality presupposes general acceptance, which many Christians and anti-homosexuals find undesirable. Campaigning for Constitutional rights to marriage, within the bourgeois infrastructure, implies more than merely the right to get a marriage license - but rather is a political acknowledgment of its validity.



I did not deny the existance of campaigns for equal rights, only batshit conspiracy theories and moral hysteria.Yes, and I countered your point that the campaign for equal rights constitutes something broader than mere positive rights from the state, it also implies a cultural and social acceptance of a behavior that many people disagree with. The belief that gays are going to rape little boys and girls is not popularly held amongst most who oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage rights in the the mainstream political discourse.

Moreover, here in California the defeat of Proposition 8 (amendment reversing the state's supreme court decision allowing for gay marriage in the state of California) was largely due to working class minority populations in the Inland Empire and Central Valley. What's left of the American proletariat (at least those not under the agency of the labor aristocracy) was responsible for OVERTURNING gay marriage rights in California. Those reactionary working-class Latino fascists!

Note to administrators: Before you ban or restrict me for defense or apologism for "homophobia," take into consideration that that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely countering what does exist, not what should. NoXion and other's who sensationalize the "intolerance" against homosexuals are guilty of a gross misrepresentation of facts, either by their intentions or accident, that I was merely correcting. I'm not an atheist, I don't espouse conspiracy theories that homosexuals want to rape kids.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, but your generalization of the "gay agenda"as "chickenshit Christians and dubshit conservatives" describe it" is off. Firstly, only a very minor fraction of Christians believe that homosexuals want to rape children.

So what? they're still chickenshits. Plus I find the deafening silence from moderate Christians about the behaviour of their more outspoken fellow believers reveals a certain complicity on their part.


Most, if you've paid any attention to what they have to say, is based in arguments of tradition - and that the gay agenda is inherently contrary to the morals they believe to be true.And that's the "dumbshit conservative" portion of the anti-gay milleu. Tradition is not an argument and their morals are broken, stupid and irrational.


Secondly, I wasn't talking about merely the campaigns for "equality," but of the broader campaign for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles that is inextricably linked with the campaign for equal recogntion of status under the common law. That's what equality means, dumbass.

Also, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a "lifestyle". Homosexuals are driven to form their own communities because of the homophobia of greater society, not because it's something intrinsic to homosexuality.


For many in the U.S., constitutionality presupposes general acceptance, which many Christians and anti-homosexuals find undesirable. Campaigning for Constitutional rights to marriage, within the bourgeois infrastructure, implies more than merely the right to get a marriage license - but rather is a political acknowledgment of its validity. Yes, and? So what if people want to get married?


Yes, and I countered your point that the campaign for equal rights constitutes something broader than mere positive rights from the state, it also implies a cultural and social acceptance of a behavior that many people disagree with. The belief that gays are going to rape little boys and girls is not popularly held amongst most who oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage rights in the the mainstream political discourse.Again, so what? They're still wrong.


Moreover, here in California the defeat of Proposition 8 (amendment reversing the state's supreme court decision allowing for gay marriage in the state of California) was largely due to working class minority populations in the Inland Empire and Central Valley. What's left of the American proletariat (at least those not under the agency of the labor aristocracy) was responsible for OVERTURNING gay marriage rights in California. Those reactionary working-class Latino fascists!It indicates that there is still a great deal of homophobia within society. So no fucking wonder that homosexuals are still seeking tolerance and acceptance.


Note to administrators: Before you ban or restrict me for defense or apologism for "homophobia," take into consideration that that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely countering what does exist, not what should. NoXion and other's who sensationalize the "intolerance" against homosexuals are guilty of a gross misrepresentation of facts, either by their intentions or accident, that I was merely correcting. I'm not an atheist, I don't espouse conspiracy theories that homosexuals want to rape kids.The "homos wanna rape kids" brigade are a symptom of a larger societal problem. Neither the symptom nor the underlying cause of it goes away if you simply ignore the problem.

Any Californians here? Perhaps someone from there can shed light on this.

[Red Robespierre]

Correction:

In my previous post I said:

I'm not an atheist


This was in error, I meant to say I'm NOT a Christian, but an atheist. Mysticism and superstition play no part in my arguments.


That's what equality means, dumbass.
No, it actually doesn't moron. Legal recognition and equality before the law does is not dependent upon acceptance. The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 demonstrates this perfectly.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Yes, I got that. My question was: Why would we want to do it.

Because everything to the christian right is some sort of social version of survival of the fittest. A culture war, waged for the sake of converting everyone to there banner. They have no conception that other people have goals other than winning converts.

