New zombie post at Pajamas Media:

Gay voter remorse as McCains step up where Obama fails

Here’s a teaser:


Cindy McCain’s new ad promoting gay marriage.

Shortly before the 2008 election I asked a gay friend which candidate he supported. When he replied “Obama,” I asked why, and my friend said that he was a single-issue voter (the single issue being gay marriage) and Obama was obviously going to legalize gay marriage nationwide, whereas McCain was a stodgy old conservative and therefore self-evidently an enemy of gay rights. I pointed out that Obama was all over the map and had made conflicting statements about his attitudes toward gay marriage, telling gay groups that one day same-sex marriage will be seen as normal, while on the other hand giving an interview for a mainstream paper in which he said, “Marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

My friend instantly dismissed Obama’s anti-gay-marriage statements: “That’s just something he’s gotta say to appeal to Middle America. Once he’s in office, you’ll see!”

Well, over a year later, I certainly do see. And the result is the exact opposite of what my friend and millions of other gay voters who chose Obama and rejected McCain on this basis had predicted. Turns out Obama has been a major disappointment for the gay community, while the McCain family has emerged as unexpected supporters of gay marriage.

Yesterday, two unrelated news events perfectly illustrated this unexpected ideological contrast. …


Read the rest here!

62 Responses to “Gay voter remorse as McCains step up where Obama fails”

  1. 1Bryan on Jan 21, 2010 at 2:11 pm:

    Zombie,

    I enjoyed your article a lot, and if this post is inappropriate feel free to delete it.

    Please hear me out… I’ll keep it as short as possible.

    I’m a little disturbed by the trend of conservatives supporting Gay Marriage because I believe that if/when the government does “allow” it to occur it will be overstepping its bounds, big time.

    Here is why. The definition of marriage actually has nothing to do with people or the number “2.” What it really means is the union of two or more things. We use the word marriage in contexts other than people. We might say that a composer successfully married melody and lyrics to create a beautiful song, or something like that. Thus the question of gay marriage is not whether or not the government will “allow” two people of the same sex to unite, but whether they are capable of uniting at all.

    I hold that two people of the same sex are NOT capable because their bodies are not capable of forming a union. Anal sex does not form a bodily union, nor does oral sex between two men or two women form a bodily union. Only an act of sexual intercourse – a man’s penis inserted into a woman’s vagina – is truly unitive.

    Of course it is true that two men (or two women, of course) can reach a level of intimacy that we might define as “spiritual” or “emotional.” But should we call these marriages? If have several relationships – with men and women – that could be defined as emotional but I do not call them marriages; I call them friendships. I do not feel a need for the government to recognize friendships, even really strong ones.

    Thus, if the government decides to redefine marriage it will making a huge mistake. It will be defining an act that is not unitive as an act that is unitive, which is just dumb. Any conservative who believes in a small government should not support this redefinition.

    I’ll be lurking around to see if anyone responds… some points are obviously not completely developed because of length.

    Thanks for hearing me out.

  2. 2Sam on Jan 21, 2010 at 3:27 pm:

    I’d totally do Cindy McCain.

  3. 3Dianna on Jan 21, 2010 at 7:22 pm:

    Interesting, but…

    You have read my discussions of this issue a number of times, and you, of all people, don’t need me to repeat my points. My view remains that it’s up to gays to make their case to the general public, not use judicial activism. So far, they have failed to make the case to the general public. Never mind unmarried, middle-aged heteros like me. They need to convince people who are married, and feel their entire lives are under assault. And gay marriage advocates have never bothered to try to understand that point of view.

    Until people actually sit down, put aside their assumptions and talk about their desires and fears on this issue honestly, both sets of hard-core believers will continue to be used, abused and hoodwinked by cynical politicians.

  4. 4tannin on Jan 21, 2010 at 10:39 pm:

    Interesting argument Bryan, but not persuasive.
    Really it’s the ‘natural’ argument, again, but without procreation as central.
    Dianna, you, as an unmarried person, know, apparently, that ‘ people who are married (, and ) feel their entire lives are under assault ‘; I’m married, and don’t feel that my life is under assault, neither, i suspect, do any of the married people that i know, unless it’s from their teenage children.
    The question seems to be no longer whether gay people are legitimate members of society, or whether gay people can should have legitimized, legally recognized partnerships, but whether these partnerships should be called ‘marriages’ and have exactly the same status as traditional hetero marriages.
    I say yes. We have a body of laws that reflect the very serious responsibilities involved in being a part of a married relationship that are there both for the benefit of the society at large and for those who are commiting themselves to each other in marriage.
    Marriage is a different relationship from any other, not because of the sex of those involved, not because of the length of the commitment, not because of the depth of the commitment and not because of procreation, but precisely because those involved willing accept those particular legal responsibilities to each other and to the institutions, governments included, around them.
    Those who wish to have life long non-married relationships do so, hetero and gay; those who wish to take on the responsibilities of marriage should be allowed to do so, both gay or hetero.

  5. 5Bryan on Jan 22, 2010 at 12:24 am:

    @tannin
    Thank you for the response and thank you for calling my argument interesting. I will take that to mean that the way it is presented is new to you and hopefully you can regard me as a free thinker rather than as a fundamentalist homophobic bigot.

    No, the concept of the argument is not new and you rightly refer to it as the ‘natural [law]‘ argument. But I believe you are wrong to dismiss it. Perhaps you have refuted it or seen it refuted either here at zombietime or someplace else. If that is the case please point me towards the rebuttal or state it here rather than shrugging it off.

