Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:43:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: M-G: Engels on ancient Greece & split between sexes



I really wasn't going to follow this up, but this is getting absurd.
Siddharth, you're usually sensible and I expected better from you.

First, in my anger in reply to Martens I forget to address his absurd
remark that gay rights movements are somehow about splitting men from
women. Listen, chum, the unity between men and women that's politically
necesasry has nothing to do with pairing up each girl with one boy on a
one-one basis for sexual intercourse. It has to do with identification of
common interests, including the interests in free sexual choice and the
interests in being free from idiotic and hateful bigotry about other
people's sexual preferences, with political unity against common
oppressors, include homophobic reactionaries of the rigt and the so-called
left.

Gay men don't hate and fear women because they're gay; they're not gay
becausde they hate and fear women; lesbians don't hae and fae men because
they're lesbian and they're not lesbians because they hate and fear men.
Gays and lesbians are what thery are because they are sexuallt attracted
to members of the same sex. In fact, it's not my experience, and I do not
believe it's true, that gays and lesbians hate and fear the opposite sex
at all. They just don't want to sleep with it. In terms of political
unity, solidarity between men and women, gays, lesbians and straightss, is
both possible and often--when straights can overcome their irrational
animus, actual. 

Siddhath, comrade, please:

> As regards gay movements, it is true from the evidence that such
> questions have become important in the first world (but not in the
> third at present) and will have to be addressed. One should, of course,
> adopt a critical attitude, but at the same time one should be extremely
> careful of *not even appear* to be siding with the ruling class and
> the fundamentalist reactionaries and associated fascists who want to
> oppress gay people. 

This is fine. A "critical" attitude is OK insofar as gat and lesbian
movements often are narrowly limited to identity politics and fraught with
bourgeois illusions. But the following is not:

The causes of homosexuality (genetic, environmental)
> and whether or not it is a "perversion" is a *separate* issue. This
> distinction should be kept in mind.

We cannot even entertain the idea that homosexuality might be a
"perversion": this is like entertaining the idea that Blacks might
possibly be inferior and unworthy of intercourse with whites.

 In class society, supporting an
> *oppresed* group in their fight for attaining basic rights (non-
> discrimination in jobs, housing, education, etc.), albeit bourgeois,
> is the proper duty

This is fine.

 and it does not mean that one encourages the
> practice of that particular group.

But what is this? What's not to encourage? Can Marxists have something
against love? Or even against harmless fun? I say: let's encourage this
activity. This doesn't mean that those not so inclined have to participate
in it. But if people find love or even pleasure in the company of others,
this is wholly positive.

 The decision of whether such a group
> exists and also its oppression, will, of course, have to be made on
> empirical evidence.

Is there any question that gays and lesbians exist? Or that they are
oppressed? Dear God, save us from our blindness. 

> 
> Once again, this campaign for gay marriages is not a conspiracy of the
> bourgeoise to split men from women. There is a division among them
> on how to address this issue.

And if there were not, what would that show? Suppose the bourgeoisie were
united around gay marriage as it is around heterosexual marriage. Does
bourgeois support for heterosexuality raise doubts abouts its value?
Perhaps it is a plot to split boys who love boys and girls who love girls
>from each other. (Actually, there may be something to that.) 

--Justin






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