Also there conservatives, and thus they fear change. Part of that agenda to them is "destroying" the romanticized past they cling to.


Legalize same-sex marriage, polygamy, and public sex.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I think you're missing the point. The LGBT community doesn't go around trying to corrupt the youth to follow in their footsteps, but it is a common argument of the bigoted Christian right and anti-gay communities to claim that allowing homosexuals to spread their "ideology", they will attempt to turn members of the American youth into homosexuals as well, since many of them see it as a recruitment drive. Those who don't understand see it as a game where homosexuals try to "corrupt" people. This was notable, especially during the time of Harvey Milk when the anti-gay equality movements were attempting to get gay teachers out of their jobs, since they believed that the homosexual teachers would attempt to turn their students gay. It's a bigoted, outrageous argument.

Red Robespierre began this argument and I'd like to give him (her?) my support. This statement is mystification of the extreme. Kassad, your response is not an answer. It begs the question, why would any of these arguments have traction? "I don't know I'm not a bigoted Christian" above all shows a failure of your analysis. As a Marxist, that's not good enough. We need to do better.

There is obviously a gay agenda. The gay agenda is to use various legal, social, and political forces to disintegrate traditional institutions that give people's lives meaning. Elites in the media and political arena are using their clout to remove all possibility of holding on to even the possibility of keeping certain institutions under control. Gays aren't asking for equal rights, they're asking for special privileges. Moreover, the cultural values that people have previously shared will be mitigated by this future where "everything solid melts into air." They, rightly, feel that their very way of life is under siege.

What is this? it should be obvious. This is capitalism. The Gay Agenda is a displaced resistance to capitalism. People see their social institutions disintegrating and they fight for something, anything, to which they may hold. What could that be? Marxism? Communism? Anarchism? Maybe in Europe, but these movements offer almost nothing to these people in United States.

Our response should be clear. No war but class war. This includes the culture war. We must not be drawn into it regardless of what our sensibilities tell us. At least in one respect, the right wing Christians are right. Gays are fighting for special rights because marriage is above all a special economic and legal right. It's a special right for heterosexual couples, it's a special right for homosexual couples. We should not be fighting for special rights, only for equal rights. Let us limit our analysis only to the case of health care.

Gay marriage does absolutely nothing for the gay couple too poor to afford health care. They only gain the legal right to share what they never had. However, if we insure everyone without exception has free and open health care then one of the very sticking points of gay marriage (sharing health care) becomes a non-issue. I believe we must, in principle, articulate all of these "cultural" issues as class issues. It's no long enough for us to blame the working class for their own stupidity. We must show how the stupidity of our analysis has failed them.

No war but class war.

[Red Robespierre]

So no fucking wonder that homosexuals are still seeking tolerance and acceptance.

The point is, even when the law recognizes a homosexual's right to marry, it doesn't mean that people will (or should) show acceptance. They can be legally prohibited from beating up someone for being gay or dragging them behind the back of their car -- but that's a very far removed from approving of or liking their behavior.


Tradition is not an argument and their morals are broken, stupid and irrational.

True, appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy. But, so is the argument that homosexual marriage should be sanctioned by the state when it appeals to emotion (i.e. civil rights, fairness, freedom, justice and equality). This isn't logic, it's propaganda aimed at provoking an emotional response.

Both sides are guilty of this. The real fact of the matter is, that terms such as "equality, freedom, justice, fairness etc." don't have real meanings - they are fundamentally egalitarian idealism. But then again, homosexual marriage is not a class issue, it's self-interested identity politics.



Also, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a "lifestyle". Homosexuals are driven to form their own communities because of the homophobia of greater society, not because it's something intrinsic to homosexuality.

It's both. Homosexuals have carved out a lifestyle, cultural expression and traditions amongst themselves that can be accurately described as a "lifestyle."


It indicates that there is still a great deal of homophobia within society. So no fucking wonder that homosexuals are still seeking tolerance and acceptance.

This is the petty-bourgeois liberalism that starkly distinguishes the culturally-oriented "New Left" from the class-oriented "old left." Homosexual rights in bourgeois society don't add to the development of a class-conscious proletariat and they don't weaken global capitalism. In fact, all they do is extend a few petty rights to a minority group. And what does this have to do with Marxism again?

[Black Dagger]

I want to make ALL of your children gay and have sex with my bum. This is my agenda.

Yup, you nailed 'the gay agenda' ;)

[Black Dagger]

There is obviously a gay agenda. The gay agenda is to use various legal, social, and political forces to disintegrate traditional institutions that give people's lives meaning. Elites in the media and political arena are using their clout to remove all possibility of holding on to even the possibility of keeping certain institutions under control.

