Kun: I say this because “gay rights is a Marxist construct,” odd as it is, is just a cover for the fact that buzzsawmonkey probably isn’t too fond of homosexuals. Had the movement somehow sprung up from the American fascists, I’m sure buzzsawmonkey would be condemning it from that angle (and since fascism is supposedly “left-wing,” so much the better for him) too.

As a note, the Weimar Republic had a pretty active “gay” scene for a while until Hitler. Was that scene a “Marxist construct” too?

You really descend quickly to presumptions of my personal likes and dislikes—and without evidence of any kind. Telling.

Neither you nor your fellow ideologue have been able to weasel around the fact that what the same-sex marriage agitation proposes to do is re-define the definition of marriage; your empty waving of “equal protection” slogans does nothing when someone refuses to be intimidated by them.

You, however, like your buddy, are lying—whether consciously or reflexively I do not know—when you misquote me as saying that “gay rights is a Marxist construct.” I have said that the modern—i.e., post-Stonewall—movement was based on Marxist rhetoric, which it was. You cannot get around that—and it is odd indeed that you would try to, and that you would not want to claim credit for it.

It is not clear why you are bringing up the Weimar Republic, except to subject yourself to the jurisdiction of Godwin’s Law.

Ken: I already mentioned that using Marxist buzzwords doesn’t make one an automatic Communist. I already mentioned Hezbollah and neo-Nazi parties and their use of what could be considered very similar to “Marx-babble,” but you don’t seem to see the importance of that.

And I have mentioned, several times, that I am NOT saying the gay-rights movement was founded or directed by the Communist Party directly; you are moving the goalposts hither and yon.

Once again, the creation of an “oppressed class,” once accomplished, is self-perpetuating; people who buy into the identity thus created—and the “oppressed class” identity constructed over the last 100-150 years by the invention of “gay identity” is, if not the only game in town, pretty damn near it—will naturally “feel oppressed” because by assuming the identity they have assumed the mindset constructed for it.

What I find both amusing and interesting is that you and Kun, both obviously Marxist and both obviously in favor of the goals of the gay-rights movement, are spending so much time, energy and prevarication in your attempts to deny and obfuscate the clear connections between that movement and Marxism.

I say this because “gay rights is a Marxist construct,” odd as it is, is just a cover for the fact that buzzsawmonkey probably isn’t too fond of homosexuals. Had the movement somehow sprung up from the American fascists, I’m sure buzzsawmonkey would be condemning it from that angle (and since fascism is supposedly “left-wing,” so much the better for him) too.

As a note, the Weimar Republic had a pretty active “gay” scene for a while until Hitler. Was that scene a “Marxist construct” too?

Also for what it’s worth (since you mentioned it), Fabianism is reactionary. As Engels noted in 1893:
“With great industry they have produced amid all sorts of rubbish some good propagandist writings… But as soon as they get on to their specific tactics of hushing up the class struggle it all turns putrid. Hence too their fanatical hatred of Marx and all of us—because of the class struggle.”

the mere fact that Marx-babble was the animating language of the movement would not suffice for you

Of course it wouldn’t. I already mentioned that using Marxist buzzwords doesn’t make one an automatic Communist. I already mentioned Hezbollah and neo-Nazi parties and their use of what could be considered very similar to “Marx-babble,” but you don’t seem to see the importance of that. Any number of people criticize capitalism for whatever reason, but they certainly might not be Communists, especially if they actually take the time to point out that they’re NOT Marxists (as Hezbollah does). Benjamin R. Barber didn’t have any kind words for capitalism in “Jihad Vs. McWorld,” using plenty of leftist buzzwords to describe it, but I don’t think he’s a Marxist, do you?

that does not alter the fact that the invention of the modern “gay” identity (something that, as I have noted, did not exist until the 19th century) has been strongly allied with leftism from the days of Oscar Wilde’s flirtations with Fabianism and socialism…

As I mentioned above (and as I should think would be mere common sense), many gays felt and do still feel “oppressed.” Leftist parties usually claim to cater to “the oppressed.” Thus, I wouldn’t be surprised if the two camps overlapped and shared many members but not, perhaps, an exact uniform guiding ideology. This is a pretty easy concept to grasp.

And now I’ll bow out and turn you back over to Kun. I have nothing further to say.

Your lengthy post may be summed up thus:

1) You reject the Marxist connection to “gay liberation” because
a) some Marxist groups have disparaged or even expelled or persecuted gays;
b) unless there is an Official Communist Rubber Stamp, or something of the sort, on gay-lib groups, they “aren’t Marxist” no matter how soggy with Marxist rhetoric they are.

