Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 05:53:01 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: M-G: Dr Sendepause & Klasberries posting again!


Justin - and Nick, Kate and Bob too -
I think I'll make a "re-reply" to all of you (who wrote on
31.12 or 01.01) at the same time.

*The* point where we disagree is: The present project by some
bourgeois states to introduce (or their already having introduced)
"same-sex marriages." 

(And you Justin say homosexuality is *not* a very negative 
phenomenon; I say it *is* and that it has to do with present-day 
society's making some men scared of women & vice versa. But the 
law thing is the main point.)

I on my part want neither church nor state to think it should
have any say on whom (what adult[s]) I make love to, or when.
Others engage in marriage (1 man - 1 woman marriage, I mean) for 
various reasons. Things being as they are, I'm not making any 
propaganda for them to desist from that. You probably don't intend 
to attack me because of these two standpoints of mine.

But in particular you, Justin, thought my standpoint on that
"new kind" of marriage was so awful that I

>owe all the gays and lesbians on the list an apology.

Those purportedly existing people "wouldn't be allowed equal rights",
in their (real or imagined) capacity as such, I believe you argued,
if my standpoint on marriages were to hold sway.

In your opinion, the state should introduce the option for Adam
of marrying Bert, and for Eve of marrying Felicia.

But if the state is to introduce "equal rights" to "sex minority
groups", shouldn't it then start making rules whereby Adam, should
he want to, could marry his mother Ginger or his sister Helen, or
for that matter both of them? How about "the rights of those
interested in incest"? (I don't know precisely how harmful, or
not, incest is. Animal raisers use it, I believe, to a certain
extent; some say that it's bad if done over a longer series of
generations - of various animals, I mean.)

And that kind of marriages whereby Adam and Bert could both be
married to both Eve and Felicia at the same time, where are they?
No "equal rights" for swingers or partner switchers? (I on my part 
wouldn't oppose *such* a theoretically possible novelty.)

There further is no law in the USA (or in Sweden), I believe,
that provides for Adam's possibly marrying Eve, Felicia and
Ingrid all at the same time either (in that old-fashioned
Middle East etc manner). Should "harem-interested" or "polygamous"
men (and "groupies" of some "big star's", say) be "discriminated 
against"? Should I apologize to those on the list who feel their 
interests are not provided for in this respect, since I don't 
advocate the introduction of that one?

(Above I forgot about those Mormons in the USA. But I'd guess
their "harem-marriages" aren't legal in any state.)

And no law exists, I think, by which Eve could simultaneously marry 
Adam, Bert, Cecil and David. The "polyandrous" people (plus e.g. 
Eve's fan club) are being discriminated against too. Together with 
the previous group, they perhaps are not even a minority one. Must I 
not apologise to all those people on this list whose possibly
desired marriage rights thus are completely without advocacy on
my part?

Further, nobody has been talking about a law project enabling
Adam to get hitched to that attractive and only recently
deceased June. A clear case of discrimination against necrophiles.
The same thing with pedophiles, of course.

And has the US (or Swedish) state ever reflected on Bert's
possibly wanting to marry his neighbour's mare, Katherine?
The animal-lovers (I know no more "technical" term for them) on the 
list I would owe an apology too, perhaps, for not having made 
propaganda for such a new kind of marriage?

If you were consistent, you "same-sex marriage law" advocates, you'd
advocate the above too, well perhaps not necessarily the last one. I 
on my part hold that there is no reason to advocate any of them and 
are good reasons to oppose several of them.

>Homophobic bigotry has no
>place within ten thousand miles of Marxism. 

Have you read Engels'important book on sex-and family questions,
"The Origin of Private Property, the State and the Family", for
instance? The Marxists and the workers concur: They are very much
against homosexuality (a phenomenon with certain social causes.)

>That workers may be homophobic
>bigots is no matter: they are often also racists, sexists, and right wing.

The workers precisely are NOT often racists, sexists and right wing!
This includes such (internationally exploiting) countries as Sweden
(and, as far as I know, the USA too), where there's a not inconsiderable
amount of labour aristocratism.

That statement of yours is false, slanderous and upside-down. The
bouregeoisie and those social groups that are more closely connected
with them, that's where you find the most of those bad qualities. 
Those are the ones too that more and more today are making propaganda
*against* ordinary normal sex and *for* all kinds of perversions.

Rolf M.



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