On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 michael perelman wrote:
It is a perfect wedge issue...It also hits at Dean.
Perhaps not. It could be that Dean might have the perfect riposte: that
he's not for gay marriage, he's for gay civil unions. The NYT article
linked below argues that that may well be the position
At 4:51 AM -0500 11/24/03, Michael Pollak wrote:
[I]f civil unions could nationalized so that they included
citizenship rights along with health and housing entitlements and
inheritance, it would be a huge step forward.
And then maybe the way to take the next step forward towards
normalizing
In a message dated 11/20/03 12:50:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book topay attention to this thread but I will not dignify your question with
Melvin, you oppose gay marriage. I think that we all understand that by
now. You are welcome to your opinion, but you should not get personal in
differing with those who differ from you. Nor should those who differ
with you get personal with you. So, please calm down. You made your
opinion
Hello All,
I am home today sick. For me, this is a sad moment. I don't look for times
like this to take stands they just seem to come to me.
When I was young I was assaulted many times as a queer. I didn't even know
what that meant. There are certainly many people like Melvin who are in the
Michael Perelman wrote:
My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets
people emotional and prevents rational discourse. I did not expect that
observation to apply here on this list.
_Every_ issue of any importance to the left gets people emotional, or
ought to. And
I agree with everything that Doyle wrote and mostly agree with everything
that Carroll wrote. I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.
I think that Doyle was closer to the mark. He seems to understand that we
need to learn to
Michael Perelman wrote:
I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.
What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he made
here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that lots of older
SWP'ers,
At the same time, we need to struggle against all injustice, and cannot
let toleration blind must to inequities. I wish I knew the formula to
achieve this.
The Irish formula, from what I understand of it, is that if toleration
blinds you to inequities, you get charged, whether you like it or
Michael wrote:
My original point in mentioning the subject was that gay marriage gets
people emotional and prevents rational discourse. I did not expect that
observation to apply here on this list.
Does that mean we could realistically look forward to the next American
elections as
Doyle Saylor wrote:
My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working
class. We cannot build a socialist society that does not acknowledge all
the different elements that build a society and builds a whole society.
Thanks,
Doyle
Well put.
Joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
As Lou says, a revolutinary party that
did not expel Melvin would not be a revolutionary party.
Well, if a specific revolutionary party sought human liberation
irrespective of wether that human was straight or gay, I assume Melvin
would not join this party.
Solidarity is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/03 11:48AM
Michael Perelman wrote:
I take issue with his agreement with Lou's statement
that a Revolutionary party would have to expel Melvin.
What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like he
made
here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a
In a message dated 11/21/03 8:12:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I was young I was assaulted many times as a queer. I didn't even knowwhat that meant. There are certainly many people like Melvin who are in theleft and feel they are leftists. To them I am morally
In a message dated 11/21/03 9:30:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
recp 'comrades' used to kick shit out of gay rcp-er friend of mine for'bourgeois decadence' during 'maoist self-criticism'sessions...he remained member for number of years as this washappening... michael
Melvin wrote:
I maintain that at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by
the bourgeois and part of the decay and degeneracy in society.
The Bolsheviks were outspoken supporters of gay rights. Not only did
the Soviet Union abolish all laws against homosexual acts in December,
1917,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further, with the acceptance of homosexuality in society a number of
social issue arise... ... I teach them that homosexuality is
primarily - not exclusively, learned behavior. ... I maintain that
at this juncture of history homosexuality is propagated by the
Doyle Saylor wrote:
My only answer to that is the whole working class is the whole working
class.
what is the working class, in terms of unique characteristics or use
characteristics that help lend it definition? i am truly puzzled: i go
to work each day. i am part of the yuppie privileged
In a message dated 11/21/03 11:04:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me repeat this with emphasis: the Soviet government did not viewsame-sex relations as being in any way *sick* or *perverted*. It didnot promote homosexuality, nor did it condemn it. This is all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expel Melvin because he thinks different from me. And my wrong thinking and
political assessment is really Stalinism. Because Stalinism did something back
n the 1930s. Forget the economic and social content of the times and the
political maneuver. The issue is sodomy.
--- joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
As Lou says, a revolutinary party that Solidarity
is not the logic of an idea. I repudiate
what Melvin is
saying because I don't agree with himnot because
PEN-L solidarity
(whatever that means) requires that I do so.
