The false debate on gay marriage: Personal emancipation impossible under capitalism

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fred
The false debate on gay marriage: Personal emancipation impossible under capitalism
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The false debate on gay marriage: Personal emancipation impossible under capitalism. The discussion was initiated by Fred.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Fred
Henk wrote:Using the

Henk wrote:
Using the methodology developed by Marx to analyze the Jewish question in 1844, one can conclude that same-sex couples gain nothing from obtaining the right to legal marriage other than the same institutionalized oppression that married heterosexual couples receive in the dehumanizing social world of capitalist society, including "the right" to such things as domestic violence, brutal divorce, sexual frustration, economic insecurity and personal alienation.

So yippee gays can now get married in England and Wales. Aren't they lucky? And what a triumph for Cameron and UK liberalism. It only remains now for all these newly weds to be able to find jobs, affordable housing, money to pay bills for food, water, power, transport and you name it, and everything in the garden will be rosy. Or so we can kid ourselves.

And what about gays in Africa; will they be getting married? Well, you can be out to death for being gay in many African countries, so I doubt weddings will be all that popular. And gays in the scout movement in the US? Well there aren't any of course because they're banned, and secret gays are not allowed so we're all definitely straight. And gays in Christian churches? This is a can of worms. Gays are definitely forbidden, disliked, rejected and despised in the Mormon church where morality still rules, but in the Anglican church tolerance is replacing morality as the order of the day. This is because hardly anyone goes to Anglican churches anymore, so it's good to be able scrape a few approved gays together to push up the numbers. And Anglicans have been quick too, to embrace all manner of oddities like women priests and bishops, even gay and lesbian priests and bishops - as long as you don't actually "do it" - though it must be difficult to check! - so gay marriages will sweep the board. But laugh out loud! The bourgeoisie have cocked this one up, and the Anglican church will not be engaging with gay marriage after all! Doctrinal issues. Maybe next time. The Catholic church of Rome of course wouldn't touch gay sex with a barge pole, never mind something more responsive, and prefers to deal with sensitive personal matters lie these, sub rosa, in private and away from prying eyes. In any case, Rome now has the additional and unforeseen embarrassment of concealing the real nature of the Magdalene Laundry scandals, through which scam the church was able to abuse and exploit the slave labour of hundreds of unfortunate young women (some just naturally rebellious against repellant authoritarianism) with easy profits for the church.

But Henk is right. All the noise the bourgeoisie makes about it's hallowed and crippling institutions like marriage, and indeed the church itself, is just bluster disguising the fact that capitalism stinks and is decomposing and needs to be put down.

lem_
totally! the concept of human

totally! the concept of human rights is interesting... but i think that  the appeal of workers power or control or democracy, whatever term is correct [in vogue hah?], is not one of human rights but just that the appeal is on the emphasis on savagery. :-) ! by which i mean that the movement of coming to a state of dealienation.

i do think people do and should have rights but it is not their rights that can lead to wholesale historical change, to communism. so not moralism but not quite self interest either. maybe tensions between moralism and self interest will cripple the bourgeois and the politically powerful but if we are workers then i think that it is actually our disempowerment that can lead to a better future, that communism can happen only because it is the only way to affirm ourselves. as long as we are tied to a vision of a better life as one wth more rights then the emphasis is wrong and will simply lead people down blind alleys. i think that it is a victory but we are confusing ourselves as long as we emphasise it in terms if rights because we misread history as a succession of moral victories rather than concrete self affirmation or even just a democracy that does actually represent us. the only semi workplace UPRISING [lol] i was involved with didn't seem to appeal because it was "right", at best because it ought to appear right to the forces of capitalism. but probably because i was able to speak, and be heard - i mean even if it was me being in bad faith it seemed like it could go somewhere - it seemed like in the context of work it was the only way to improve my life, even though there are many things that we can do out of moralism or self interest. maybe when we really listen to each other it becomes obvious that there just isn't any alternative.

 

put CAPITAL to bed. lol.

:-) !

Marin Jensen
Gay mariage for all in France

There's a lot of fuss about this in France with the PS government planning to bring the right of marriage for everybody.

As far as I can see the only advantage in this is that marriage involves various property rights (for example, the survivor inherits certain pension rights).

Then we have the right banging on about surrogate mothers and children becoming commodities.

Well, well. And think what a scandal it was when Marx said this: "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

baboon
hypocrisy

Yes, it's quite amusing. We've had the banging on about the sanctity of marriage and "what about the children?" from the churches who were marrying 9 year olds into upper caste families some centuries ago. And we know how much priests and bishops like children.

A woman on the news the other night was talking about marriage as an institution "going back to the beginning of time". I don't think that she had group marriage in mind.

lem_
i wonder if the next civil

i wonder if the next civil rights movement is about mental health. i read somewhere that was likely, though they were probably mad so hey hum. 

i think it would be interesting ["amusing"] to see it pan out, not cos it's incendiary or anything like that but just cos, well what are they going to do? abolish all the institutions? make better drugs? give us..? i don't think that many [severely, epsecially] mentally ill people really know what they want, beside "something". no, not incendiary but it would be fun to see!

 

 

ha, well a part of me kinda thinks that the whole idea of an expansion of civil rights, at this point, is a little too optimistic. ah well, i guess i will find out, bar smoking myself to death to nullify my medication, or a despairing suicide [joke]. 

hope this post is welcome! i will say, just cos i don't want to put too many feet wrong, but i did [some may have notivce] post on libcom and wind the fuck out of everyone there, eventually ldeaing to a ban. well anyway, i am a little wiser now and totally accept that a lot of my ideas are not worth discussing, let alone posting onto a forum for no reason other than, you know it seems like a pretty good idea. and there's less anarchists here so i'll probably be fine ha [joke]. 

i should probablyt join a left communist party, just for direction, but dunno how much use it would be for _anyone_ [not a joke!]. ta.