Say no to gay marriage
Posted by I'm the penguin | Posted in thoughts | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2011
To be honest, when I first read that Karl Lagerfeld oposed the gay marriage movement I didn't really understood why. Maybe he was just fucking hypocrite, or he was too bitter, or maybe he was too cool to be politically correct (Even if such correctness indirectly affected him).
The fact is that I couldn't understand how a gay man with such avantgarde visions, with such a contact with the pop-culture would ever opose to same-sex marriage.
The thing is that I was a bit naive maybe. I lacked context, I lacked history.
Karl Lagerfeld comes from a different time, one where the real gay movement wasn't about marriage rights, or adoption. Gay pride was not about merchandise and being a sellout to the patriarchal standards.
Gays were fighting to be respected, recognized and dignified, just how they were, feminine, drag queens, androgenous or massive bears, it didn't matter, they were fighting for true diversity. The right to be different, having at least minimum civil protection in a world of struggle where they were fighting aginst ancient paradigms of gender, sexuality and spirituality.
That is I think, a true fight for freedom.
How's that any different from wanting marriage?
Well marriage, like many conservatives protest, has a religious background (the real roots are economic, but I'm not making distinction between both right now). Anyway, marriage is an institution based on patriarchal precepts, based on the ownership of the feminine side so a man and a woman can coexist, him providing, her supporting.
The grounds in which marriage is built upon are those of sexism and inequity. And more than anything, the establishment of inflexible gender roles, stone written expectations of masculinity and feminity.
So, for homosexual people to want this, you have to understand that in the eyes of history, is a great betrayl. Conservatives don't realize that from this perspective, it is their victory. A diverse crowd that once fought for being recognized as different and respected, now craves to belong to the club of patriarchy. The movement seeks validation of the social system to be good enough to have a right to enter such rituals.
And the conservative just won't share this club of theirs.
So, yes, I understand why would Lagerfeld would opose gay marriage. It is not only a betrayl of sorts to the right of being different, it is the death of a counter-culture movement, the death of the romantic freedom that was once fought for in the streets. It's surrendering to the social standards and expectations, the same ones that cause the entire struggle.
(This is of course an ideological issue and an ideological stand point, which a truly believe. But being practical I also believe that the modern world reconstructs meanings, and so marriage is more that validation to some, and so it should be a granted right.)
Gays were fighting to be respected, recognized and dignified, just how they were, feminine, drag queens, androgenous or massive bears, it didn't matter, they were fighting for true diversity. The right to be different, having at least minimum civil protection in a world of struggle where they were fighting aginst ancient paradigms of gender, sexuality and spirituality.
That is I think, a true fight for freedom.
How's that any different from wanting marriage?
Well marriage, like many conservatives protest, has a religious background (the real roots are economic, but I'm not making distinction between both right now). Anyway, marriage is an institution based on patriarchal precepts, based on the ownership of the feminine side so a man and a woman can coexist, him providing, her supporting.
The grounds in which marriage is built upon are those of sexism and inequity. And more than anything, the establishment of inflexible gender roles, stone written expectations of masculinity and feminity.
So, for homosexual people to want this, you have to understand that in the eyes of history, is a great betrayl. Conservatives don't realize that from this perspective, it is their victory. A diverse crowd that once fought for being recognized as different and respected, now craves to belong to the club of patriarchy. The movement seeks validation of the social system to be good enough to have a right to enter such rituals.
And the conservative just won't share this club of theirs.
So, yes, I understand why would Lagerfeld would opose gay marriage. It is not only a betrayl of sorts to the right of being different, it is the death of a counter-culture movement, the death of the romantic freedom that was once fought for in the streets. It's surrendering to the social standards and expectations, the same ones that cause the entire struggle.
(This is of course an ideological issue and an ideological stand point, which a truly believe. But being practical I also believe that the modern world reconstructs meanings, and so marriage is more that validation to some, and so it should be a granted right.)
Posts
Interesting point, though I believe the distinction you decide not make between the economic and ideological roots and actual implications of marriage, would make a huge difference in the argumentation if considered.
And I don't think it can be left aside in any way.
I would like to extend my opinion on the last annotation about "reconstructing meanings".
While I understand the patriarchal implications of marriage that I don't support, I would still do it for various other reasons (economic, legal, health, etc) despite the romantic regard towards the feminist movement that I could have. This is, I believe, an important transformation of the meaning of "marriage" that I don't think is exclusive to me at all. This transformation (that could be from that time to today, or from person to person) is not to be trivialized.
In a way, I'm trying to say is that you might end up with different meanings for it, depending on your background, relationship, ideology, etc. This meaning is VERY important, though relative to the subjects. (Not to forget there will be tons of common factors which are not easily shaked off, and probably uncontrollable)
BUT, the actual implications of marriage as a right, and the benefits it grants, are not something that should interfere with the movement and (I love how you call it) the true fight for freedom.
I believe there should be an important distinction when considering the ideological side of marriage (in which case I sympathize with the written above, or with the other thing you say about it, perhaps being about "validation") and marriage as a legal right. Something that I think it's equally important to consider, either being homosexual or heterosexual.