Is your post meant to be sarcastic? I really hope so.

There is no 'gay agenda' in the same way there is no 'jewish agenda' or 'heterosexual agenda' - it's completely reactionary to assert that gay folks have a unitary 'agenda' - this implies some kind of 'gay conspiracy'. There is no global council of gay folks drawing up agendas, get a grip.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt - i really think you need to look over what you've just said here and decide whether this is really what you think - really, there's a 'gay agenda'? You understand what this phrase implies and how it is used elsewhere?



Gays aren't asking for equal rights, they're asking for special privileges.

What are you talking about? Reading your later statements it seems you're talking about the special privilege of 'marriage' - firstly, 'gay rights' is not just a marriage issue - second your phrasing here is again horrible and misleading. You make it sound as if gay folks are the enemy when all gay-marriage activists want is equality with heterosexual couples (who all have access to marriage). That married couples are affored special privileges not extended to de facto couples in some areas (this is changing constantly) doesn't negate the fact that same-sex marriage laws etc. are clearly about legal parity (that is equal rights) between same-sex and hetero couples (the latter have access to special legal relationships denied to the former). The people you should be attacking for 'special privileges' are hetero folks! Any 'special privilege' for a gay person is already default for heteros, whether they're married or not (as heteros can marry whenever they want to attain this 'privilege').


At least in one respect, the right wing Christians are right. Gays are fighting for special rights because marriage is above all a special economic and legal right.

How does that make christians right about gay folks? The christian right is not making an argument even remotely similar to yours, you really are going to great lengths to make your position as unpalatable as possible. It's a simple point really, and one i've articulated dozens of times on this board. Equality for all social relationships - no privileging of monogamous couples (married folks) - this argument can be made without the ambiguity and pseudo homophobia you have trotted out here. You really need to re-think how you frame your arguments - you have a point i agree with buried in here, but it's a horrible mission to find it.

[Black Dagger]

Homosexuals have carved out a lifestyle, cultural expression and traditions amongst themselves that can be accurately described as a "lifestyle."

I disagree. You're essentialising gay folks - there is no thing that you can point to and say 'this is the gay lifestyle' - it's a myth developed by the religious right and adopted wholesale by the communist right. There is no way you can explain this concept without locating it within grotesque stereotypes or by homogenising gay people generally. This is the same line right communists have been pedalling for decades, unfortunately their social analysis has not advanced since then and will never advance - it can't - it's a backwards-thinking ideology which draws inspiration for social ideas from dead conservative dictators.

[Black Dagger]

P.S. Red Robespierre is the banned anti-semite (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1261331&postcount=2) Berianidze... banned again.

Another high calibre poster courtesy of the Hoxhaist Union :closedeyes:

[CHEHATEDGAYS]

I wonder if the homophobia that went on in Cuba, was left out of the new Che film?? In fact a lot of it still goes on to this day with the HIV infected.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

It's utter bullshit. There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it. They're simply projecting their behaviour on others to subconsciously justify their own conduct.


What are you talking about? Aren't the Gays secretly conspiring to kidnap your children and convert them and America to Gayness?


It's the conspiracism of the Christian fascists. 'Gay' can be easily replaced by feminist, liberal, atheist, satanist. Their entire ideology is based on it.


It's a part of the Christian Right Agenda.


Can someone tell me what this agenda actually consists of?


I think it was to get homosexuals on tv and in politics so they could use it to corrupt the youth.
Bullshit like that.


I dont know.
Ask them.


Those who don't understand see it as a game where homosexuals try to "corrupt" people. It's a bigoted, outrageous argument.


Yes, I got that. My question was: Why would we want to do it.


Okay, I think I'm losing you. Did someone on here say that or are you trying to figure out why some reactionaries and conservatives believe that you want to corrupt people? If it's the latter, I really don't know. I'm not one of them.


So you can form a Pink Army and march on Washington?

Fuck knows, its fundametalist Christians isn't it, and reactionaries. Like most reactionary idelogies there is a perceived threat from an imagined enemy, used to justify conservativism/strictness. E.g. fascists say we have to be vigilant against 'foreigners', this particular reactionary idelogy says we have to be vigilant against this supposed gay threat. Obviously its bullshit, its not really something that can be logically explained. Being gay is a natural thing (or because you just suddenly decide you find women attractive in place of men one day, etc), a completely personal thing. Obviously homosexuality is also harmless. A threat to no one. But fundies will see it as otherwise in order to justify their existence and authoritarian bent on things. That and they're obsessed with 'sin' and blindly following rules. Fundies accuses homosexuality of being some decadent thing, the irony being that fundies are a decadent lot.