2) You claim that same-sex marriage is a matter of “equal protection under law” because the Supreme Court, when specifically not talking about same-sex marriage, described it as a fundamental right.

3) You slither over—dodge, elide—the fact that “same-sex marriage” is therefore not included in this “fundamental right,” but is, legally speaking, the equivalent of marrying box turtles.

Each of these claims may be easily seen for the paltry deceptions they are. I could, I suppose, quote at length from the Marxist drivel which was the common currency of gay-lib discourse in the early ’70s, but it is clear that without a Good Homewrecking Seal of Approval from the CP or the Sparticists or somebody the mere fact that Marx-babble was the animating language of the movement would not suffice for you.

While it is true that Marxist utopias such as Cuba have a history of persecuting homosexuals—and that some leftists have, since the ’30s, enjoyed deriding homosexual behavior as something peculiar to fascists—that does not alter the fact that the invention of the modern “gay” identity (something that, as I have noted, did not exist until the 19th century) has been strongly allied with leftism from the days of Oscar Wilde’s flirtations with Fabianism and socialism, through the work of Magnus Hirschfeld, Marc Blitzstein’s agitprop and Allen Ginsberg’s alleged poetry, up on and into the modern gay-lib movement that has now become the gay-rights lobby. The modern/current movement traces its genesis to Stonewall and its aftermath, which was solidly Marxist in rhetoric no matter what the card-carrying crowd may have thought of it.

Gay-rights agitators claiming that “marriage is a fundamental right” always sweep under the rug the basic fact that marriage as referred to in such court decisions is marriage between members of the opposite sex. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution, nor in American jurisprudence, which justifies or supports changing the definition of marriage as gay-rights agitators demand. Nothing.

the modern incarnation of that “community” in the late 1960s was very much a Marxist construct, now running on autopilot.

is true.

As I said, there was certainly some overlap between the two camps, no doubt due to Communist ideology ostensibly being about support for the “oppressed” and gays, as marginalized minorities (especially at that time), feeling “oppressed” for whatever reason. Perhaps many of the elder statesmen in the present-day “gay rights movement” were Communist Party members or whatever in the past. That doesn’t mean, though, that the gay rights movement was an official offshoot of any Marxist group, certainly not any that I’m aware of. In fact, to our shame, many Communist parties even expelled gay members (and, of course, there wasn’t much love for gays in many of the old Communist countries in Europe or Asia). Kun has already mentioned how Engels felt about gays, so I see no need to mention it.

Now, can you please show some evidence to support your position? Your previous quote (“These manifestoes blather at length about capitalist hegemony, bourgeois morality, and all those other dreary exemplars of Marxist cant”) really doesn’t prove anything. Any number of so-called “liberation” groups blather on and on about “hegemony” and “bourgeois” whatever whatever, but that doesn’t mean that they’re particularly Marxist in their outlook. For reference, why don’t you go back several threads and re-read the short discourse that Kun and I had regarding Hezbollah. They certainly bill themselves as a “revolutionary liberation” group with a lengthy denunciation of capitalism, but they have stated in no uncertain terms that they categorically reject Marxism. Also, there are any number of neo-Nazi groups that reject “capitalist hegemony,” but I doubt anyone is going to accuse them of being Marxists. Using Communist buzzwords doesn’t make one a Marxist (something I’m sure Kun has said to me in the past, as he doesn’t consider me a “real” Marxist).

“Equal protection under law” is a lovely phrase, but hanging there without any explanation of how and why you think same-sex couples, which have never had the “right” to marry, are being denied “equal protection”

I, a male, can take my girlfriend to City Hall and say I want to get married. They’ll process the application and issue us a marriage certificate acknowledging our right to marriage and the legal legitimacy thereof. Now if I, a male, take my boyfriend to City Hall and say the same thing, in most places I wont be leaving with a marriage certificate and, therefore, would have no legal protection for my relationship. Anyone saying that “Domestic partnerships” are good enough is just weaving a strawman because “Domestic Partnerships” don’t even reach the level of (the unconstitutional) “separate but equal.” Opposing the issue because gays have never had the “right” to marry isn’t stable ground to stand on with regards to this topic. I already mentioned that the SCOTUS said that marriage is a “fundamental right,” but you chose not to address that.

I do thank you, though, buzzsawmonkey, for staying open-minded about this issue and willing to allow yourself to be swayed. Perhaps someday you’ll meet someone who can explain it all better than I can. I freely admit my faults and shortcomings and I certainly am not an expert at debate, as has been shown on this very blog many a time.