Joanna:
I think that the debate with Melvin has gone on long enough. Let's call
it finished.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 11/21/03 11:44:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
i have snipped out all the hand-waving (why, some of my best friends aregay! in fact some of them hit on me!) arguments. i want to hear thefactual basis (outside of the anecdotal evidence that is given) of
In a message dated 11/21/03 2:21:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that the debate with Melvin has gone on long enough. Let's callit finished.--Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929
Sorry I sent another article before I read
As far as I am concerned, Justin's position is correct. What people always
forget in these disputes about reformism and revolutionism is that the
classical debates about this topic, which occurred in Europe, between
Kautsky, Bernstein, Lenin, Luxemburg and so on, took place in a historical
context
ravi wrote:
what is the working class, in terms of unique characteristics or use
characteristics that help lend it definition? i am truly puzzled: i go
to work each day. i am part of the yuppie privileged class. there's a
guy wearing a union t-shirt who installs furniture in my building. am i
in
joanna bujes wrote:
I also take deep umbrage (I've always wanted to use that phrase) at your
characterizing the tonga driver as a wife beater. The notion that the
poorer part of the working class is more violent is very untrue in my
experience. There's plenty of domestic violence among the
At 11:48 AM -0500 11/21/03, Louis Proyect wrote:
What I said is that if Melvin made remarks at a branch meeting like
he made here, he'd be brought up on charges. I know for a fact that
lots of older SWP'ers, especially factory workers, felt threatened
by woman's and gay liberation but they had the
Melvin wrote:
Personally, I abhor homosexuality and feel no compulsion whatsoever to
explain why I think a man penis should be place in a women and not another man. I am
not required to explain my ideology.
Actually, there is no such thing as a man's penis, right? I mean
there's your penis, which
joanna bujes wrote:
Melvin wrote:
Personally, I abhor homosexuality and feel no compulsion whatsoever to
explain why I think a man penis should be place in a women and not another man. I am
not required to explain my ideology.
Actually, there is no such thing as a man's penis, right? I mean
ravi wrote:
joanna bujes wrote:
Melvin wrote:
joanna, i commend you on your rational and measured response. i am not
sure melvin deserves such consideration.
I've filtered Melvin into trash for so long I'd forgotten that he was on
the list. The author of the stuff that You, Joanna, and
In a message dated 11/20/03 8:58:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've filtered Melvin into trash for so long I'd forgotten that he was onthe list. The author of the stuff that You, Joanna, and others havequoted probably ought not to be allowed on a list that calls
Why is homosexuality a Wedge issue?
Here is a simply question that requires thinking. Bigotry is not the
answer.
Melvin P.
I don't think that Carrol was referring to serious differences of
opinion. He was referring to stupid shock jock remarks that you made
that embarrass you and that get in the
In a message dated 11/19/03 11:34:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, there is no such thing as a man's penis, right? I mean
there's your penis, which you have the right to decide where to place.
And then there's other men and their penises, and I guess the question
In a message dated 11/20/03 12:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that Carrol was referring to serious differences ofopinion. He was referring to stupid "shock jock" remarks that you madethat embarrass you and that get in the way of you being taken
In a message dated 11/20/03 12:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like: "I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kicktheir asses."
Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?
Melvin P.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like: I swear, if the girls do not clean up my stove I am going to kick
their asses.
Why should I not kick their ass. Do you have kids or just stupid?
Melvin, Michael Perelman is probably too busy writing his next book to
pay attention to this thread but I will not
I have been teaching all morning. I do not like to give anyone the boot,
but this sort of language is not acceptable. Nor did I appreciate Carroll
saying that he filters someone. Go ahead and filter, but you don't need
to make it public.
Maybe the exchange shows why gay marriage is such an
Um, let's see, because it is child abuse?
Joel
Original Message:
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:43:17 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the next wedge issue
In a message dated 11/20/03 12:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Like
Michael Perelman wrote:
Maybe the exchange shows why gay marriage is such an effective wedge
issue.
Maybe some day we can figure out how to make people get as worked up over
working conditions, inequality, the environment ...
with all due respect, MP, i do get equally worked up about
It looks like gay marriage will be the wedge issue next year to take
people's attention away from the war in Iraq, environmental ravaging,
corporate looting, and other assorted crimes. It will also be useful in
marginalizing the few progressive Democrats left in politics.
