File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/97-01-04.073, message 23


Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:36:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-G: Dr Sendepause & Klasberries posting again!



I must have missed Martens' hateful outburst against gay marriages and
homosexusuality as a "negative phenomenon"--frankly I haven't been reading
the list that carefully, since it's gone more or less intellectually
braindead in the month and a half sinxce I signed off to prepare for
exams--but this demands an unequivocal answer. Homophobic bigotry has no
place within ten thousand miles of Marxism. That workers may be homophobic
bigots is no matter: they are often also racists, sexists, and right wing.
These reactionary prejudices are to be combatted with every means at the
disposal of the left. That includes homophobia.

Homosexuality is not a "negative phenomenon." It is an expression of human
love, as such wholly positive. Men and women have loved members of their
own sex since time began; in some societies, in this respect more
civilized than ours, this has been accepted as a normal and natural
activity. It will survive socialism, and probably be more widespread,
along with bisexuality, as stupis prejudices and rigid gender ideologies
collapse in a free society. Our own fear and hatred of same-sex love is
itself a perverted product of a sick concept of masculinity and is tied in
deep ways to racism and right wing politics generally. 

Gays and lesbians deserve the social protections of marriagea s much as
straight people. Countenancing gay marriage is not only necessary to
remove the irrational stigma that society places on same-sex love, it is
also necessary so that gays and lesbians can enjoy the same property and
other rights that straights do. For marriage is more, socially speaking,
than an arrangements licensing certain people to have sex. It covers
property and pension rights, child custody rights (yes, gays and lesbians
can have children, and do), access rights when one partner is sick or
incompetent, and many other things. It is possible, if a gay or lesbian
couple has a smart lawyer, to contract for many of the rights that married
straights get (but not all: not pension, child custody, or access), but
why should taht burden be imposed on people for no other reason that that
they love someone of the same gender?

It's big of Martens to say that he doesn't support victimization of gays
and lesbians. But what is denying them the rights that straights have but
a form of persecution? 

MArtens, take your sick prejudices and go home. This is genuinely
loathsome. You owe all the gays and lesbians on the list an apology and
you need to reconsider your views.

I am, incidentally, straight and married (to a woman): my sister is
lesbian and my children's godparents are gay.

--Justin  
  


> Rolf Martens wrote:
> > One one point again, you, Bob, IMO are wrong and the Klasberries
> > right: You're making propaganda for so-called marriages between
> > homosexuals. This I'm against. I'm also against persecution
> > by law against persons for homosexual actions. But I *concur* with
> > the Klasberries (and Engels, and a great majority of workers) in
> > finding homosexuality to be a very negative phenomenon, which
> > it's no coincidence that the rotten bourgeoisie of today is
> > making massive propaganda for:
> 



> Sorry, I thought this was the marxism list. 
> 
> "So-called" marriages? Is that to distinguish between them and heterosexual 
> marriage? Why? What's so great about marriage ("gathered together in the sight of 
> God...") that you want to restrict it only to people's whose sexuality you approve 
> of? Surely a materialists recognises neither the Church nor the bourgeois state's 
> authority in 'approving' our own relationships. We therefore see no value in 
> "marriage", heterosexual or otherwise. Everything else is moralism.
> 
> Opposition to persecution on the basis of homosexuality, which you claim to 
> support, has to include opposition to denial of rights for lesbians and gay men to 
> live lives in accordance with their views of society. If they wish to be 'married', 
> why do you, Rolf, support the bourgeois state in preventing it? What difference 
> does it make?
> 
> > (Klasber:)
> > >>For the perfidity, which also in the FRG has come out at the most
> > >>various spots and has to be seen as a parallel to the incidents in
> > >>Belgium those have to answer fully who assert that any kind of
> > >>minority, consequently also homosexuals or even pederasts must be
> > >>declared to possess equal rights. What a boundless nonsense!
> 
> But they are entitled to equal rights. The key word is equal. Paedophiles should be 
> entitled to the same rights (fair trial, a living wage, work, etc) as anyone else. 
> They should not be entitled to abuse children - BUT NEITHER SHOULD ANYONE ELSE!
> 
> Are you saying, in supporting the above statement, that having sex with someone of 
> the same gender as yourself should eliminate you from some human rights? Which 
> ones? Should gay men be denied the right to vote, perhaps, or lesbians be forcibly 
> sterilised to prevent them having children? Or maybe we could make it illegal for 
> them to marry...
> 
> > And your statement, Bob, that "workers too prostitute themselves",
> > are "selling their bodies", of course is wrong.
> 
> Of course? But this is elementary marxism - the Communist Manifesto and Capital 
> make endless references to the working class being prostituted by the economic 
> system we live under. Workers sell their bodies every day, every hour, every 
> minute. It is all we have to sell, our labour power.
> 
> >                                                             Lenin's
> > standpoint I'm not so very well acquainted with, but I have
> > certain suspicions that he was wrong on some not unimportant issues.
> > (There was a discussion on M1 about a conflict between him and
> > Kollontay - who did wrong on other issues - on these questions.
> > I didn't take part in it - know too little. But I think it's quite
> > possible that Kollontai was right on *these* things.
> 
> But Kollontai believed that socialism would see a great blossoming of sexual 
> liberation. Hardly in keeping with your moral straitjacket and delight in the joys 
> of bourgeois marriage.
> 
> NickH
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005