The Gay Agenda is

1) Brainwash the youth into being gay

2) Legalize same-sex marriage in order to pave the way for a society that openly accepts pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, and public sex.

3) Collaborate with Communist Islamofascists to bring down the United States.

4) Allow the Devil into public schools.


TAT, I think they think teh gays want to make their children gay. Somehow, and for unknown reasons. Oh noes.

Seriously- I think that's what they believe...


I just don't understand how people can rationalize gay people CHOOSING a life of discrimination just so they can "convert" others into being gay like them. It's pure fantasy.

[quote=The Anarchist Tension;1339698]I want to make ALL of your children gay and have sex with my bum. This is my agenda.


Had you actually had been paying attention, you would hagve noticed that I said "There is no such thing as the "Gay Agenda" as chickenshit Christians and dumbshit conservatives describe it" - in other words, no the gays don't want to bumrape all our kids while worshipping the Devil.

I did not deny the existance of campaigns for equal rights, only batshit conspiracy theories and moral hysteria.

I'd say only a few of these posts have the wrong analysis. The vast majority of these posts don't have any analysis at all. "Why do right wingers hate gays? Because they're stupid" is not an answer. If what's going on here is a mastubatory exercise in self-congratulations on being so smart, that's a fine answer. However, if we're looking to give a revolutionary leftist position that presumable leads to a revolutionary situation or society that's worse than no answer at all. So I think we need to start with the basic assumption that with the possible exception of RR nothing has really been said besides "we're smart and they're stupid." This is pure mystification.


There is no 'gay agenda' in the same way there is no 'jewish agenda' or 'heterosexual agenda' - it's completely reactionary to assert that gay folks have a unitary 'agenda' - this implies some kind of 'gay conspiracy'. There is no global council of gay folks drawing up agendas, get a grip.

I'd refer you to Marx's On the Jewish Question. In the second half, he says that Jews are greedy, selfish, obsessed with money, and only religious in-so-far as a Jew can continue to make money. However, we're all Jews now.

The easy way to interpret this is that Marx is anti-semitic and we should simply ignore this work in favor of his better works. The more relevant point is that the externalization of certain qualities (obsessed with money, selfishness, greed) are really systemic features of our society. The left will continue to flounder and misidentify the true context of the problem if we keep fighting the wrong battles.


I want to give you the benefit of the doubt - i really think you need to look over what you've just said here and decide whether this is really what you think - really, there's a 'gay agenda'? You understand what this phrase implies and how it is used elsewhere?
Do you understand what this phrase implies? Are you saying that it doesn't have it's on ideological efficacy? Do you think any question of equal rights can be completed with out in some way responding to the "gay agenda?" If you accept the question of gay rights you must either accept gay rights or negate gay rights. I negate the question of gay rights. I reject any notions of gay rights. Rights must either be universal or not at all. Any notion of gay rights, black rights, or minority rights (in a strong substantive sense) are generally wrong headed and unhelpful.


What are you talking about? Reading your later statements it seems you're talking about the special privilege of 'marriage' - firstly, 'gay rights' is not just a marriage issue - second your phrasing here is again horrible and misleading. You make it sound as if gay folks are the enemy when all gay-marriage activists want is equality with heterosexual couples (who all have access to marriage). That married couples are affored special privileges not extended to de facto couples in some areas (this is changing constantly) doesn't negate the fact that same-sex marriage laws etc. are clearly about legal parity (that is equal rights) between same-sex and hetero couples (the latter have access to special legal relationships denied to the former). The people you should be attacking for 'special privileges' are hetero folks! Any 'special privilege' for a gay person is already default for heteros, whether they're married or not (as heteros can marry whenever they want to attain this 'privilege').

Sure same sex laws about legal parity? What sort of legal system do we have? What does our legal system protect? What is the essense of our legal system? Why, that would be capitalism. You're absolutely right. Marriage understood as an economic and legal institution is a special privilege that heterosexual couples get by default. What did I say about special privilages? No special privilages. For anyone. Period. Ever.


How does that make christians right about gay folks? The christian right is not making an argument even remotely similar to yours, you really are going to great lengths to make your position as unpalatable as possible. It's a simple point really, and one i've articulated dozens of times on this board. Equality for all social relationships - no privileging of monogamous couples (married folks) - this argument can be made without the ambiguity and pseudo homophobia you have trotted out here. You really need to re-think how you frame your arguments - you have a point i agree with buried in here, but it's a horrible mission to find it.