    The nature of marriage (which is the focal point of this whole debate – well, should be the focal point anyway) and other interpersonal relationships are essential for determining marriage rights. In a democracy it is the people who determine what universal rights are and what they are not. But you and I both know that we do not live in a democracy, but a democratic republic. You and I also know that in this system rights are not granted; they are protected. That is why some rights, which can be called natural rights, are considered unalienable – they belong to the nature of a human and the state cannot take them away. Furthermore, the state cannot grant natural rights to those who are incapable of living them. For example, the state cannot grant a dead body the right to life. I hope the point is clear that if a person cannot participate in the nature of marriage (either because they are unable to give consent due to a reason like mental illness OR because they are unable to bodily unite to that person by consummating their consent) the state should not protect that right because there is no right to protect.

    That is unless acts that are not unitive in nature are defined as unitive in nature, which would be as ridiculous as the government deciding that the sky is now green. I know it sounds like an absurd analogy, but the government has as much authority to do one as the other.

    You say, “those who wish to take on the responsibilities of marriage should be allowed to do so, both gay or hetero.” I bring this up because I doubt you believe this statement yourself – you might, but I doubt it. And if you don’t believe it then not I nor anyone else should feel obligated to. If you believe that statement, then you believe that brothers and sisters should be able to be married. You also believe that people who are already married can legally contract marriage with third parties.

    This brings me to the number “two.” As I mentioned in the previous post, the actual definition of marriage does not imply the number two. More than two things can unite, atoms and molecules being an example. But only two people (and only a man and woman at that) can bodily unite. It is all that our evolution allows. However, if the government decides that a non unitive act is actually unitive there is absolutely no reason that the number “two” matters anymore. Note that this isn’t a slippery slope argument for polygamy but rather a recognition of the fact that if bodily unity is no longer necessary to contract marriage the number “two” becomes completely irrelevant to the new nature of marriage that the government quite literally created.

    Apologies for length, again. I’ll be driving all day Friday and Sunday and don’t plan to use the internet Saturday as I will be in San Francisco trying to protect the Natural – unalienable- Right to Life of unborn humans. Although I know that Zombie is fairly indifferent to the abortion debate I am holding onto slim hope that I will see his/her photo essay about the protest sometime next week. Have a wonderful weekend everyone, and if this discussion continues I look forward to reading responses on Monday.

  6. 6Starless on Jan 22, 2010 at 5:23 am:

    No one is stifling Cindy McCain’s right to speak out on the issue of gay marriage. In fact, I think that participating in what seems to be a fairly major ad campaign which is getting a significant amount of national buzz demonstrates that just the opposite is true. I’ll go further and say that the whole campaign is a complete dissimulation — I don’t think there is anyone anywhere in the US, with the possible exception of some the deeper hollows of truly bigoted segments of the population, whose right to free speech regarding gay marriage is being stifled. In fact, as Zombie has shown, and was demonstrated by the whole Carrie Prejean affair, the exact opposite is true. Those who choose to support any opposition to gay marriage are the ones having their free speech stifled, if not crushed, by the progressive moralist mob.

    IOW, this ad campaign is an unmitigated and shameless lie.

    Show me anti-Prop. 8 protesters being tear-gassed by riot police or investigated by the IRS for no good reason other than their position on this issue and then maybe I’ll take that piece of duct tape seriously. Until then, it’s not a symbol for opposing “hate”, it’s just a way of saying, “Look at me! I’m a self-righteous attention whore!”

    Like daughter/like mother, I guess.

  7. 7Starless on Jan 22, 2010 at 6:03 am:

    Dianna: hey need to convince people who are married, and feel their entire lives are under assault.

    BTW, as far as I understand, the primary objection to making gay marriage legally legitimate comes from churches’ concerns that they will be forced, by law, to sanctify gay marriages within their congregations, not necessarily that an institution of the greater culture is under assault. A position which infuriates anti-Prop. 8ers even more because it sees right through their histrionics and bullying to the core of what many pro-gay marriage proponents are really after — namely, to force into law exactly what churches like the LDS fear.

    See, it’s not about humanity or the sanctity of individual rights — for decades Progressives and political gays didn’t give a shit about marriage, in fact, marriage was looked down upon as a central institution of a culture which they despised — it’s about political power and forcing their neighbors to believe as they do. The only differences between anti-Prop. 8ers and the Moral Majority are their position in time and where they sit on the ideological compass.

  8. 8buzzsawmonkey on Jan 22, 2010 at 9:51 am:

    Starless: See, it’s not about humanity or the sanctity of individual rights — for decades Progressives and political gays didn’t give a shit about marriage, in fact, marriage was looked down upon as a central institution of a culture which they despised

    That’s pitching it mildly. Early gay-rights manifestoes—that is to say, the manifestoes of the 5-10 years immediately post-Stonewall—were open and emphatic about the movement’s objective being to destroy the entire institution of marriage.

    Kevin Jennings has not even backed away from his support of NAMBLA figures and his objectives of shoehorning non-age-appropriate sexual material into the schools. Unless and until there is some open discussion by gay-rights leaders of these earlier founding objectives of the gay-rights movement, and some convincing repudiation of them, the gay-marriage initiatives must be viewed as a continuation of the movement’s earlier goals.

  9. 9Marauder on Jan 22, 2010 at 11:55 am:

    That’s pitching it mildly. Early gay-rights manifestoes—that is to say, the manifestoes of the 5-10 years immediately post-Stonewall—were open and emphatic about the movement’s objective being to destroy the entire institution of marriage…the gay-marriage initiatives must be viewed as a continuation of the movement’s earlier goals.

    A lot of the gay activists from five or ten years post-Stonewall are dead, and there are two whole generations of younger gay activists who weren’t even born at the time. Why assume the gay rights movement is still being dictated by what someone said in, say, 1972?

    I hold that two people of the same sex are NOT capable because their bodies are not capable of forming a union. Anal sex does not form a bodily union, nor does oral sex between two men or two women form a bodily union. Only an act of sexual intercourse – a man’s penis inserted into a woman’s vagina – is truly unitive.

