If homosexuals can marry each other, - Page 36 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Donna
#13768681
So Kasu, this is all basically fine as long as everyone is about to die, right? Glad my kind has friends like you.
User avatar
By Kasu
#13771000
It is fine even if everyone is not about to die.. The number of homosexuals who "settle down" is a minority and it's just as futile as heterosexual monogamy. Even if the "Gay community" as a whole is starting to settle down, a trend is starting outside of the gay butt sex/gender bending community where otherwise 'straight' people are beginning to explore and engage in same sex acts, do not consider themselves part of the gay culture, and have no plans whatsoever to "settle down" with any one (except maybe until a partner is found where reproduction can be secured - a instinctual necessity for continuing one's genetic existence. take note, if your dad did not impregnate a female you would not exist.) And for some reason that comes off to me as more authentic to our natural mammalian sexuality.
User avatar
By Donna
#13771057
gay butt sex/gender bending community


The proper term is Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Two-Spirit, Questioning, Queer community. Or GLBTTQQ community.

Remember this for next time. :borg:
User avatar
By Kasu
#13771074
Why aren't straights included in that? It's identity politics, plain and simple. Those labels are just the further enforcement of sexual boundaries.
User avatar
By Donna
#13771267
Why aren't straights included in that? It's identity politics, plain and simple. Those labels are just the further enforcement of sexual boundaries.


Postmodern, reactionary garbage. Identity politics reflect the law of the unity of opposites (in this case, heteronormativity and the deviant groups), similarly as a proletariat cannot exist without a bourgeoisie. This is basic dialectical reasoning, and it lends itself more logically to the possibility that the gay identity politic will become irrelevant or unrecognizable when it eclipses and destroys the hegemony of heteronormativity.
User avatar
By Kasu
#13771362
thats dumb. The separation is a cultural illusion. They aren't opposite any more than whites and blacks are opposite. The ideas you are expressing have nothing in common with marxism, it is in fact the postmodernism you accuse me of

identity politics has been the gravedigger of revolutionary politics for the last 50 years. It is opportunist to the core.
User avatar
By Godstud
#13771609
Kasu wrote:The separation is a cultural illusion.
It's fact. It's expressed in the reactionary attitude of society towards such things as Gay marriage, in the US. Hear anything about Canada's problems with LGBT marriage lately? of course not. The separation, in this regard, has been removed.

Donald is spot on.

Kasu wrote:identity politics has been the gravedigger of revolutionary politics for the last 50 years. It is opportunist to the core.
Are you kidding???! The Civil Rights movement in the US was about identity politics. Giving women equal rights and the right to vote was also identity politics. Are you saying that people who do not have the same rights and privileges as others, should not be allowed to fight for them?
User avatar
By Donna
#13772131
Kasu wrote:The separation is a cultural illusion.


This is undeniably false as long as antagonisms toward gays still exist. This is like saying that the differences between bourgeoisie and proletarian is an "illusion" of some kind.

They aren't opposite any more than whites and blacks are opposite.


Similarly, antagonisms toward blacks still exist as a result of white privilege, necessitating black identity politics.

The ideas you are expressing have nothing in common with marxism


They have everything to do with marxism. On the other hand, your focus on the biology of homosexuality is thoroughly un-marxist, an appeal to abstract moral thinking.

it is in fact the postmodernism you accuse me of


My view of queer struggle and identity is primarily informed by dialectical reasoning and a materialist understanding of culture. On the other hand, your treatment of identity is totally postmodernist and even manages to contradict your own marxism: the device of emancipation (identity politics) is harmful to those minorities themselves because [insert reactionary criticism of grand narratives, ideology, etc.]

identity politics has been the gravedigger of revolutionary politics for the last 50 years. It is opportunist to the core.