--
Michael Perelman
: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] the next wedge issue
It looks like gay marriage will be the wedge issue next year to take
people's attention away from the war in Iraq, environmental ravaging,
corporate looting
Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
I am always perplexed by the combination of an obsessive preoccupation of
Americans with sexual relations, and a puritan christianist morality which
stigmatises a frank and open discussion about it, which seems to lead to the
idea that expressing or using sexual imagery is
Americans are the most over-stimulated and under-gratified people in the
world. If you think about it, this is not a contradiction at all; the
one requires the other -- to ensure compulsive behavior...like shopping.
They can't be under-gratified, otherwise we would hear about it. Or is it
that
More interesting to me is the obsessive labeling.
Why does it matter
that one is homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual,
etc. What is any of this
about?
Don't you know ? Firstly, God forbids human pleasure
not in accordance with
his Law, and some people see themselves as
authorities
But therea re lot of people who have a visceral
disgust about sexual behavior different from theirs
that is independent of any religiosu beliefs.
Visceral? I'm skeptical. Aren't you the one who argues against the
causative value of inborn anything.
Do you mean visceral disgust independent of
I didn't say hardwired and independent of social
conditioning, I said visceral, meaning, gut,; I
wasn't speculating about its cause or origin. I used
to see this when I was teaching. Ohio students found
(male) homosexuality to be, eeww, yuck, gross,
dis-GUST-ing. How would you describe that except
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
I didn't say hardwired and independent of social
conditioning, I said visceral, meaning, gut,; I
wasn't speculating about its cause or origin. I used
to see this when I was teaching. Ohio students found
(male) homosexuality to be, eeww, yuck, gross,
dis-GUST-ing.
But therea re lot of people who have a visceral
disgust about sexual behavior different from theirs
that is independent of any religiosu beliefs.
True. I wouldn't say I was a prude exactly, but I think I can be disgusted
to. I guess that for me though it is rarely the act itself, but more the
. Ohio students
found
(male) homosexuality to be, eeww, yuck, gross,
dis-GUST-ing.
your male students said eeww, yuck? that's so
gay!!
;-)
And my kids, male and female, until I reminded them
forcefully that their beloved godparents and auntie
are gay.
jks
Well, Christ!, Justin. Many college students still find oral sex
viscerally disgusting...it takes a while. Besides, one thing I can tell
you is that while men may publically gag at the idea of having sex with
another man, when they get older, like say, after 40, they all start to
come clean about
It is a perfect wedge issue. It costs nothing, such as good health care
or eductation. Those who it upsets often get unglued by it, to the
exclusion of important issues that really affect them. It solidifies the
repug. base, while few Dems. will actually dare to advocate gay marriage.
It also
Yes, and? Look, I was just saying that I didn't think
that the only reason that homosexuslity was a
lightning rod was that people thought that God hates
fags. I said taht in my experience many peoples eem to
find the thought disgusting. I did not offer a theory
as to why. I did not say that the
someone's got to argue that there are two types of marriage:
1) civil marriages (or civil unions), where the rights and responsibilities are
determined by the state.
2) religious marriages, where the rights and responsibilities are determined by the
religion.
It seems to me that the state
that is absolutely the point.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:45:59PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
someone's got to argue that there are two types of marriage:
1) civil marriages (or civil unions), where the rights and responsibilities are
determined by the state.
2) religious marriages, where
fair enough. sorry--
Joanna
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
Yes, and? Look, I was just saying that I didn't think
that the only reason that homosexuslity was a
lightning rod was that people thought that God hates
fags. I said taht in my experience many peoples eem to
find the thought disgusting. I
Michael Perelman wrote:
that is absolutely the point.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:45:59PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
someone's got to argue that there are two types of marriage:
I tend to see everything in terms of its relevance to building the core
of a mass movement against imperialism
In a message dated 11/19/03 1:38:11 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, and? Look, I was just saying that I didn't think
that the only reason that homosexuality was a
lightning rod was that people thought that God hates
fags. I said that in my experience many peoples seem to
Jim wrote:
The basic principle is that of the division between church and state.
Render unto Caesar and all that...
I agree with you about that, except that I would add:
1) the separation of church and state must explicitly include the guarantee
to the right to one's own religious beliefs and
it may be the point, but I heard a pro-gay lawyer on US National Public Radio missing
the point completely, saying that civil unions represent a separate but equal
policy (i.e., BOO!).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
that is
60 matches
Mail list logo