Actually, the christian right makes argument pretty close to the arguments I'm making, they just don't understand why they make them. The gay agenda makes perfect sense if you imagine how you would discribe the world if you didn't have recourse to a critique of capitalism. The "pseudo homophobia" as you put it is necessary. The left is generally smug and self-satisfied with itself and its intellegence over those stupid conservatives. Well, at least in the United States, that's why we keep loosing. Faith in the people is necessary, and not some virtual idealized people we have nothing. We need to rearticulate the right religious and right populist agenda with it's true message of anti-capitalism.


Communist have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.



They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

[gorillafuck]

The Christian Right will call anything they don't like an "agenda" to make it sound like a conspiracy.

That's it.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The Christian Right will call anything they don't like an "agenda" to make it sound like a conspiracy.

That's it.
Ok, this might not seem clear, but this is not an answer. Why do they want to "make it sound like a conspiracy?" Also, why don't they like it? Etc etc.

[Black Dagger]

Rights must either be universal or not at all. Any notion of gay rights, black rights, or minority rights (in a strong substantive sense) are generally wrong headed and unhelpful.

I disagree. I think you're mischaracterising of 'minority rights' - which are not about as you argue - to award 'special privileges' to 'minorities' (which is a right-wing argument) but the opposite - to create parity between the rights enjoyed by the majority and those of the minority. As with 'gay rights' (if we go with you argument which reduces these rights to marriage) which do not afford special privileges on gay people but rather are an attempt to make 'marriage rights' universal. You could argue that non-married heterosexuals do not enjoy these 'privileges' but the point is they can attain these whenever they want - prior to legislative change - access to this 'right' was denied to gay folks.

Marriage is a bad example though, as i agree that no relationship type should be afforded special legislated advantages denied to others - such as de factos etc.


Actually, the christian right makes argument pretty close to the arguments I'm making, they just don't understand why they make them.

In what ways are your arguments similar? And in what ways are they different?



The gay agenda makes perfect sense if you imagine how you would discribe the world if you didn't have recourse to a critique of capitalism.

Please explain this.

As i have said - i think the idea of a 'gay agenda' is flawed - and that is without referencing a critique of capitalism. The phrase implies that on some level there is a conscious agenda put forth by gay people - that is accepted by gay people and thus representative of their desires. The whole concept involves astronomical levels of essentialisation/homogenisation of gay folks and 'their interests'. You've also completely ignored the fact that there concept itself is laden with homophobic baggage - as it is an invention of the religious right who use the concept of a 'gay agenda' to essentially attack and marginalise gay people. I don't understand why you talk about this concept so uncritically - ignoring its actual usage.



The "pseudo homophobia" as you put it is necessary.

How so?


Faith in the people is necessary

I'm not a big fan of 'faith' - what do you mean by this sentence? What does it mean in practice? Populist rhetoric?


We need to rearticulate the right religious and right populist agenda with it's true message of anti-capitalism.


Huh? Why do we 'need' to do that? Trojan communism?

This doesn't make any sense - it's just... like how did you come up with this? The 'true message' (what does that even mean?) of right-wing conservatives is anti-capitalism... okay.

Right wing conservatives have got it right on social issues but don't adequately link their argument to a critique of capitalism? Is that what you're saying?

Why do we need to rearticulate rightwing and populist arguments? Why not, argue from the left? I don't undestand your fascination with showering love on right wing conservatives, like they try hard or mean well - they just don't quite get there :huh:

Essentially, I don't understand why you feel the need to explain your points of view from within a right-wing framework (the 'gay agenda') and why you are determined to rehabilitate rightwing rhetoric (especially 'populism') generally - it doesn't add up and you haven't given any reason for it - despite the huge importance you seem to place on it.

Are you christian?

Did you use to be Right-wing?

Why not use leftwing, i.e. communist viewpoints as the starting point - if you think they are flawed rehabilitate them.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I disagree. I think you're mischaracterising of 'minority rights' - which are not about as you argue - to award 'special privileges' to 'minorities' (which is a right-wing argument) but the opposite - to create parity between the rights enjoyed by the majority and those of the minority. As with 'gay rights' (if we go with you argument which reduces these rights to marriage) which do not afford special privileges on gay people but rather are an attempt to make 'marriage rights' universal. You could argue that non-married heterosexuals do not enjoy these 'privileges' but the point is they can attain these whenever they want - prior to legislative change - access to this 'right' was denied to gay folks.
Let me put it in a properly Rousseauian way. One is arguing for minority (or more properly factional) rights when one argues for the form "Group X should have right A for justification H." Alternatively, one can argue "All should have right A because H." Gay rights currently focus on gays getting rights, ostensibly. But what rights are they fighting for? I'd like to know which rights gays fight for that doen't have the structure of "Gays should have right A because heterosexuals have that right." Marriage is the focus for most gay rights since the most number of priviliages follow from it sharing property, sharing health care, and sharing general household (in an economic sense) burdens.

