Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:15:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: M-G: Engels on ancient Greece & split between sexes



Hello Justin,

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Justin Schwartz wrote:

> Siddhath, comrade, please:
> 
> 
> 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:
SC 
> 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.
>
JS 
> 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.
> 
The word *perversion* is a word loaded with past prejudices and
abounds with metaphysical meanings as KM would have put it. Also,
"the weight of all the dead generations hangs like a nightmare on the
brain of the living". That's the reason I had enclosed it in
double quotes. For example, in most of the world, eating dogs would
be considered something of this type. However, this practice is
common in Indonesia. Eating beef is considered normal in the west
but a Hindu would look upon it in abhorrence since a cow which gives
milk is considered to be a symbol of life and is  treated with
compassion and kindness by an Indian peasant family. To them, the
act of killing a cow and then eating it would be considered a
"perversion". Similar with homosexuality. Although this practice comes
to us from ancient times, in many parts of the third world, this would
probably be treated as a "perversion" since people, even today, are
ignorant of it because it has not been a common practice in their
cultures (although homosexuality has been a practice of certain old
societies). That is why I said that this issue is important
in the west at the present time and should be adequately addressed
here. There is, of course, a difference between sexual choices (which
again may be a function of the environment and culture in which one
is raised) and killing cows. After all, the cow does not choose to be
killed and eaten but human beings make choices within the constraints
that the external world places on us.     

SC
>  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
> 
JS
> This is fine.
> 
SC 
> > and it does not mean that one encourages the
> > practice of that particular group.
> 
JS
> 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.

No, Marxists should not have anything against love. But you only
speak of one kind of love; sexual love. What about a mother's love
for her child which is selfless compared to sexual love which is
selfish? Why should we not encourage this type of love also so that a
mother feels the same kind of love towards other children besides her
own? Fun can be harmless and/or harmful - it depends on the
context. For example, say I go to a private prositute and have some
fun. After we both have had our fun, I give her some money (there being
no intermediary pimps). In what category would such fun lie: harmful or
harmless? What about hedonism (both hetero and homosexual)? Will
hedonism lead to human freedom or will it make us a slave to our
instincts? How does my practice of hedonism affect others closely
associated with me? This is a complex subject.  

SC 
>  The decision of whether such a group
> > exists and also its oppression, will, of course, have to be made on
> > empirical evidence.
> 
JS
> Is there any question that gays and lesbians exist? Or that they are
> oppressed? Dear God, save us from our blindness. 
> 
There is no question that gays and lesbians exist and can be considered
an oppressed group. The degree of their oppression, I think, is much
lesser than compared to people living in the ghettos or the majority
of toiling and exploited masses of the world. 

SC
> > 
> > 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.
> 
JS
> 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
> 

Well, if the bourgeoise were really united around gay marriage, then
I would tend towards adopting one of Rolf's conspiracy theories! The
one about "queer conspiracy"! The majority of the bourgeoise support
heterosexuality because the family is the linchpin of modern society.
That is perhaps the 'value' of heterosexuality which also perpetuates
private property through offspring. 

Sid



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