Another un-marxist presupposition. Identity politics originate from a formulated analysis on the very basis that the Western working class had failed to realize any formidable class consciousness (and instead have developed an especially strong false consciousness) after two world wars and multiple revolutions in backward countries. Marxist intellectuals who labored through the post-war period identified the ideological sources of false consciousness, particularly in the commodification of culture. Althusser's attention to ideology was especially important and the Frankfurt School of thought developed a powerful system of analysis as a result. Identity politics thus became a revolutionary agent in practice because all of this dialectical analysis of society appeared to correspond with real and disputed oppressions that were considered the source of false consciousness among the workers.

In other words, something happened to the working class long before the specter of identity politics even appeared. The '60s/'70s, fueled primarily by militant new identities, instead actually created an environment where class struggle re-ignited briefly until neoliberal defeat in the '80s. This lends credence to the notion that the Left should always embrace revolutionary situations outside of the direct organization of workers. That capitalism had managed to appropriate revolutionary identity politics under their own terms also demonstrates the actuality of revolutionary tasks in relation to altering the hegemonic view of all social life. This does not change at all today, where it is imperative that class struggles must now exist within most existing minority identities (for example, eliminating the false consciousness and institutional bias that exists within the identities).

Blaming the failure of the classical communist revolution on the social revolution (rather than contradictions or faults in the leninist or trotskyist formula itself) meets a qualified definition of being reactionary and it's also very bad elementary history. Furthermore, it just generally stinks of privilege: white privilege, straight privilege, male privilege. The kind of people with a huge capacity to approach class struggle in vulgar and reductionist ways, which is your obvious modus operandi as a religious trotskyist.

Godstud wrote:It's fact. It's expressed in the reactionary attitude of society towards such things as Gay marriage, in the US. Hear anything about Canada's problems with LGBT marriage lately? of course not. The separation, in this regard, has been removed.


Queer antagonisms still exist in Canadian society, except that they are not directly expressed in this manner: they are absorbed by the gay community from the society's existing heteronormativity and settled into the gay community itself, by gays themselves. The problem today is that (real) identity politics are especially weak and there is very little resistance to what amounts to an upper-middle class exploitation of the entire gay identity, entirely fueled by the presumptive dominance and rules of neoliberal ideology. Even though you mean well, this is why I generally cannot stand liberals like yourself, Godstud. :D
User avatar
By Godstud
#13772226
You make assumptions, Donald.
User avatar
By Suska
#13772638
Just trying to get a grip on what's going on here...

Kasu's broad-minded approach to sex underlined by his bisexuality excludes him from Donald's acronym soup club? How many acronyms does a club need to become general populace?

Identity politics can never transcend the high heights of forgivably un-patriotic, and because of the actual degenerate lifestyles of the people who employ it there will always be something to complain about because transference of blame can be accomplished with a shrug. To put it more concretely, the ex-slave blacks had a legitimate gripe - their own weaknesses were forgivable because they were institutional for a long time. As far as I'm concerned, the gripe of women and gays is unsustainable and ignorant. There isn't a person born that can't feel put upon. It is a failure of a test of character that people form lawyered gangs of victim-complex nurturing refugees from accountability. There was never an institutional victimization of either gays or women that didn't rise directly from the actual weaknesses those conditions produced, and those are increasingly moot - not because of "identity politics" but because of a renewed acquaintance with diversification of social assignment.

For general social purposes nobody cares if you're gay anymore. Pun intended; quit trying to enshrine butthurt as a way of life, it can only ever be temporarily expedient.
By Pants-of-dog
#13772641
Suska wrote:There was never an institutional victimization of either gays or women that didn't rise directly from the actual weaknesses those conditions produced...


So, when the Nazis shovelled homosexuals into mass graves, it was the fault of the homosexuals?
User avatar
By Suska
#13772644
I was thinking of America, but for sure it didn't take much but being in any way noticeably different, for instance being British was also an unhealthy position to take when Nazis were around.

Also your characterization of mass graves is totally incorrect.
Last edited by Suska on 03 Aug 2011 20:56, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#13772647
That does not answer my question.
User avatar
By Suska
#13772649
Actually it does. My claim is still globally correct excluding Nazi Germany, which verged on omnicidal regardless, and as ever correct in America. Also you are trying to bait me into answering a leading question, as you put it "fault of gay people" is somehow equivalent to "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality."
By Pants-of-dog
#13772656
So, it is a fact that a monogamous gay couple does not enjoy the same hospital visitation rights as a monogamous hetero couple in the USA today.

This is institutional discrimination.

How is this due to the "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality"?

Also, please define "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality."
User avatar
By Suska
#13772666
hospital visitation rights are a matter of hospital policy applying to both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners. You might have suggested several actual rights, such as those governing inheritance and decisions making - all of which can be governed by estate planning and powers of attorney.

The weakness of position here is that domestic partnership is often non-productive and temporary, the consequence of that is there is no tidy package available for them in many states.

please define "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality."
Name an injustice done systematically to women and gays in America. When women wanted the vote they got it despite some fair objections arising from the standard domestic arrangements of the time.
Last edited by Suska on 03 Aug 2011 21:37, edited 1 time in total.
By Pants-of-dog
#13772667
Suska wrote:hospital visitation rights are a matter of hospital policy applying to both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners. You might have suggested several actual rights, such as those governing inheritance and decisions making - all of which can be governed by estate planning and powers of attorney.


That does not answer my question.

How is this due to the "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality"?

Suska wrote:Name an injustice done systematically to women and gays in America. When women wanted the vote they got it despite some fair objections arising from the standard domestic arrangements of the time.


That does not answer my question.

Please define "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality."
User avatar
By Suska
#13772673
I have done so in both general and specific terms, if you have a particular case in mind let's hear it. What is it you think I'm saying Pants? In my experience it seems pretty obvious you're trying to maneuver this into a homophobia accusation. I can't help the fact that men can't have babies in other men's buttholes, and while that may not carry much weight any more, it used to be very important to people.
By Pants-of-dog
#13772711
Okay. I will assume that you will not define your terms.

Now, hospitals seem to be discriminating against same sex couples based solely on outmoded religious and cultural traditions. It seems to have nothing to do with the "weakness of social function/position of homosexuality".
User avatar
By Donna
#13772898
Suska wrote:Identity politics can never transcend the high heights of forgivably un-patriotic, and because of the actual degenerate lifestyles of the people who employ it there will always be something to complain about because transference of blame can be accomplished with a shrug.


I would take it a step further: identity politics are wholly unforgivable if you desire a reproductive, aristocratic and moral society. The idea of introducing identity politics into the struggles of civil society had more to do with a subversive desire to undermine the capitalist order than an abstract concern for the melody of minorities that existed on its fringes. Mid-century, the politics of revolt began looking to the blacks, women and gays as agents of subversion where the organized working class had failed to tear down society. The red terror was replaced with an orgiastic cultural violence instead.

Suska wrote:There was never an institutional victimization of either gays or women that didn't rise directly from the actual weaknesses those conditions produced, and those are increasingly moot - not because of "identity politics" but because of a renewed acquaintance with diversification of social assignment.


Whatever it was, the homosexual experience arrived at a point where the desire to self-destruct became completely reversed and externalized. That shamefully concealed sodomy exploded into public sex, double-lives became not only one-life, but communal. The formal laws that govern demonstration and public gathering suddenly became the ultimate Trojan horse for unmitigated displays of subversive sexuality in public, irreversibly infecting the culture with our Dionysian fanaticism.

Suska wrote:For general social purposes nobody cares if you're gay anymore. Pun intended; quit trying to enshrine butthurt as a way of life, it can only ever be temporarily expedient.


The point of consciousness is not merely to rationalize negatively balanced situations that one is born into, but to experiment with the irrational. Science itself progresses on this rule and society is no exception. Even though it appears that this is destructive, I am still a bit of a Western chauvinist as I believe the theories it has developed (especially devices of analysis) are universal and will do the same thing anywhere else with enough time and steam, South or East. Either human societies have the capacity to realize a ridiculously egalitarian, equal and communistic vision or they don't, and they deservedly burn away in a fit of millennial collapse brought on by discontents.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]