    What’s your definition of “union”, exactly?

  10. 10Dianna on Jan 22, 2010 at 2:51 pm:

    tannin: Dianna, you, as an unmarried person, know, apparently, that ‘ people who are married (, and ) feel their entire lives are under assault ‘; I’m married, and don’t feel that my life is under assault, neither, i suspect, do any of the married people that i know, unless it’s from their teenage children.

    Pretty much every married couple I know feels that (especially here in California) marriage is under constant assault. I’m happy if you don’t feel that way; no one needs to tell me that anecdotes are not evidence. However, there is still a marriage penalty in the tax code, popular culture treats adultery as either the ultimate high or a weak joke, while making marriage seem like drudgery. Do you really see this as not true?

  11. 1149erDweet on Jan 22, 2010 at 4:10 pm:

    Great post, again, Zombie. Once again the single-issue voter shoots self in foot by assuming what a candidate will do once in office. I appreciate your talent for thinking things through and seeing the long-term results of various strategies. You go!

  12. 12Maria on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:53 pm:

    Re: #1 Oh good gravy. So it’s down to debating personal interpretations of which organs create the most perfect marriage worthy union. Does each side need to start drawing Venn Diagrams? Little labeled pictures of body parts interacting with and being inserted into other body parts? … I’m flabbergasted. The higher power that exists is laughing at our hubris and I honestly want to nuke the Internets now. Time to log off.

  13. 13baddad on Jan 23, 2010 at 2:35 am:

    This is excellent work Zombie. I’m very proud of you (I know that sounds like some paternal bullshit, but its not). Your writing has developed nicely, and it’s a pleasure to read. I’ve read you since the Lebanon Bus Bullshite, and this is really well written.

    Look forward to more

    Thanks

  14. 14Starless on Jan 23, 2010 at 5:10 am:

    Marauder: Why assume the gay rights movement is still being dictated by what someone said in, say, 1972?

    It’s not that, it’s that for decades marriage was an anathema to Progressives and political gays. During the Clinton years, they were willing to play ball and compromise because marriage wasn’t anywhere near the top of the list (marriage was uncool and represented all of the worst, most hypocritical things about straight society) — what was at the top was gaining things like hospital visitations, insurance benefits, and contract rights with their partners and they were starting to get those things. Then when George W. Bush (IOW, not Bill Clinton or his BFF surrogate alGore) came to office, all of a sudden gay marriage became the most important civil rights issue since Jim Crow — giving them the moral authority to scream in people’s faces and use the worst sorts of intimidation tactics to take down anyone they saw as an opponent.

    So, no, the gay rights movement isn’t being dictated by people long dead, but the echoes of their viewpoints are still reverberating — that is: take down The Man. The issue of “rights” is secondary.

    I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for Obama on DADT and DoMA. He was put in an impossible position and now those who put him there are all pissed off at him. Hilarious.

  15. 15buzzsawmonkey on Jan 23, 2010 at 6:30 pm:

    Marauder: Why assume the gay rights movement is still being dictated by what someone said in, say, 1972?

    Why would anyone assume that the gay rights movement is not still being dictated by what was said in 1972? The Communist Party’s agenda is still being dictated by what Marx and Engels wrote in the 19th century, and by the words of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky—all of whom are long dead.

    I mentioned “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings because he is still adulatory of now-dead NAMBLA founder Harry Hay, and because Jennings’ thoughts and attitudes as a gay activist were clearly formed in the early ’70s. The words of people like Larry Kramer and Tony Kushner still have resonance in the gay-activist world, and their worldviews too were formed then. That there are many youngsters in the gay rights movement today who were not alive then does not mean they are unaffected by the writings and mental templates of their predecessors—knowingly or not. There are, in any event, many people who survived the great die-off of the 1980s who are still active in the movement.

    “The past is not dead. It is not even past.” —William Faulkner

  16. 16tannin on Jan 24, 2010 at 12:25 am:

    Lots to write about, but not nearly enough time.
    Dianna, relax, take a deep breath, sip a little tiple if you’re so inclined; marriage, traditional style, is doing fine.
    Despite any tax disadvantages, maybe where you live, not here, and other factors you mention, gay people apparently want the right to legally marry, and you don’t usually fight hard to board a sinking ship.
    Besides that, i’d suggest that marriage is always going to be a challenging thing, requiring work through its entirety, to be even reasonably successful, and the ways out have always been there, and always had an allure. People, mostly men, were walking away from marriages they wanted out of for ever, long before modern media, and long before traditional religion started losing its authority.
    Marriage is dedication, devotion, tenacity, hard work, humbleness, gratefulness and love……….

  17. 17Starless on Jan 24, 2010 at 5:59 am:

    Maria: Re: #1 Oh good gravy. So it’s down to debating personal interpretations of which organs create the most perfect marriage worthy union. Does each side need to start drawing Venn Diagrams? Little labeled pictures of body parts interacting with and being inserted into other body parts? … I’m flabbergasted. The higher power that exists is laughing at our hubris and I honestly want to nuke the Internets now. Time to log off.

    I think Bryan illustrates an (probably) intractable disconnect in the fight over gay marriage. Someone who is pro-gay marriage will look at his argument and see it as a dumb, almost infantile, argument, but what they miss is that the content of the argument doesn’t matter as much as the attitude of the person making the argument. People who are pro-gay marriage seem to think that all they have to do is subject the opposition to some form of cognitive therapy — if they can just make a better, logical, more forceful argument, then the opposition will admit how wrong they are. But this is a mistake because it ignores the fact that people don’t vote with their heads, they vote with their guts, particularly on an issue as personal and organic as this.

