I love this dude. He may be my favorite internet troll ever. His great vocabulary words and his clear talent for insults (“vile saccharine bromides”) are stunning, if not revelatory. I especially love when he starts referencing his abridged Communist Manifesto. His closing is great, too. How could someone with such “adequately self-mocking” bromides be published on a website of such caliber as CounterPunch? Unbelievable.
Thanks for the extra web hits, Rajan!
Rajan Mar 29, 3:49 am
BS. First, the duty of every right-minded (at least left right-minded) person is to contest the discourse of sexual identity not to reproduce it. The unforgivable offense of the “gay rights” movement has always been to pursue the normalization of a historically contingent (Western) identity born of ressentiment. (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know there are no pre-discursive “gays,” or “straights” for that matter. If I’m wrong in that benefit, I would suggest reading Joseph Massad’s paper “Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World” in Public Culture 14(2), pp. 361–385 as a primer on how discourse constructs the gay identity and real world consequences of the liberal failure to get it.)
Second, that “gay marriage” is not a threat to the (legal) institution of marriage is unfortunate. That it in fact strengthens it is disastrous. Beyond implications of state regulation of reproduction and sexuality in general and the official sanctioning of appropriate relationships, marriage hegemonizes and occludes the issue it pretends to address, the proper role (if any) of the state in the fostering and/or supporting the pursuit of a common life by two or more citizens, including the rights and duties respecting the raising of children. Marriage serves admirably the atomizing goals of liberal bourgeois democracy. What should be central political issues concerning how we live together as a people can never be debated because marriage makes them invisible.
Finally, if community approval of personal relationships is important it can be achieved through sacred or secular rights of marriage — devoid of legal consequences — recognized by the community to which those marrying choose to belong. It goes without saying that a personal commitment that requires legal consequences to sustain it isn’t a personal commitment. As for the rest of your vile saccharine bromides, they are adequately self-mocking.
Published on Counterpunch? Unbelievable.