>>9347Thank you for the thoughtful answer! I will break the middle section down in parts to answer it more effectively.
>Because it simply can't help doing so. In the first place, the post-Stonewall gay movement was created by middle class white Americans who were college educated and wealthy. I have also slowly begun to realize the overwhelming weight of this aspect playing in to the problems.
>It reflects a certain ideology and like all ideologies it can't include everyone and is built on a fair bit of exclusion e.g. traditional Catholics who see anal sex as a sin and sexual desire as something that has to be restrained as part of the process of being Christian cannot break bread with an LGBT movement that praises indulgence in sexual pleasure as a way to explore the self and live a free life. These are incompatible worldviews. Even if there's attempt to bridge the divide, they remain fundamentally incompatible. Rather than simply accept that they are different, the LGBT activists in the 80s (most of them atheists) instead decided to frame Catholics as the enemy. I thought this was an odd thread to go down on as a response to "proximal communities" (because I had in mind semi-sympathetic ones, more on that later*) but then I sat with it a little and was reminded of the fact that
protestants (mainline)
have been more accommodating, so you may have referred to this too by extension, implicitly. It also ties into
>dangerous consequences e.g. gays supporting Israel.The western zionist base of which is protestant, Americanism and petty bourgeois /+ labor aristocratic.
>Basically, the LGBT movement is too ideologically narrow. They tie being gay or queer to specific [petty bourgeois, labor aristocratic] worldview and of course not all people, including queer people, can or do share that worldview. * The reason I got to confront this problem now recently was through the odd following angle: Reading Engels, specifically Origin of the Family, the section outlining modern history of bourgeois monogamy and evidence that the proletariat exclusion from capital accumulation (legal marriage), women's proletarianization and economic independence and social production, structurally forces a breakaway from bourgeois-monogamous marriage paradigm and towards what he calls 'sex-love' and polyamory.
This then got reminded me of the little history of the yankee LGBTQ history I know of, which was the early stages of it. There they had a proximal community they sought support from.
That was polyamory (via queer movement's connection to it). To my surprise, this connection got weaker with time and today the apparent consensus amongst 'lgbt', 'lgbtq' and 'queer' spaces and forums considers polyamory not only 'not queer' (even though it would fit the early Stonewall era definition of queer, as far as I can tell, which is against normativity / conformance. i.e. it was not merely about gender and sexuality but also higher levels, which rejection of normativity would reflect, thus also including relationship models) but also there is heavy resistance to not including it along even the
LGBTQ+ framework, by these opposing voices. Powerful counter-drivers appear to be the monogamous, frequently biphobic, homosexuals, who, after having framed "gay marriage" as something supposedly desirable in the first place, now these interests are also driving the division into "LGB", as may be already known. This is further proof of the thesis; development towards making the petty bourgeois class interest at work here explicit. Trans destabilizes the gender binary, putting it into question (leading to non-binary proposals) and thus has to be removed. Queer is and has been a bisexual force multiplier that risks destabilizes the patriarchal and monogamous norms and thus has to be removed. The conformist lesbians, gays and transphobic bis rush into the hands of the legal-marriage system, religious institutional support, bourgeois monogamous family.
What's crazy is that, due to the fact nobody fucking reads the selected works, even collections of self-described "Marxists" like here, this has no discourse, no commentary.
Have you ever seen a discussion on the subject of Engels' post-monogamous 'sex-love' as a socio-sexual macrodevelopment into the proletarian era on here? I haven't and I've been browsing this shithole for
years. If anyone did, they'd probably make a thread about it at some point on, especially post the creation of
>>>/lgbt/ (existed for years now), right? But not a single person seemingly is able to engage with anything in regards to this, even the theory thread
>>1163. There literature is just dumped (again for merely aesthetic indications of ideological adherence), not read. This is me
>>8700 a month ago. What I read by Engels made me flabbergast. We're in this eternal peasant/pb-accomodating mindset rather than
appealing to the fucking proletariat, one quarter into the 21st century, having no intuitive self-defense against bourgeois ideology in our daily lives. Something that must play into the widespread ignorance and unseriousness must also be the media. I'm willing to bet that most on here simply click up their imperialist interactive entertainment with liberal narratives x10.000 before even considering reading *gasp* [the Marxist ebook]. Surely reflecting a labor aristiocratic and petty bourgeois predisposition. Having been bribed. This problem of the petty bourgeois ideological masquerade as a part of our movement goes back straight to the start, with Lassalle, Bernstein, and it's just as big of a problem today.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htmIf you have any advice on what I should look in to more specifically in regards to the history / state of the queer movement I would appreciate it greatly.