    So whether the argument is some complex way of criticizing who does what to whom in what orifice or whether it’s anxiety over far-reaching legal ramifications, it doesn’t matter because a significant portion of people who vote have demonstrated that they still feel uneasy about gay marriage. I think Obama is politically savvy enough to understand that and that’s why he has dragged his feet, will continue to drag his feet, and in the end will stick with what he originally said he believes regarding marriage/gay marriage. And those who voted for Obama on this issue believing that what he said and what he would do were two different things will continue to be disappointed.

    In my lifetime, I haven’t seen a president have so much projected onto him that was never promised and was never there in the first place. Not even the Clinton/Clinton/Gore menage a trois, which had very high expectations placed on it, had the level of unreality pushed on it that Obama has (not that they and he didn’t encourage a lot of it).

  18. 18Arbalest on Jan 24, 2010 at 2:51 pm:

    I think that it’s important to note that, in the last 6000 years of written human history, and with oral traditions dating back even farther, men have only and always married women. There have never been any other public alternatives, in any culture, at any time.

    It’s true that various minor cultures have social institutions where a man is essentially “transformed” into a “woman” by some means acceptable to the culture in question, but well, there’s a transformation. The transformed mad lived as a woman, and was seen as such. There are modern examples where one partner “passed”, but this was kept hidden from the public,

    Even the Classical Greeks did not have marriage between men, and homosexuality seems to have been the closer to being considered “normal” there, at that time, than anywhere else, at any other time. But the social/whatever acceptability of homosexuality gradually died out in Classical Greece, and for internal reasons; the Greeks considered themselves to be the pinnacle of human civilization, even through the Roman period.

    Even today, homosexuality has varying degrees of acceptance, depending on the culture in question. In some cultures it’s illegal, in others, not illegal.

    But the question to the US is “socially acceptable” or some such, not “legal”.

    If we, as a society, are to accept homosexuality as a normal and socially/publicly acceptable behavior, and a normal and socially/publicly acceptable alternative to normal heterosexual behavior, then, just like accepting any other social behavior/institution from a different culture, the argument needs to be made as to its value. Living in the SF Bay Area, I don’t see much of an attempt.

    Forcing acceptance via litigation seems clear proof that such arguments cannot be made.

  19. 19Bryan on Jan 24, 2010 at 6:41 pm:

    @ Maria and Starless

    Thanks for responding although I’m a little taken aback at Maria’s hostility and Starless’ use of the words dumb and infantile to describe it. Perhaps I touched some kind of nerve – which might mean that I actually made a decent argument after all.

    The purpose of my comment was not to judge one type of relationship as better or worse than another, but to say that the two types of relationships are different enough that they shouldn’t be called the same thing. The word Marriage, which I have defined as “a union of two or more things,” can only be applied to a situation when two or more things are actually united. If our government decided to call something unitive that isn’t it would be acting stupidly.

    Furthermore, saying that two persons can unite (emotionally or spiritually or whatever) without uniting bodily would affirm a dualistic version of the human person and would be to deny the goodness of the body to a certain degree.

  20. 20Doragoon on Jan 24, 2010 at 11:24 pm:

    I have no clue what the long term goal is with the push for gay marriage. Their arguments also work for polyamory, but I’m not sure why it would go there. What seems more important is just the notion of equality, or more accurately, equivalency. That there should be no differences between men and women.

    Can it really just be a reaction formation, being so afraid of discriminating that we must be indiscriminate?

  21. 21Starless on Jan 25, 2010 at 5:23 am:

    Bryan: Starless’ use of the words dumb and infantile to describe it

    I didn’t say that that was what I thought of your argument, I said, “Someone who is pro-gay marriage will look at his argument and see it as a dumb, almost infantile, argument”. I disagree with your argument, but I don’t think it is dumb and infantile. If you re-read what I wrote, you may see that what I was saying was that the political pro-gay marriage crowd offhandedly dismiss arguments like yours at their own peril.

  22. 22Bryan on Jan 25, 2010 at 9:56 am:

    @Starless

    Ah.. my mistake. Thank you for the clarification. If I may ask, what specifically do you disagree with? Is it a premise or a line of reasoning? Or is it just the “so what?” factor?

    I’m just curious.

  23. 23Hotdoug on Jan 25, 2010 at 1:03 pm:

    Bryan,

    Are you Bi-Curious?

    Sorry, couldn’t pass that one up…

  24. 24Ringo the Gringo on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:36 pm:

    I am very much in favor of creating an institution similar to marriage for two people of the same sex. What I have a problem with is changing the definition of the word “marriage” itself. If the word “marriage” is redefined so that it not only refers to the the union of a man and a woman, but also to the union of a woman with another woman, and the union of a man with another man, then what word will we have to describe the uniquely procreative union of male and female? By using the same word – marriage – to describe both the union of two people of the same sex, as well as two people of the opposite sex, then we are essentially saying that both unions are identical, when they are in fact opposites. For me it’s all about semantics. Same sex unions are not the same thing as opposite sex unions and should therefore be called by a different name. Language should only be altered only to make words more specific, not to make them less specific.

    One of the primary reasons why it is so important to the Left that the word “marriage” be redefined is precisely because the word is so specific. The redefinition of marriage is very much part of a larger, ongoing agenda to deconstruct language.

    Read up on the philosophies of people such as Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man.

  25. 25Ringo the Gringo on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:51 pm:

    Bryan,

    I agree with your reasoning.

    I posted my comment before I read yours (or any of the others).

  26. 26Bryan on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:59 pm:

    @HotDoug

    Nope. Just hetero, although I have no problem saying that Tom Brady is a handsome guy.

  27. 27Bryan on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:02 pm:

    Ringo the Gringo: Language should only be altered only to make words more specific, not to make them less specific.

    Ding! Ding! Ding! I’m writing that one down. Clear and to the point.

  28. 28Ringo the Gringo on Jan 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm:

    Bryan,

    Ding! Ding! Ding! I’m writing that one down. Clear and to the point.