Let us take the aspect of healthcare in marriage. If one fights for the gay right to marriage so that others may share health care the assertion goes like this "Gays(x) should have the right to share health care (A) because heterosexual couples can (h)." Although they never articulate it well the right wing conservatives scream gays are fighting for a special privilage. This is why, because the assertion has this form. Arguing for gay rights as such is only an argument for privilage. Also, you'll notice the only group affected by this "right" would be gay (one faction) couples (another faction) rich enough to get health care (the final faction). In each case, this is not a universal struggle. Thus, I reject it.

The properly revolutionary argument should be "All should have access to health care because it is a basic human right." You'll notice gay and couple are included in this struggle since "all" includes them. I view anything less as either misguided or reactionary.


Marriage is a bad example though, as i agree that no relationship type should be afforded special legislated advantages denied to others - such as de factos etc.
Well, I'd like to know other gay rights. Anti-Sodomy laws are bullshit and they in principle apply to heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples. So unless all heterosexual couples are willing to give up anal, oral, and anything else these should simply be stricken from soceity. They have no place.


In what ways are your arguments similar? And in what ways are they different?
I agree that the argument for gay rights is in principle an argument for special privilage. However, I disagree with them because I view most heterosexual "rights" as special privilages.


Please explain this. We need to actually understand what is being said, and we need to explain why it's being said. Until we understand the notion of "special privilage" which is inherent to any argument about gay marriage, no work can be done. The language used is important. That's why they use it. That's why it gets repeated all over the place by everyone opposed to gay marriage. If you strip it of both its manifest and its latent content it will remain, as it was to many previous posters, inexplicible. We've passed a point where we can leave things unexplained.


As i have said - i think the idea of a 'gay agenda' is flawed - and that is without referencing a critique of capitalism. The phrase implies that on some level there is a conscious agenda put forth by gay people - that is accepted by gay people and thus representative of their desires. The whole concept involves astronomical levels of essentialisation/homogenisation of gay folks and 'their interests'. You've also completely ignored the fact that there concept itself is laden with homophobic baggage - as it is an invention of the religious right who use the concept of a 'gay agenda' to essentially attack and marginalise gay people. I don't understand why you talk about this concept so uncritically - ignoring its actual usage.
I'm going to use Hegelian Logic and Marx's On the Jewish Question to answer this. Hegel belives there's two types of negation. There's the negation of the empty universal which leads to a spurious infinity and there's a concrete negation which sublates the problem and directs the mind to a new situation. I hope these are explained by the example.

In Marx's time many Jews were seen as greedy and obsessed with money. Marx did not point out how that no, in fact, Jews aren't greedy and obsessed with money. Because wehere does that lead? "Yes they are." "No they aren't." "Yes they are." Instead Marx asserted that indeed the jews were like that, but negated the entire problematic entirely by saying, "We're all jews now!"

Only by negating the problem as such can a true solution be found. When you say I'm deeply essentializing gays you are missing the point all together. I know very well no two gay people let alone do they agree about what being homosexual means, but we must assert the gay agenda to negate the problem of homosexuality as such. Of course there is a gay agenda, it can be found in every board room, stock deal, and manangerial decision because the gay agenda is nothing but the empty object that stands in for capitalism to those who do not have a critical understanding of capitalism. We must assume the position of the gay agenda to negate it as such. This is why I made clear to state, "No war but class war." We can not be drawn into this struggle in this fashion unless we have a clear picture of a way out (determinate negation).



How so? I hope I've made this clear by now. If not ask again and I'll do my best approaching it from another avenue.


I'm not a big fan of 'faith' - what do you mean by this sentence? What does it mean in practice? Populist rhetoric? I'm sorry you're not a big fan of faith. Only atheist and communist still have it in any real sense. What my faith in the people means is that they are ideologically revolutionary. I mean this in the marxian sense, "they do it, but they don't know they do it." The people are hungry to smash the institutions of elitism and capitalism, but they don't know how to do it. Or rather, they don't know who their true enemy is. So they attack those who seem to have the form of the oppression they experience day in and day out. I have faith that if we assume the mantel of the people, that is to say articulate their latent desires manifestly. If we point out it's not a poor gay black couple that has the "gay agenda" but the CEOs of every major corporation, they well awake from the dreamlike mystification they have been subject to and arise as the revolutionary subjects they truely are. It's a humble faith, but it's mine.



Huh? Why do we 'need' to do that? Trojan communism? I hope I've answered this by now. Ask again if not.