To suggest that the unilateral reinvention of the meaning of marriage…

I don’t believe that the reinvention of the meaning of marriage is the goal of the current “same-sex marriage” movement. As far as I know, marriage has just always been about legally (or perhaps spiritually) acknowledging the partnership of two people who claim to love each other and the giving of proof of legal protection of that partnership. What’s more, marriage has always been a transitive phenomenon and still is. I don’t think anyone would seriously claim that marriages in the 20th and 21st centuries are the same as marriages in the 13th or 14th centuries (or even in the early 20th century). Obviously changes have happened in the past and, hopefully, will continue to happen in the future to a reasonable extent (no, people shouldn’t be allowed to marry box turtles…)

Thanks for your reply.

Ken: But that’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to the notion that “gay community” is a “Marxist construct.” Kun pointed out quite clearly that many people, especially older people, may have been left-wingers or even actual Marxists when they were younger. The reason for that is that there may be some overlap between the goals of a Marxist party and a gay rights group. I cannot, however, fathom how you see “gay rights interest groups” as being specifically “Marxist” in and of themselves. Do you think the Log Cabin Republicans are a bunch of commies?

And I really, really don’t see how its goal is the destruction of American social cohesiveness. I don’t know what tragically-flawed world or extremely precarious security situation you live in, but the world I live in isn’t going to come to an end if some guy I don’t even know or care about gets married to another guy. Maybe you should grow up a little bit and stop being such an alarmist fear monger.

You clearly haven’t been reading the prior posts with care—or without parking your ideology at the curb. What I have said, quite clearly and more than once, is that the creation of a “gay community”—for that matter, the construct of a “gay identity”—is a relatively recent pseudoscientific phenomenon, and that the modern incarnation of that “community” in the late 1960s was very much a Marxist construct, now running on autopilot.

Ken: Gee, I dunno…equal protection under the law? The notion, quite widespread in America, that if you give one right to one group of people you have to give it to any other similar group? The Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a “fundamental right,” but it’s one that’s given specifically to one group but denied unfairly to another for no good reason. Why don’t you tell me why you think it isn’t a “right.”

“Equal protection under law” is a lovely phrase, but hanging there without any explanation of how and why you think same-sex couples, which have never had the “right” to marry, are being denied “equal protection,” and it is merely an empty slogan being employed with intentional deception. Like many people, I’m open to persuasion on this—but you haven’t begun to approach any level of persuasion whatsoever.

To suggest that the unilateral reinvention of the meaning of marriage, as the same-sex agitators propose to do, is the same as eliminating the legal barriers imposed along racial lines, is absurd.

Bryan: Do you find it strange that you accuse me of adolescence in the same post where you make sounds of 3 fairly unattractive people having sex?

I don’t think I ever claimed to be a grown-up.

[Try to lighten up. Besides which, if debasing politicians like the Clintons and Gore is wrong, I don't ever want to be right.]

Bryan: But then again, I am rather young and largely the product of a sexually explicit culture, so perhaps you are right. If you are, please help me grow up and educate me on how to have these discussions.

The point isn’t that you’re wrong in your thinking, but in your method of argument. When you start bringing up anal sex as a point of discussion, you’re less likely to have people thinking, “He sure is making a complex and nuanced argument,” than, “He sure likes to talk about anal sex”. It’s the same as the whole dead fetus sign business — there’s less a tendency to feel the sort of sympathy which is supposed to be invoked by such a shocking image than there is to think that the person with the sign is really into death-p0rn. I’ve watched and heard both methods of argument for a really long time and I have yet to see either move the greater discussion one inch, so when I see either come up I tend to think, to quote the Gipper, “Well, there you go again”.

Bryan: Maybe not. I’m no geneticist. But I did learn in Middle School science and High School and College biology that identical twins have identical genetic material. Genetics might play a role, but to say that our sexual orientation is determined exclusively by genetics is false… at least according to every single course I have taken. Have you learned otherwise?

I didn’t say I thought it would be determined exclusively by genetics nor did I even say that I thought for certain that genetics will be shown to have any role at all. I said that I suspect that it will — that’s my opinion and I thought I made that pretty clear. Twins are interesting cases for genetic study but they’re far from the be-all, end-all. There’s so much that we don’t know that all you can really say is that there seems to be a correlation, but it can’t be proved definitively. I suspect that genetics will be shown to determine sexual orientation/preference/whatever just as I suspect it won’t be shown to determine whether people like to wear leather and occasionally visit the Tower of Power.