    If only I hadn’t used the word “only” twice in the same sentence.

    …and now I’ve gone and done it again.

  29. 29Ken on Jan 25, 2010 at 6:40 pm:

    Clinton/Clinton/Gore menage a trois

    Blech. That was a mental picure I could have done without…

  30. 30Starless on Jan 26, 2010 at 5:32 am:

    Bryan: If I may ask, what specifically do you disagree with? Is it a premise or a line of reasoning? Or is it just the “so what?” factor?

    It’s too abstract. It would be better to say something like: marriage means family, family means children and children need to be raised by both male and female role models to better function in society. That, I think, is debatable, but when you start to get into Natural Law arguments, you get into an area that has less meaning, and is more likely to be dismissed outright, as time goes on. The problem with Natural Law is that Nature never quite behaves the way we think it does. If, as I strongly suspect it will, genetics demonstrates that there is a “gay gene” (or, more likely, a set of genes) then the idea that Nature created opposites for the purpose of union loses a lot, if not all, ground.

    The other glaring problem with a Natural Law argument is that it has been used all too often in the past for real oppression.

    And then there’s the problem with using who does what to whom in what orifice in argument. Although it is fundamentally what this argument is about, if you use those sorts of arguments you end up sounding too adolescent. You rely too much on bringing the “icky” factor in as supporting evidence. That’s not to say that doesn’t exist on the other side — I have yet to meet a gay person who doesn’t think the idea of straight sex is pretty icky.

    Ken: Blech. That was a mental picure I could have done without…

    You’re welcome.

    Just imagine all of that flabby, sweaty, middle-aged flesh slapping together, grunting as they thrust in workman-like fashion.

  31. 31Ken on Jan 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm:

    Just imagine all of that flabby, sweaty, middle-aged flesh slapping together, grunting as they thrust in workman-like fashion.

    For Chrissakes, Starless…I just ate! I’m feeling a bit queasy now.

    FWIW, however, I can’t imagine Gore grunting or anything. Does that guy have even two facial expressions?

  32. 32Kun on Jan 28, 2010 at 4:58 am:

    @buzzsawmonkey:
    “The Communist Party’s agenda is still being dictated by what Marx and Engels wrote in the 19th century, and by the words of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky—all of whom are long dead.”

    Except Marxism is not just some random “workers rights” movement. Marxism has its own view of the world (historical materialism), its own scientific and philosophical outlook (dialectical materialism), and is generally centered around the inevitably of class struggle resulting in the proletariat taking control over the state (socialism) on a worldwide basis and then moving from thereon into a classless and stateless society (communism).

    Gay rights are just that: gay rights; for gay people. Anyone can be gay, and whether or not a bunch of petty-bourgeois yuppies called for “gay liberation” 40-30 years ago doesn’t really matter in today’s world. Painting it as some sort of epic movement like Communism (which had and still generally has its own internationals and parties) is nonsensical.

    Anyone who participated in those movements back then are likely to be aging professors or persons who have “grown up” since then (and traded any real leftist thoughts in for a comfortable middle-class existence). Today anyone from a CEO to a homeless guy can advocate gay rights, just like anyone could advocate rights for any other social issue.

    —–

    So Ken, are you still a Communist? I haven’t checked up on this place in a while…

  33. 33buzzsawmonkey on Jan 28, 2010 at 10:47 am:

    Kun: Except Marxism is not just some random “workers rights” movement. Marxism has its own view of the world (historical materialism), its own scientific and philosophical outlook (dialectical materialism), and is generally centered around the inevitably of class struggle resulting in the proletariat taking control over the state (socialism) on a worldwide basis and then moving from thereon into a classless and stateless society (communism).

    Gay rights are just that: gay rights; for gay people. Anyone can be gay, and whether or not a bunch of petty-bourgeois yuppies called for “gay liberation” 40-30 years ago doesn’t really matter in today’s world. Painting it as some sort of epic movement like Communism (which had and still generally has its own internationals and parties) is nonsensical.

    Utter nonsense. “Gay rights” is entirely an outgrowth of prior leftist movements. For that matter, “homosexuality” itself—the invention of homosexual desire as being a separate and distinct condition from human sexual desire as a whole, which is the invention that underlies the push for “rights” for the newly-invented group—is a construct of only the last 150 years or so.

    Even were it not obvious that “homosexuality” as a separate condition or status is a pseudoscientific construct of recent origin, the fact remains that the gay-rights movement began as a sport offshoot of mainstream Marxism, and was totally in thrall to Marxist thought and rhetoric during its heyday, between the Stonewall riots and the onset of the AIDS epidemic—at which time the entire template for the movement as we know it today was created, and many of the older activists learned/acquired their outlook on life.

  34. 34Bryan on Jan 28, 2010 at 11:54 am:

    @Starless

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for a “gay gene” or a “set of gay genes.” We already have enough scientific data to conclude that there is no such thing, because we have many examples of identical twins – two people who share the exact same genes – who have differing sexual preferences. So, no. There is no gay gene. That isn’t to say, however, that genetics does not have a role. The “cause” of same sex attraction could very well be a genetic pre-disposition that is then put in motion by certain environmental factors.

    And even if there were gay genes I don’t think it would imply a necessity to perform a particular act or participate in a certain type of behavior. Then, we might need to get into the “ick” factor to determine whether or not a particular act is unhealthy for one or both of the people performing it.

    Also, since people are naturally free beings, any use of natural law to justify slavery or oppression has been a misapplication of the concept, by definition.

    I think the family issue is important to bring up, though. I’m not against gay adoption and marriage is not a prerequisite for adoption. But I am hesitant to make it some kind of right for gay people to adopt. A friend of a friend is in a committed relationship and they acquired children through means of In vitro fertilization and a surrogate mother. Both of them have good jobs, so rather than having one stay at home with the kids they hired a nanny. I’m nervous about this situation in the future. The kids are very, very attached to their nanny and although she lives with the family, it is no guarantee that they will be able to afford her services in the future. Not only that, but after the kids reach a certain age where they don’t ‘need’ a nanny – or she is fired for whatever reason – are they going to feel as if their mother is being ripped away from them? I’m not sure, but I’m interested in how it develops.

    Last thing, (not just on this post, but on the entire thread – unless I”m specifically asked to respond to a particular question): Arguments about orifices and what organs are put where, can have an adolescent tone, but I don’t think it has to. Doctors talk about effects of these acts as well in a scholarly way. Its hard for non-doctors to see the body objectively sometimes, but doctors have a knack for it. So I guess I don’t bring up different types of sexual acts in these discussions as trying to gross people out of one view and into my view, but to look at them objectively. Again, I’m convinced that the objective nature of a sexual act between the reproductive organs of a male and female is much different than the nature of a sexual act between a male’s reproductive organ and a man (or woman’s) digestive system. One is unitive, and therefore a marital act,* and one is not unitive and therefore not marital. The american government should not change the english language to call an act unitive that is not unitive. Anyone who is opposed to big government should oppose a redefinition of the word marriage to accommodate same sex couples.

    *Is this type of act marital every time? No. It is not if the couple has not consented to marriage. Their bodies might be united, but other aspects of what might define personhood are not.

  35. 35CattusMagnus on Jan 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm:

    Sam: I’d totally do Cindy McCain.

    Not without all that airbrushing you wouldn’t! She looks like she walked off the set of Night of the Living Dead (no offense Zombie).

    Just imagine all of that flabby, sweaty, middle-aged flesh slapping together, grunting as they thrust in workman-like fashion.

    Starless, that was so uncalled for. Ick.

    Bryan #34,
    Last Sunday night I happened to catch a show on TLC called Twins: What You Never Knew. In it they addressed the issue of homosexuality in one twin and heterosexuality in the other. They said that some scientists think during early development in the womb, a portion of the homosexual’s DNA strand breaks away and reattaches itself to the DNA strand in the opposite direction (they had a cute little animation of this). I don’t know how this is possible. I’m not a geneticist. I’m just relaying what I watched.

  36. 36Kun on Jan 29, 2010 at 4:40 am:

    @buzzsawmonkey:
    “… the fact remains that the gay-rights movement began as a sport offshoot of mainstream Marxism, and was totally in thrall to Marxist thought and rhetoric during its heyday, between the Stonewall riots and the onset of the AIDS epidemic—at which time the entire template for the movement as we know it today was created, and many of the older activists learned/acquired their outlook on life.”

    One could say the same for the women’s rights movement in the late 1800′s-early 1900′s. There were plenty of Communists, Socialists and Anarchists within said movement and modern feminism today does have a sizable Marxist grouping within it. One could make a similar argument for the struggle for black rights (Marx praised Lincoln for defeating the Democrats and their slave aristocracy during the 1860′s) since besides the liberals supporting MLK Jr. there were plenty of leftists supporting Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.

    The idea that the whole concept of gays rights is inherently Marxist is wrong for the same reasons (and more) then saying that women’s rights and black rights (or native rights; don’t forget Leonard Peltier). For one, Marxists were critical of homosexual movements (calling them “bourgeois”) up until the 1960′s, wherein western research and an already “open where one looked” gay culture had existed (and was basically tolerated) and was slowly growing. In the rest of the world, however (and even in parts of the West—Bob Avakian and the RCPUSA condemned homosexuality up until the mid 90′s) Marxists were obviously not very fond of homosexual movements. In Socialist Albania, which had a very progressive women’s rights movement but no gay “tradition” as it were, gay men were condemned as “male chauvinists” whereas lesbians were semi-protected because of their “resistance to male chauvinism.” Homosexuality was viewed strictly in terms of class struggle, not biology. (Engels also disproved of homosexuality, as did probably Lenin, and Stalin signed laws against it)

    Any Marxist current within the gay rights movement is probably weaker than the Marxist current within modern-day feminism (since the former is still active, whereas the latter is more of a “hanger-on.”) As homosexuals are becoming increasingly integrated into society, the whole motivation for those who use Marxism to advocate gays rights is disappearing; especially as those same people are rarely workers and have little incentive to move onwards from gay rights itself inasmuch as applying Marxism goes. Marxist feminism is also struggling to survive (in no small part due to its current petty-bourgeois fixations), since the ability for a woman to become a bourgeoisie—though limited—is pretty much possible in today’s world.

    Speaking as a Marxist myself who is involved in organizing, and speaking also as a person who has met gays who range from Stalin-supporting workers to bourgeois conservative reactionaries, I think that “Gay Liberation” will die out as a petty-bourgeois fixation in a way “Women Liberation” has similarly been gimped. In any case, I can’t see “Gay Liberation” being mainstream to begin with. Holding Washington D.C. rallies solely for gay rights in which prime speakers include US Army officials doesn’t sound particularly “leftist” to me.

    Of course your views on what constitutes a “Marxist” are probably different than mine.

  37. 37Kun on Jan 29, 2010 at 4:42 am:

    I can’t seem to edit my post, so a bit of a clarification:
    Any Marxist current within the gay rights movement is probably weaker than the Marxist current within modern-day feminism (since the former is still active and is far less based on class struggle; as said, even CEOs can support gay rights, whereas the latter is more of a “hanger-on.”)

  38. 38buzzsawmonkey on Jan 29, 2010 at 6:31 am:

    That you are a Marxist was clear immediately in your initial post @ 32.

    There is no purpose to picking apart your posts ##36, 37 point by point; whether you are employing the devious and misleading arguments displayed there intentionally, as a part of modern-day Marxist taqiyya techniques, or unintentionally as an example of earnest but ignorant and boneheaded true belief, there is absolutely no chance that you will be open to persuasion.

    To those readers, however, who might possibly be momentarily gulled by your torrent of deception, I will observe that it makes no difference that some Marxists vocally despise homosexuals and some do not. The fact remains that the homosexual rights movement itself has its roots and its templates in Marxism, regardless of what any other leftwingers outside that movement may have thought or done or said.

    Your efforts to imply that “Marxism” is some kind of monolith are risible; anyone who has ever walked past a college knows that there are practically as many leftwing parties as there are individual students, each with its own card table, manifesto, angry glazed-eyed adherent(s), and guaranteed hellish utopia. Some of these remoras clamp onto “class struggle,” some onto “racial justice,” some onto “sexual equality,” some onto “anti-colonialism,” and some on a combination.

    They all have in common the same dreary jargon whose meaning shifts and slithers as soon as they are caught out in a fact (i.e., frequently); all pretend, and seem to actually believe, that despite each of these pathetic splinter parties being as like the others as two peas, that there are worlds of difference between them. And every single one of them is equally dedicated—as the gay-rights movement was 40 years ago, and remains today—to doing its level best to destroy its chosen little aspect of the society that permits it to exist.

  39. 39Ringo the Gringo on Jan 29, 2010 at 8:22 am:

    buzzsawmonkey,

    “Marxist taqiyya techniques”…Thanks! I’ve looking for such a perfectly concise description for a long time. Hope you don’t mid if I borrow it.

  40. 40buzzsawmonkey on Jan 29, 2010 at 8:31 am:

    Ringo the Gringo: buzzsawmonkey,

    “Marxist taqiyya techniques”…Thanks! I’ve looking for such a perfectly concise description for a long time. Hope you don’t mid if I borrow it.

    By all means; I’d be proud. It is necessary to take back the language.

  41. 41Starless on Jan 30, 2010 at 6:09 am:

    Ken: FWIW, however, I can’t imagine Gore grunting or anything. Does that guy have even two facial expressions?

    Only when he’s talking about AGW. Besides which, I never said he was the one doing the thrusting and grunting. You don’t imagine Hilary! would be the zero in that relationship, do you?

    Bryan: Don’t hold your breath waiting for a “gay gene” or a “set of gay genes.” We already have enough scientific data to conclude that there is no such thing, because we have many examples of identical twins – two people who share the exact same genes – who have differing sexual preferences. So, no. There is no gay gene.

    Really? So the functions of all 25,000 genes, billions of protein strands, and how they all interact have been definitively determined? That’ll be news to the entire scientific community.

    Non-sarcastically — obviously, I doubt your claim, because despite having mapped all human genes, deciphering all of their functions is far, far, far from complete.

    And really, Bryan, the more complex your argument becomes regarding who does what to whom, the more adolescent it sounds. I’m not trying to change your mind. You are obviously committed to your position and that’s fine, but if you could stand back from what your saying and look at it more critically, you might see what I’m getting at.

    CattusMagnus: Starless, that was so uncalled for. Ick.

    *grunt* *grunt* *slap* *slap* *grunt* *slap* *slap* *slap* *grunt*

  42. 42Kun on Jan 30, 2010 at 9:14 am:

    @buzzsawmonkey:

    You’ve apparently been unable to refute my actual point: what aspects of the gay rights movement today are Marxist? What makes Marxism have its “roots” and “templates” in the gay rights movement? That 30 years ago some held leftist views all-round constitutes an active Marxist current in gay rights today?

    I’m well aware that there are many Communist Parties and movements. All of them, however, at least believe in class struggle and a worldwide classless and stateless society. Most of those parties are also Leninist in formation. Gay rights, by the fact that it itself a “party” or “organization,” cannot have such consistency. Just as any other rights for any other group cannot have such consistency.

    I just wish to know how “two people of the same gender can get married” is comparable to “overthrow capitalism across the world,” or even how gay rights would make the latter task any easier.

  43. 43Kun on Jan 30, 2010 at 9:15 am:

    I once again yearn for an “edit” option, but I guess I’ll just be more vigilant.

    Once again, clarification:
    “ay rights, by the fact that it itself isn’t a…”

  44. 44Bryan on Jan 30, 2010 at 11:18 am:

    @Starless

    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?

    Let me ask you this. Is it even possible, in your mind, to discuss the differences between different sexual acts? Or does going there automatically make it adolescent? I’d like to think we can discuss these differences in a mature manner. 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.

  45. 45Bryan on Jan 30, 2010 at 11:23 am:

    So the functions of all 25,000 genes, billions of protein strands, and how they all interact have been definitively determined? That’ll be news to the entire scientific community.

    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?

  46. 46Bryan on Jan 30, 2010 at 11:52 am:

    CattusMagnus:

    Last Sunday night I happened to catch a show on TLC called Twins: What You Never Knew. In it they addressed the issue of homosexuality in one twin and heterosexuality in the other. They said that some scientists think during early development in the womb, a portion of the homosexual’s DNA strand breaks away and reattaches itself to the DNA strand in the opposite direction (they had a cute little animation of this). I don’t know how this is possible. I’m not a geneticist. I’m just relaying what I watched.

    Interesting. I haven’t heard of this before, and it would be very beneficial to learn more about it. Seems fishy, though. Primarily it seems fishy in that this doesn’t seem to happen in other traits of identical twins like, for example, eye color. I’ll have to keep my eyes open for this program. Thanks for bringing to to my attention.

    Even if this was the case, however, I do not believe that this would make homosexuals capable of marriage for the same reasons I wrote above.

