[Peace-discuss] Re: petition period has begun for next year's D and R primaries

[C. G. Estabrook]

Homosexual acts should not be made illegal (nor should homosexuals, if they 
exist, pace Gore Vidal).  But calling for them to be made illegal is an act of 
free speech, which should not be suppressed.

I would think that a libertarian -- as we currently use the term in the US -- 
would agree with both propositions, and I do, but I'm not a libertarian.

If "identity politics were *nothing but* a distraction" -- if groups such as 
blacks and women had no real grievances -- it could hardly work as a distraction 
from class oppression.

The question, is IP in fact functioning that way, as Walter Benn Michaels 
argues. I think so.

How many negatives in THAT?

Regards, CGE


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:06:51PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Amongst those for whom identity politics have replaced class politics -- 
>> i.e., diversity (politics as etiquette) is all the more tenaciously
>> insisted upon as a substitute for economic equality as a real political
>> goal -- voicing such opinions about homosexuality becomes a "hate crime,"
>> the worst delict in the liberal decalogue.
> 
> Carl,
> 
> This woman is (was?) openly calling for either homosexuality, or homosexual
> sex, to be made *illegal*.  This isn't a question of niceties of arguments
> over "identity politics", this is calling for outright repression of a
> minority group under color of law, under some legislature's definition of
> that group.  It should make any self-respecting libertarian's blood boil.
> And this is the strongest you have to say about it?
> 
> Wayne,
> 
> Please say it ain't so.  Inviting Rosanna to retract her retraction sounds as
> if you are asking her to repent of compassion.  Isn't that what it amounts
> to?  Ugh.
> 
>> American society today seems to have a Victorian prudishness about the
>> actual consideration of sexual morality, which is quite different from
>> relegating the matter to the rather minor importance it deserves.
> 
> I agree with that.  In a just society this would be a non-issue.  But it is
> not, since there is a long history in our society and others of recognizing
> homosexuals as a distinct group, persecuting them, and giving them reduced
> rights and protection under the law. Seeking to change that status is a
> political process.
> 
> And complaining, as you seem to be, that there should be no need for such a
> political process -- as if "identity politics" were nothing but a distraction
> -- simply acts to entrench the existing persecution.
> 
> It doesn't make the group labels irrelevant as one might hope, since they're
> already out there -- not only in the minds of people, but also in habits of
> communication, as Bob Naiman's example of a few months ago showed
> beautifully.  (A verbal job offer in a Protestant Northern Ireland factory
> gets spread by word of mouth mostly to other Protestants, not uniformly
> across the local population, even with no ill will on anyone's part.  Social
> networks aren't random graphs.)
> 
> 
> And, of *course*, opposing persecution of less-privileged groups should not
> mean that pursuing economic equality isn't also on the table. (How many
> negatives in that?)
> 
> Stuart
> 
>> But as a political matter we attribute far too much importance to it, 
>> ignoring e.g. the wisdom of Gore Vidal from long ago,
>> 
>> "Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than 
>> there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives
>> describing sexual acts, not people ... The reason no one has yet been able
>> to come up with a good word to describe the homosexualist (sometimes known
>> as gay, fag, queer, etc.) is because he does not exist. The human race is
>> divided into male and female. Many human beings enjoy sexual relations with
>> their own sex, many don't; many respond to both. This plurality is the fact
>> of our nature and not worth fretting about."  --"Sex Is Politics" (1979)
>> 
>>