This doesn't make any sense - it's just... like how did you come up with this? The 'true message' (what does that even mean?) of right-wing conservatives is anti-capitalism... okay.

Right wing conservatives have got it right on social issues but don't adequately link their argument to a critique of capitalism? Is that what you're saying?

Why do we need to rearticulate rightwing and populist arguments? Why not, argue from the left? I don't undestand your fascination with showering love on right wing conservatives, like they try hard or mean well - they just don't quite get there :huh:
I, at least, am a Marxist. Marx pointed out
A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So too does the right wing populist rhetoric appear as a very trivial thing and easily understood. However, we need to really understand the underlying ideological structure in order to even begin addressing the true problems. Anything less concedes defeat to capitalism, but we're going to win. It's a humble faith, but it's mine.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'd refer you to Marx's On the Jewish Question. In the second half, he says that Jews are greedy, selfish, obsessed with money, and only religious in-so-far as a Jew can continue to make money. However, we're all Jews now.
Um, that text was anti-anti-Jewish, and anti-capitalist. I mean, just to clarify, it seems that you knew that.


In Marx's time many Jews were seen as greedy and obsessed with money.
Exactly. In modern times, however, they aren't, so 'On the Jewish Question' loses its sense, that is, as an extended pun using the 'economic Jew' stereotype to attack capitalism, while defending Jews against anti-Semites. Of course, this, unfortunately, means that it can be exploited in modern times to portray Marx as anti-Semitic.


I mean this in the marxian sense, "they do it, but they don't know they do it." The people are hungry to smash the institutions of elitism and capitalism, but they don't know how to do it.
Wouldn't that be more in the Bakuninist unverifiable sense?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Um, that text was anti-anti-Jewish, and anti-capitalist.

Exactly. In modern times, however, they aren't, so 'On the Jewish Question' loses its sense, that is, as an extended pun using the 'economic Jew' stereotype to attack capitalism, while defending Jews against anti-Semites. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Wasn't that my point?



Wouldn't that be more in the Bakuninist unverifiable sense?
Actually, my translation is a bit off
Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. This is the essence of ideology. If this sort of ideology isn't Marxist I'd like to know how it isn't. It might be Bakuninist, but I have no idea if it is since I'm not interested in Bakunin.

[Circle E Society]

The gay agenda argument is comparable to the white power anti Zionist arguement.
"The jews and their banks are taking over the world"="The gays are making our kids like buttsex with other men"
In short its utter right wing bullshit.

Although I dont feel as though the rich white males and females in the media who are queer are good spokespeople for the queer community but that has nothing to do with the "gay agenda".

[Invincible Summer]

Arguing for gay rights as such is only an argument for privilage. Also, you'll notice the only group affected by this "right" would be gay (one faction) couples (another faction) rich enough to get health care (the final faction). In each case, this is not a universal struggle. Thus, I reject it.

I understand your concern over universal demands, but at the same time you don't seem to grasp that gays are not requesting "special privileges," but a right that everyone else in society has. Nothing is "special" about this demand.

With your argument, you'd agree if I said that when women did not have the right to vote (or any rights for that matter), their demands were "reactionary," simply because it was not a universal demand? That the Women's Rights movement was reactionary?

While I agree that revolutionaries should make demands that are aimed at providing equal services/rights/etc to all members of society, I think it's simply foolish and almost hypocritical to denounce a group's demand for equality, regardless if it's reformist or not.



The properly revolutionary argument should be "All should have access to health care because it is a basic human right." You'll notice gay and couple are included in this struggle since "all" includes them. I view anything less as either misguided or reactionary.

You're accusing the rest of us of being smug and self-congratulatory, yet you're telling the rest of us what the "proper revolutionary argument" should be? Lordy lordy! :huh: Besides, you're just arguing over semantics.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I understand your concern over universal demands, but at the same time you don't seem to grasp that gays are not requesting "special privileges," but a right that everyone else in society has. Nothing is "special" about this demand. Really? So everyone everywhere at all times has the right to special economic and legal protections such as shared property, health insurance, and identity status? Marriage itself is a special privilage. That much should be clear.



With your argument, you'd agree if I said that when women did not have the right to vote (or any rights for that matter), their demands were "reactionary," simply because it was not a universal demand? That the Women's Rights movement was reactionary?

While I agree that revolutionaries should make demands that are aimed at providing equal services/rights/etc to all members of society, I think it's simply foolish and almost hypocritical to denounce a group's demand for equality, regardless if it's reformist or not.