  47. 47buzzsawmonkey on Jan 31, 2010 at 10:54 am:

    Kun: You’ve apparently been unable to refute my actual point: what aspects of the gay rights movement today are Marxist? What makes Marxism have its “roots” and “templates” in the gay rights movement? That 30 years ago some held leftist views all-round constitutes an active Marxist current in gay rights today?

    You are either kidding yourself or trying to kid me. I said, quite clearly, that the gay-rights movement has its roots in Marxism and is based upon Marxist templates, not that Marxism has its roots in the gay-rights movement as you say above.

    That the original gay-rights movement—back when it was called “gay liberation”—was entirely based on Marxist rhetoric and visions is immediately clear to anyone who can force themselves to read the lengthy, illiterate, and tedious manifestoes of that period. These manifestoes blather at length about capitalist hegemony, bourgeois morality, and all those other dreary exemplars of Marxist cant.

    More to the point, however, the creation of a new grievance-mongering constituency at odds with existing social mores is a classic Gramscian strategy. The beauty of this strategy is that once the constituency has been created and taught to define itself in opposition, it runs on autopilot—and it becomes immaterial whether the constituency then adheres to splinter party X’s Marxist dogma. Its purpose is served when it knocks out a few of the props of society.

  48. 48Kun on Feb 1, 2010 at 5:49 am:

    @buzzsawmonkey:

    I did not claim that Marxism came out of gay rights. I’m asking you how gay rights in today’s world has much to do with Marxism.

    When I think of Communists who followed a “Gramscian” strategy (even though they weren’t actually Gramscians), I think of Anna Louise Strong or Albert E. Kahn. I don’t think of Kevin Jennings or Obama or whoever. The former two actually worked against bourgeois media and for proletarian media. They didn’t fight for gay rights or whatever. They were journalists whose pamphlets and books were distributed to workers. If some “Gramscians” want to focus on social issues as a way of achieving socialism and wish to operate wholly in Universities, then they’re free to do so. They’re also free to fail due to adopting an anti-Marxist and non-class-based perspective.

    As I’ve said before, gay rights cannot be any sort of “trojan horse” for Marxism. When homosexuals were not tolerated publically, they turned to leftism. When gay rights became a tolerated movement, those “leftists” (the vast majority being petty-bourgeois) moved back into the mainstream, especially since gay rights was not tied to any specific economic status (unlike rights for women and blacks). Whatever they “learned” 30 years ago does not mean that they are particularly Marxist today. When I’ve heard of ex-BPP types, they have wholly moderated themselves. They no longer talk about capitalism as being exploitative, only “unchecked” capitalism. They’re social-democrats at best, and they disown Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. They treat Marx as a “smart man” (so do quite a few neoclassical economists), but of course his findings are “outdated” and “most” of his actual theories were later “proven” to be “wrong.”

    I’d like to could focus on on two things:
    1. What makes the gay rights movement today a Marxist one? In what way does the “victory” of gay rights (that is, gay marriage) help Marxism?
    2. What makes (for example) Kevin Jennings a Marxist?

  49. 49buzzsawmonkey on Feb 1, 2010 at 9:32 am:

    Kun: I’d like to could focus on on two things:
    1. What makes the gay rights movement today a Marxist one? In what way does the “victory” of gay rights (that is, gay marriage) help Marxism?
    2. What makes (for example) Kevin Jennings a Marxist?

    Your instinct for the capillary is fascinating, but your questions are both irrelevant and incomprehensible.

    I have not argued at any point either that “gay rights advances Marxism” or that Kevin Jennings is necessarily a Marxist, though he may well be.

    Rather, I have said that the concept of a “gay community,” and of a “gay rights” interest group, is a Marxist construct. Its purpose is to destroy the cohesiveness of the existing US society.

    Let us return, rather, to your ridiculous construct that same-sex marriage represents a “right.” Where and how do you derive this notion?

  50. 50Ken on Feb 1, 2010 at 5:24 pm:

    Rather, I have said that the concept of a “gay community,” and of a “gay rights” interest group, is a Marxist construct. Its purpose is to destroy the cohesiveness of the existing US society.

    There are so many things wrong with that…I just don’t even know where to begin.

  51. 51buzzsawmonkey on Feb 1, 2010 at 7:17 pm:

    Ken: I just don’t even know where to begin.

    You can begin by explaining on what basis you consider same-sex marriage to be a “right.”

  52. 52Ken on Feb 2, 2010 at 12:09 am:

    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.”

    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.

  53. 53Starless on Feb 2, 2010 at 5:58 am:

    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.

  54. 54buzzsawmonkey on Feb 2, 2010 at 8:02 am:

    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.

  55. 55buzzsawmonkey on Feb 2, 2010 at 8:05 am:

    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.

  56. 56Ken on Feb 2, 2010 at 10:14 pm:

    No, I’ve read the back-and-forth above very clearly. I just can’t see any evidence that your position:

    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.

  57. 57buzzsawmonkey on Feb 3, 2010 at 3:33 pm:

    Ken @ #56:

    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.

  58. 58Ken on Feb 3, 2010 at 7:16 pm:

    Oh, silly me, buzzsawmonkey. Here I thought you were interested in a conversation. How wrong I was. You’re clearly just itching for a fight, something you wont get from me (due to my not being able to debate as well as others as much as my not caring these days to argue like a fool on the Internet). I will address a few points, though:

    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.

  59. 59Kun on Feb 4, 2010 at 5:08 am:

    I think at this stage it’s really just worth arguing about same-sex marriages, etc. (which I have no interest in arguing)

    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.”

  60. 60buzzsawmonkey on Feb 4, 2010 at 9:18 am:

    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.

  61. 61buzzsawmonkey on Feb 4, 2010 at 9:32 am:

    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.

  62. 62شات كتابي on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:41 am:

    You can begin by explaining on what basis you consider same-sex marriage to be a “right.”