File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/97-01-04.073, message 25


Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 03:35:13 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: Dr Sendepause & Klasberries posting again!


Justin Schwartz,

you wrote on 01.01:

>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. 

Please tell us *what* societies, Justin. Wasn't it such where
women were particularly oppressed? Wasn't it particularly
"puritan" societies? Wasn't it societies where the culture also
in other respects was quite rotten? 

One society where male homosexuality was relatively more common
than in some others was 19th century and also (at least early)
20th century Britain, wasn't it? In France the phenomenon used to
be called "la vice anglaise". And at least in certain Arabic
states, which had harems for the big shots, veils for the women
etc, wasn't it the same thing the case there? In those countries
and periods where there was no or little suppression against
that "god old normal" sex between men and women, wasn't buggery
quite rare?

It will survive socialism, and probably be more widespread,
>along with bisexuality, as stupis prejudices and rigid gender ideologies
>collapse in a free society.

Quite on the contrary.

>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. 

No, it's the other way around. It's precisely those societies which *have*
that sick "masculinity"-concept that tend to produce homosexuality. 

>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 

"irrational"?? stigma? Sex has as a well-known by-effect children,
isn't that so? And a society which is well-functioning would want
lots and lots of those, isn't that so? Where would be the "rationality"
of buggery?

>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? 

Please see my other reply under the same subject line, posted
recently: One should look at actions, not persons - who by a
certain propaganda are being given such and such stamps: this one
*is* a "gloom" - sorry, "gay" -, this on *is* a "lesbian" etc.

>MArtens, take your sick prejudices and go home. This is genuinely
>loathsome. You owe all the gays and lesbians

Here you go, calling people that they *are* such-and-such.
This comes from the bourgeois propaganda of the "leading" states
in the present century.

>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  

Some people too say they *are* such-and-and such. This is supported
by the media's propaganda. Most, if not even all, "lesbians" & "gays",
could certainly overcome their fears of men, respectively, of
women, and so undoubtedly have much more fun (for instance). Here,
the *standpoint of society* is important of course. The rotten
bourgeoise *says* to people today: "get gay, stay gay" etc etc,
and "you *are* such and such". It tries to separate the sexes
>from each other, to make men scared of women, women scared of men.
This should be seen, and combated.

Rolf M. 



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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005