The women's right movement at least in the United States after the turn of the century 1900-1930 was reactionary. They simply fought for white women to get the vote with no concerns whatsoever about any other disenfranchised group (blacks, mexicans, the poor, immigrants, etc). I this case, I don't think we should view it as a positive movement. Especially, since ultimately it only served to support entrenched white power.

If the demands are not universal, they simply aid the functioning of Capital.



You're accusing the rest of us of being smug and self-congratulatory, yet you're telling the rest of us what the "proper revolutionary argument" should be? Lordy lordy! :huh: Besides, you're just arguing over semantics.
That's right. When the same set of tactics has been tried for the last fourty years at least and it keeps failing, it seems like it's time for some new tactics. People who aren't willing to try new tactics because either they're committed to the old ones or the old tactics give them a feeling of moral superiority then I'm going to point it out.

Yep, I'm arguing over semantics. Now tell me anything conceptually in human existence doesn't exist primarily in language. The argument over language is the argument over the thing in itself. The argument over capitalist "justice" and communist justice is ultimately a matter of semantics as well. In one set of meaning, Justice means "Fuck over anyone as long as you can get them to sign a contract." The other justice means "All human beings granted equal freedom and dignity."

[Rosa Provokateur]

Trust me boys and girls, as a queen I can say that we're not organized enough to have an "agenda". Dont let the pride rallies fool you. We're about as organized as any other community and just as diverse... to diverse to make nation-wide plots anyhow. Case-in-point: my boyfriend is a Republican.

[GPDP]

Trust me boys and girls, as a queen I can say that we're not organized enough to have an "agenda". Dont let the pride rallies fool you. We're about as organized as any other community and just as diverse... to diverse to make nation-wide plots anyhow. Case-in-point: my boyfriend is a Republican.

Not to be nosy or anything, but... how does THAT work out?

[kiki75]

Now tell me anything conceptually in human existence doesn't exist primarily in language. The argument over language is the argument over the thing in itself.
I agree. The "you're just arguing semantics" angle has no bite, b/c...we're using words, we're communicating. If semantics are not important, why speak to one another? Since we are social animals, we must take language seriously. (Lord knows, everyone trying to manipulate us does.)

I have a question about this, tho:

The other justice means "All human beings granted equal freedom and dignity."
If that's communism, what path/ideology would define justice as "All human beings are inherently free and dignified and we are choosing to honor that"?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I have a question about this, tho:

If that's communism, what path/ideology would define justice as "All human beings are inherently free and dignified and we are choosing to honor that"?
Here's the problem. I don't think any sort of human essentialism helps us in our struggles. I hold that what constitutes a "human being" has varied through historical epoch to epoch. Rather than holding that we're progressing as such, or that we're gaining a synthesis, we should realize every "natural right" exists only as the product of a struggle.

Also, the recognition of "human" as such is problematic. I take the problem of relativism seriously and as such, what counts as "human" along with the rights it entails in the dusty streets Baghdad remains fundamentally incommensurable with the "human" experience of Greenwich Village in New York. In this case, I hope my apparent fixation with a universal right seems more understandable. Even fighting for human rights is to particular. Only universal demands can transcend the limits of the particular human experience.

Ergo, there can be no recognition of the human as such. Only the struggle for what is human remains.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Not to be nosy or anything, but... how does THAT work out?
Works out pretty well... just goes to show theres more to love than politics. We go to the same church and he asked me out to a movie, one thing lead to another and I fell head over heels for him. He's really more of a libertarian than anything but officially he's a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the Republican Party. I dont care though. I think he's worth it;) lol

[Rascolnikova]

If the demands are not universal, they simply aid the functioning of Capital.


Can you defend this?

What's to say groups can't each gain the rights presently afforded to the mainstream until all of them have?



Also--

I get why you are arguing for marriage as a special right, because that's how it's presently practiced. However, can you elaborate the case that there ought to be no differences in legal status between individuals when they legally bind themselves into a committed relationship? What about, say, medical power of attorney?

[Ephydriad]

At last. I got hold of it. You know. “The Gay Agenda”. Now we got them. And I am going to give away all their dirty little secrets. Warning: You will not be the same once you have read this. Be afraid. Be very afraid…

Run! Hide! Put make-up on!

Run! Hide! Put make-up on!

The Gay Agenda by Steph Mineart

6:00 am Gym

8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)

9:00 am Hair appointment

10:00 am Shopping

12:00 pm Brunch

2:00 pm
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters and our military men to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Bulldoze all houses of worship or convert their leaders into Gaydom, and
5) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 pm Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest

4:00 pm Cocktails

6:00 pm Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)

8:00 pm Theater

11:00 pm Bed (du jour)

There you have it. Go lock the door now! Or just run. Run, run, run! And don’t look back!

:thumbup1: