Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:05:39 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Last word on Justin's unfortunate illusions


Last reply to Justin S., who wrote on 03.01

- and it's *not* homo"phobia" on my part, btw: 

>Like Doug, I feel unclean even entering into discussion with Martens on
>the subject of homosexuality and gay and lesbian marriage, and since I did
>so mainly so that this list would not be polluted by the absense of answer
>to his vile rantings I will say no more on the subject after this.
>
>Martens fails to explain what his objection to homosexuality is, if it's
>not just hatred and bigotry. He says:
>
>1. That homosexuality derives from, and  the gay rights agenda (including
>gay and lesbian marriage fosters) divisions between men and women taht are
>politically harmful.

Not only politically, but socially, culturally etc, causing a
whole lot of misery in many "highly-developed" countries today.

>But he offers no reason to think that same-sex preferences do derive from
>fear or hatred of the opposite sex beyond his own "impressions" (based on
>what?). 

I cannot offer a scientific study. Own observations and conclusions,
as far as they go. Those of most people I've spoken to, too.

>And he offers no response to my point that even if it did so
>derive taht would not reflect in any way on the rights of gays and
>lesbians to marry members of their own sex.

Once more: The idea of instituting this new kind of "marriage"
is one bit of bourgeois fostering of the man-woman split.

>Moreover, he does not explain how homosexuality or the gay rights program
>creates divisions between men and women. It's very hard to even imagine
>how this could be. If, what is not true, homosexuality were as small a
>minority preference as Martens thinks it is (1% instead of the usual 10%
>figure), this would not be a signifigant "division" between the two
>halves of the human population even if all homosexuals hated and feared
>all members of the opposite sex, which they do not. 

This fear *is* there. And "your" "usual-figure", "10%", is part of that
bourgeois propaganda, a not unimportant one. And yes, the true number
of people defining themselves as "glooms" etc is quite small. But
THE PROPAGANDA in the media etc is MASSIVE. *And* those very negative
social and cultural factors which, *as only one of their results*,
favour homosexuality, are still there.

*That's* why the whole question is not that completely uninteresting.

>The nature and
>mechanics of this alleged division is completely opaque. 

Then please read that Engels quote I posted once more. Or better
still: Read the whole "Origins...". Also (I say again) IMO very good 
and pointing out (at least) one thing on which Engels was wrong: 
Evelyn Reed: "The Development of Woman", USA 1974. (Nothing *directly*
on the "gloom" question there, but the general picture helps.)

>Nor does the
>controversial and unpopular gay rights agenda divide men and women: it
>does divide gays and most of the rest of the population, but that's not a
>reason for the oppressed minority to back down when fundamental rights at
>at stake. 

It's not an "oppressed minority", it's not "fundamental rights", for
reasons I've already pointed out.

>2. Martens repeatens his unsubstantiated association between "social
>decay" and homosexuality. He further asserts that this right wing cliche
>is a Marxist position because Engels disapproved of homosexuality, or at
>least of lesbian sex. The latter argument does not deserve comment: just
>because a MArxist, even a distinguished one, makes a throwaway comment
>revealing that he is in the grip of a hateful prejudice does not mean that
>the prejudice is consistent with Marxism, a theory and practice of human
>liberation.

That was no "throwaway comment". *And* the association with social
decay is rather clear too. I do admit: I have *not* studied these
questions very deeply. Perhaps, even, there aren't that many good
studies on the subject (since "too sensitive" for the rulers).

>The alleged connection between decadence and homosexuality is fantastic.
>Homosexuality among men (at least) was the norm during the entire history
>of the ancient world, both at its height and in its decay.

It bloody well was *not* At least if in "ancient world" you include
the period *before* private property, the state and the family.
Well, I now notice you're talikng about "the height" of the "ancient
world". So you *mean* that world, in which the paternal family had
fairly recently been instituted, *not* eralier times.

Btw, in one reply to me you did admit that in all those "queer-societies"
you mentioned, there *was* massive oppression of women.

> It was probably
>more common then than now because of the lack of social disapproval, but
>once that is controlled for I would be very surprised to find that the
>incidence of homosexuality varies at all with any measure of social
>"decay," insofar as that can be operationalized enough to make it a
>scientific concept. Upper-class Brit homosexuality has to do with the
>institution of same-sex private (called "public") schools, and was no less
>common at the height of Empire than later.

>Put a lot of horny boys
>together and they'll screw: it happens in armies, prisons, all-male
>schools, ships, etc. 

Firstly: not under all circumstances. Secondly, you're not totally
wrong here, such sex separation precisely may favour this. And
socialist armies typically have had woman fighters too, haven't they? 

>Some of them will fall in love or discover that
>they're gay.

This idea, "discover that they *are* gay", precisely is one element
of the bourgeois propaganda. The notion that some people "are"
"glooms" in the main is one of the present century, I've read in
one newspaper article. In earlier ages, certain people did engage
in some homosexual activities but did not because of this put
that label on themselves.

>That's not sick. It's normal. In fact, it's healthy. 

Sick it is.

>In any event, even if homosexuality were correlated with or even in some
>obscure way caused social decay, that is no reason to countenance prejudice
>and discrimination against homosexuals, who have the same rights anyone
>does whether society is in decay or not.
>
>3. Martens claims that homosexuality is wrong, that it's not normal, that
>it's perverted. But it's hard to see why. He rejects teleology and grants
>that sex for fun is OK. Perhaps it's because he thinks that it's
>statistically less common than normal sex by a factor of ten less than I
>do, but why it should be disfavored simply because it's less common is
>mysterious. I used to have a girlfriend who would not screw without her
>socks on. This is probably a pretty uncommon preference, but it's not
>immoral because of that. Or sick, or perverted, or whatevwer term of
>opprobroum Martens favors.

You're trying to make that whole "queer"-thinking, the ideology
connected with that perversion, disappear or shrink into something
of the size of that girlfriend's "socks idea". Thats ostrich thinking.

>Incidentally Siddarth (I think it was he) accuses me of being close-minded
>because I will not even entertain the idea that homosexuality might be
>perverted. This sort of close-mindedness I embrace. 

Yes, and it *is* a close-mindedness, Justin. Speaking of which, I'd
like to add that, reflecting a little on what I've written in this
debate, I find that I on some points perhaps have been a little
crude, considering that you, for instance, do have strong feelings
on the subject (of holding "gloomness" to be OK etc). These feelings
and "your" kind of thinking on this subject probably are shared by
not all that few people today. In my judgement, they're result of
a certain bourgeois propaganda and culture, which there has been
practically *no* real Left to oppose. I mean, you IMO are more 
of a "victim of some illusions" than a "reactionary propagandist";
I think I in part did wrongly scold you as being of the latter sort.


>I also will not
>entertain the possibility that Black people are too dirty and inferior to
>marry with whites, that women are too irrational and stupid to be treated
>as the equals of men, and any number of loathesome prejudices.

Close-minded as hell, Justin! (See above)

>4. Martens grants that I am not committed to supporting incestous
>marriages and paedophilia bececause I support gay and lesbian marriage but
>urges that I must support necrophiliac marriages and even marriages with
>animals. It's hard to take this seriously, but let's pretend. His concern
>is that if the concept of marriage is broadened even a little bit, the
>parade of horribles will march through. But as usual with slippery slope
>arguments, yiou need something to get you sliding down the slope. 


>The concept beyond gay marriages is that the harmless preferences of 
>consenting adults should be respected, especially in matters touching deeply on
>their fundamental interests. 

Whose "concept"? Why? It's *not* their fundamental interests either.
It's the interests of a certain very reactionary bourgeois faction
in the direction I've already mentioned.

>This does not apply to the dead and animals,
>who cannot consent. So, the slope does not even start, much less get 
>slippery.

The dead feel nothing. The sheep might be asked. I still say
you're "discriminating" - if you want to be consistent - against the
poor necrophilians and bestials, a group even much smaller that
the one that the propaganda - and the whole culture, and factors
in your circle of friends and aqaintances - have led you to hold
that you should "take under your wings", *in their "capacity" as*
"glooms" etc.

>5. Martens insists on the 1% figure for homosexuality. I am aware of the
>study on which this claim is based, and also aware that it has been
>severely criticized methodologically. The Kinsey figure of 10%, virtually
>universally accepted, has been supported by a lot of solid follow-up
>studies; the Kinsey figure, moreover, is methodologically solid and
>probably understates the actual incidence of homosexuality, since the
>Kinsey studies were done in the 1950s when social disapproval of homosexuality
>was higher than it is now. Morally speaking, however, the actual incidence
>is irrelevant.
>
>6. Martens denies that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right. Given
>the current state of American law, this is correct outside Hawaii, but
>whether it should be a fundamental right is another matter. Marriage
>certainly is, in legal terms and moral ones too, a fundamental right.

I'm not with you there. In the long term, marriage should be abolished.

>But
>in American law infringement on a fundamental right must be justified by a
>compelling state interest and narrowly tailoted to its end. Denyinmg gays
>and lesbians the right to marry certainly is such an infringement. What,
>possibly, could be the compelling state interest to which the denial of
>this right is narrowly tailored? Children, we agree, are out. Presumably
>the interest is in promoting "morality." But there is no moral basis for
>this denial. The objections most Americans have to it are religious, which
>gets no play in American law, which excludes the establishment of
>religion, or prejudice and hatred, which is not even a rational basis,
>much less a compelling interest. So the adovocates of gay marriage will
>correctly argue when the case comes before the Supreme Court. Scalia and
>the right wing will reply that gay marriage is not "traditional," but
>then, neither was Black-white marriage (nor is it). 

*My* reply is: Let "the gays" "get straight". So-called "gay marriages"
will not help the least in that but on the contrary will induce them
to "stay gay". (I *am* aware of the dificulties in some cases where
there has been a very deep brainwash indeed. May I make a comparison?
I will anyway: Making certain "gays" "non-gay" may be almost as
dificult as making certain Trotskyists become Marxists. Perhaps in
both cases you're liable to wear out your energies trying. But then,
both groups are pretty tiny.)

>7. Martens rejects my analogy between the miscegenation laws that forbade
>Black-white nmarriage and the prohibition on gay marriage. But he cannot
>say what the difference is.

I don't think I even need to comment on that. The difference is so 
obvious.

He claims that marriage laws do not deny the
>equal rights of gays (to marry women) and lesbianms (to marry men). This
>was exactly Virginia's defense of its miscegenation laws, who said that it
>equally prevented Blacks and whites from marrying each other. 

Well, I'm not Virginia, see. 

>In Loving
>v. Virginia, the case that struck down the miscegeation laws, the Court
>correctly rejected that argument as a pretense, saying that the law imposed
>a badge of inferiority on Blacks and was intended to express the ideology
>of white supremacy. Likewise the ban on gay marriages imposes a badge of
>"perversion" on gays and lesbians and is intended to express the ideology
>that they are less worthy, that their love is less deserving of social
>sanction, than that between straights. The analogy is complete and exact.
>
>8.  Martens characterizes the call of gay marruiage as bourgeois and right
>wing. Bourgeois it is up to a point, just as the demand for equal
>treatment of Blacks or women expresses the bourgeois ideals of equal
>justice under law. But these are good ideals. The bourgeoisie should bwe
>criticized for failing to live up them and socialists should press for
>their realization. But they are only bourgeois up to a point. In a
>different context, Marx remarks that certain bourgeouis idaels can only be
>attained under socialism. He was was thinking of the idae of equal
>paymwent according to equal labor contribution, but the point applies
>here. Now, gay marriages can be realized under capitalism, just as de jure
>racial segregation can be done away with under capitalism. But the program
>of gay liberation is ecvery bit as revolutionary in its implications as
>the program of Black liberation.

No, precisely on the contrary.

>9. Martens rejects the idea that gays and lesbians exist as a group. This
>is mysteious.

But I *have* already tried to explain what I mean here.

>Certainly he acknowledges that there are people who engage
>in homosexual practices. Perhaps he means they are not a class like the
>proletariat. Well, don't differ there. But there is such a group and it
>has common interests, mainly in being treated as fully equal human beings
>and not beingf discriminated aaginst or denied fundamental rights because
>of its sexual preferences. In a civilized socialist society, the
>distinctive identity of the group will probably dissolve and people will
>no more be inclined to identify themselves totally with their sexual
>preference than they will with their taste in music or food. But taht will
>be because people's preferences in partners will be unremarkable.
>Homophobia has created the gay identity by subjecting gays and lesbians to
>oppression. 

In that last sentence, you're touching on something true. *Oppression*,
real oppression, of those you mean of course *does* strengthen their
"identity" "as a group" and as "gays" + "lesbians" too. I precisely
am against persecution of people for sexual acts (between consenting
adukts). This, among other things, in order precisely *not* to
strengthen that "identity".

>Well, that's enough. And I won't participate more in further exchanges
>with the hateful and hate-filled Martens.
>
>--Justin Schwartz 

We agree on its being suitable to stop that debate now. It wasn't
all that unfruitful for me. I hope others may have gotten some things
to think about too. One interesting spin-off, I hold, was Doug
Leftie Biz' "anti-nuke-and-pro-queer" posting, which pointed at
one IMO quite important ideological connection in today's world.

Rolf M.



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