Reply With Quote
lol not getting it
I don't think there's a 2-3 sentence quote, but the History of Sexuality volumes 1-3 makes this argument (sexuality is construct, sexuality threatens mainstream sexual norms). I also think a similar argument is made in St. Foucault: towards a gay hagiography.
lol not getting it
Successfully adopting an iden y opposite the one that has been assigned to you is always subversive.
Same-sex marriage can only be seen as inherently phobic if one assumes that monogamous relationships and parenting are fundamentally heterosexual desires and/or goals. Seeing sexuals who do these things as adopting heterosexual values necessarily requires the assumption that those values are inherently heterosexual. In reality, however, same-sex marriage is not an example of sexual couples trying to appear more straight, but rather an example of the fact that straight people aren't so special and unique for wanting the things they do.
Which is exactly the thing that makes it so threatening to people who have put so much time and energy into defining themselves and determining their own worth based upon what they perceive as inherently straight values. That gay couples may try to adopt a traditionally heterosexual lifestyle reinforces the importance of those values as something to strive for; it perhaps sends the message that a traditionally straight lifestyle is more ideal than a stereotypically gay lifestyle. However, that sexual couples are so frequently good at it calls into question the inherent straightness of the traditional family. Legal marriage is the big battle precisely because it's the one thing that remains to separate "them" from "us."
Taming gay iden y is only appealing when the result is less swishy gots kissing each other in bondage gear within view of the straights, not when the result is gay people seamlessly integrating themselves into heterosexual society. And certainly not when the result is them being better at being straight than straight people are.
It doesn't negate difference, it merely redefines where those differences exist.
Oh, I'm pretty sure they've said that. Butler, especially.
However, I'm pretty sure they would have done so in arguing that Judeo-Christian culture is a construct that should be threatened.
there's nothing to "threaten", there's no risk to Jueo-Christian culture, except the risk that of the hard-liners repulsing their more open-minded members out of their religions.
Those authoritarian anti-democratic religions simply want to impose/enforce their morality and ethics on a secular country and a Cons utionally secular federal govt.
That's what I was going to ask CF:
what does the judeo christian culture lose if gay marriage is acknowledged by the government?
That's a powerful argument and one which I didn't think of, tbh. However, the fact that marriage has been and still is (to some extent) viewed as a reproductive activity (find girl/get married/have kid) does seem to make it an exclusively heterosexual act. Do married people not have kids? Sure. And despite the advances of modern technology, the fact remains that sexuals can't reproduce. I think that there still is something to the notion of marriage being a heterosexual construct; meaning that it can't be hollowed out as a practice or act that is neither naturally or heterosexual.
I dunno about this. Seems like succesful assimilation rather than better at being straight. And I also question how much of the desire to have a family like a heterosexual couple is born by the desire to have a family vs. some sort of response to the social pressures a gay person faces throughout his or her life. I guess it will always be done on a case by case basis, but to me it seems like getting married is an attempt to fit-in to others' preconceived notions of what a relationship should be or should look like.
This is what bothers me though. You speak of seamless integration within society. Not 30 years ago, gays were basically AIDS carrying morally depraved monsters. They represented the zero-point of otherness to WASP heterosexual norms. Now, we've tamed that otherness, integrated it into society, and in doing so have normalized a certain gay iden y. I mean, like at the video in the first reply in this thread to see what I'm getting at.
See Boutons.
This is what getting it looks like
To me, the point made is that there is no pre-conceived or natural sexual iden y that is associated with marriage. Like anything else, marriage is a practice that is done by people and does not entail a natural or necessary iden y to cons ute and "do it." If I've over-generalized, bear with me.
The problem I have is that in practice, the marriage will always be associated with heterosexual iden y. Pragmatically, I don't see how teh gays can essentially coopt marriage.
I never understood straight guys hating gay guys. I always just looked at it as less compe ion for the hot women.
What does it actually lose? Nothing.
What is it afraid of losing? Its uniqueness.
some straight guys go crusin for gays, get a blow job, THEN beat them up.
But as you acknowledge, there isn't really anything holding us to that definition of marriage other than tradition. It's not something to which we are particularly attached based on any other criteria, and as various evidence shows (heterosexual marriages without children, same-sex couple with them, etc.), it's a definition that is increasingly at odds with how marriage actually functions within both straight and gay contexts. The very reasons you cite as evidence for marriage being an exclusively heterosexual act are exactly the things that are challenged when sexual couples adopt more traditional family roles. Over time, those are the things that will end up changing or being perceived differently, rather than sexual iden y.
It could just as easily be argued that when some straight people get married it is also an attempt to fit in to others' preconceived notions of what a relationship should be or should look like. Or that a straight person's desire to have a family is some sort of response to the social pressures they've faced throughout their life.
The error with this rationale is in the assumption that the lives we want are in any way shaped or affected by the gender with whom we want to share those lives. Not all straight people have a burning desire to get married and/or have kids. Not all gay people lack that desire.
Gays were never actually AIDS carrying morally depraved monsters. They were perceived that way by the heterosexual community. And much of that perception had to do with the fact that the gay lifestyle is one that encouraged anonymous sex, often because so many of the participants were closeted men who had to keep their gay desires and their straight lives separate for fear of horrible consequences, and because anal sex carries a particularly high risk of blood/fluid exchange. But promiscuity, infidelity, and sexually transmitted infections have never been unique to the sexual community.
Furthermore, you mention that our society has normalized a certain gay iden y. That "certain" is important. We still largely require that sexuals (gay men especially, but also lesbians) adhere to a particular definition and that they remain easily identifiable. And we tend to either ridicule those who step too far outside the boundaries of that accepted iden y, or to demonize those who fool or "trick" us by getting too close to the other side.
In this case, and generally throughout your entire argument, you're mistaking changes in the ways sexuality is perceived for changes in the ways the sexual community identifies itself. LGBT people will continue to be LGBT forever by virtue of who they are naturally attracted to. The rest of it -- whether or not the LGBT community is living up to society's expectations, whether it is assimilating, or becoming tamed, or whatever else -- is everyone else's problem to figure out.
I remain unconvinced it's the goal of the sexual community to co-opt anything. Or to take from heterosexuals what belongs to them.
Furthermore, I think it's odd that in your earlier point you seem to acknowledge that perceptions of the sexual community have changed drastically over the past thirty years, but are so certain that perceptions of marriage won't also change over time. The only reason we're even at the point of discussing same-sex marriage today is because people have slowly accepted that sexuals aren't, and have never been, the boogeymen they once feared. It's a slow row to hoe, no doubt, and there will likely be bigoted hold outs for decades to come, but it's almost certain that there will come a time the definition of marriage (at least outside of the church) is no longer associated with heterosexuality. Especially since, as you acknowledged earlier, the heterosexual communities ownership of the term/concept is fairly tenuous to start with.
here's some extreme tea-bag sucking right-wingers imposing their morality/ethics on everyone:
Michigan Senate Advances ‘License To Discriminate’ Healthcare Bill
Michigan Senate approved a “license to discriminate” bill today that would allow healthcare providers to discriminate against patients if it violates their “religious beliefs, moral convictions, or ethical principles.” It’s one of many anti-women and anti-LGBT bills state Republican lawmakers are trying to sneak through during the lame duck session. In the House, a similar pair of bills would allow adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples without losing state funding.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/1...althcare-bill/
Pharmacist: "I think (eg, tatoos) are unethical, so GTFO of my pharmacy"
(Mormon) doctor: "I know blacks are the spawn of Cain, so GTFO out of my office"
etc, etc.
I don't think it's just tradition. I may be muddling the issue, but I'm just thinking about how marriage fits within larger networks of power. To me, marriage, the union of two people, fits neatly within how power manages people and populations - it's the precondition and mechanism through which society dictates how the population reproduces itself. It's a node where reproduction, iden y, law, and religion intersect. It doesn't necessarily have to be so. But I have a hard time imagining a shift away from this understanding. While I agree that there is nothing necessarily heterosexual about marriage, and that sexuals are challenging many preconceptions about marriage, I don't think those challenges will be sufficient to challenge the momentum built up over thousands of years. To many, marriage always will be a union between a dude and a chick. And, forgive the buzzword, the bio-political ramifications behind marriage suggest, to me at least, that there will always be a heterosexual component that sexuals can't quite successfully challenge.
I'm not making an argument that our gender or sexual iden y or race etc... are natural; I'm hip to the jive of it being a performance, a construct we don. That being said, perceptions of our gender/sexual iden y/race/etc... do profoundly affect our choices and our actions. The way a black man is treated is going to profoundly affect his politics vis-a-vis a white man.
I never meant to suggest that they actually were AIDS monsters or anything.
You put the point more eloquently than I have - but the notion that we accept certain notions of sexuality to me seems part and parcel of the problems with gay marriage. To me, there seems something wrong with the notion that society can accept sexuality so long as it conforms to certain patterns of behavior - i.e. marriage. It's as if society says, "you know, the gays aren't so bad; they're just like us. They prefer monogamy and marriage etc.. etc..."
What seems really threatening is the gay culture of the 70s and 80s: bathhouses, anonymous sex, etc... etc...
You may be on to something about the difference between society's perception of the gays vs. the gays self-identification. But the more I think about it, the more I think the issue isn't about gay vs. straight. It's about a sexual iden y that society deems acceptable (and regulates) vs. a sexual iden y that is more fluid, transgressive, and threatening to society. I'm not explaining this well, but something gets lost when you go from the experimentation of sexual iden y that Foucault discusses with regards to sexuality to gay marriage. And whatever that thing is that gets lost - to me - is part of why marriage is phobic.
Whether or not its a conscious "agenda item," the point being made is that gay marriage re-configures the notion that marriage is exclusively a heterosexual act. And I don't know what to call that if not "co-option?"
And I don't think that the issue is whether or not we, as a society, will come to terms with gay marriage one day. We probably will become "ok" with it. The point, I think, is that in that process of getting to ok, the difference presented by sexual iden y becomes tamed and normalized; I think the words you used were seamlessly assimilated. That's where the problems lie. I think something gets lost in that process and I think that there's value to antagonism and discord between our understandings of marriage and gay iden y. When that antagonism dissapears, and we accept gay marriage, how's that not an instance of power/society/law/etc... successfully assimilating and managing what was once a threat?
I saw marriage as a rite of passage into being responsible. Not to say I was irresponsible as a single male when it came to work or paying my bills but beyond that I was a crazy mother er that thought he was bulletproof. I cheated death multiple times because I thought it was fun and I was lucky. Getting married and having children changed my whole outlook on life.
Just let them get married and give them the same handouts, tax breaks, and benefits that straight couples get and shut the up about it. If you want to still think that marriage is a between 1 man and 1 woman, you can. No one is going to stop you from thinking that. You can have your standards and others can have theirs. Isn't that a fair compromise?
I don't think it's the responsibility of the LGBT community to stay edgy or transgressive, though.
A lot of this seems to be wrapped up in perceptions, either societal or your own. The same-sex-marriage-as- phobia narrative is inextricable from your own perceptions that sexual culture used to be this one thing, and that it is now becoming this other thing associated with heterosexual culture. It doesn't take into account the fact that sexual culture, or the nature of /bisexuality hasn't changed at all. It is still a group of individuals within individual wants and desires acting according to their own individual motivations. Same as heterosexual culture. You see same-sex marriage as being inherently phobic because it trades the lifestyle/traits that you have personally identified as inherently for the lifestyle/traits that you have personally identified as inherently straight.
Here, and when you earlier mention that it's only the bathhouse sexuality that is really threatening to heterosexuality, I wonder if perhaps your definition of a threat is too narrow. I think it's true that the early misconceptions of sexuality were threatening to those who feared that culture would extinguish or otherwise pervert straight culture. However, I don't think it's accurate to think of increased tolerance or "assimilation" means that the perceived threat to heterosexual values has been neutralized. Quite the contrary. It merely shifts the threat from the disruption of heterosexual values to the unsettling of their very foundation. For those opposed to marriage equality, a more family friendly LGBT community merely redefines the threat, it doesn't erase it.
So much for "not caring about teh gays anymore," B....
I like how Jacob thinks he's being so subtle with his phobia.
I voted for Gary Johnson. Just sayin'.
I take it you know that from experience. I never heard of that before.some straight guys go crusin for gays, get a blow job, THEN beat them up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions