LGBT Homelessness

[High Nigga Pie]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Djoser]

In other countries, the LGBT people are killed the moment their secret is out. This is what 1871 means. They do it in Nigeria.

Divorce rates started skyrocketing in the US back in the 80's. Divorce happens for various issues. The actual reality that marriage is bullshit is one. Some people rush into it. And then there's reasons outside of a person's control. Men get left because they're not able to find a job. Lack of providing. Abuse. Lack of sex life. Monetary issues. Etc. Some are out of the failures that come with marriage, some by the cons of society, and then just a natural falling out. Not one sole reason. Divorce occurred so much in the 80's that it was reflected in the sitcoms and other shows. Think about it. Many shows back then showed an absent parent of some sort. Usually the mother. This was the case for many children back then. Seeing their parent go and having to live with the other.

Then not only that, the divorce and custody process favors women very heavily. Even when they're unfit to raise not only a child but their own self. Prenupt aren't always enforced. Back then, judges ignored them because they felt it corrupted what marriage is supposed to be about. Some wives share this view too. I've seen quite a few women get disturbed when the soon-to-be husband wants a prenupt. And prenupts don't cover custody. So any problems dealing with children can still cause hell. Prenuptial agreements are supposed to be helpful in the division of property, but the whole thing is still so fucked up that you'll be lucky to maintain anything without being completely robbed.

Gender roles and socialization between both genders is what causes many relationships to fail. It's portrayed to be a contest of dominance, and then before all of that, the courtship men go through is a double-edge sword because men are taught to fear women and fear what they think and their friends, so their ego is highly vulnerable, sometimes, leading to hating them. It all fails since we're made to be incompatible in the first place.

[High Nigga Pie]

I knew what he was saying, just wanted to know the fucking purpose. No point of comparing atrocities.

[matt romney]

due to 1871's disproportionate attacks on muslim nations, its a little suspicious of american exceptionalism. here yael points out how marginalized the lgbt community here is and 1871 is pointing away from the u.s. straight at the imperialist's next target.

[High Nigga Pie]

Thank you Laz, that is exactly what I meant.

[matt romney]

(07-14-2012 05:37 PM)Younes Wrote:  I believe it is because of the lack of social security and welfare in America that leads to people, especially females to depend on marriage to save their future considering the economic perspective.
In USA as far as I understand, it's alot about knocking yourself up with a guy, I heard all these stories about poking holes in condoms and so on, to get yourself a child and push the guy to either support you or pay child support for the soon to come child.
Also when you get divorced, as far as I understand, woman gets half of your shit, and if she got a child, she will also take the f**king house.
So Of course, when taking this into account, and forgetting what marriage idealistically should be about, it leads to far more divorces.
But the lack of welfare and social security have always been there, so why are divorce rates sky rocketing, well I believe it's due to the social acceptability, it was simply ill viewed back then to divorce, kinda tabu thing to do. Now a days it's far more accepted by the public, so of course, when mother fuckers get the chance, they divorce right away and get away with cash. I ain't say that's the case for everybody, but I would believe it makes out quite the big part of the number of divorces.

first off, everything you just put down was secondhand testimonials. secondly, you didn't really get into the actual social and economic structures.

sociology isn't really my strong point and i'm still a little buzzed but i'll lay down the basics..

marriage was originally designed to perpetuate patrilineage, so basically a man would know where his seeds at and where the inheritance goes. this was to ensure that those with private property (vs personal) would be able to then pass their privileges to future generations. then, with the rise of religious puritanicalism, men too were locked into monogamy. finally we stand at the nuclear family, a bastardization of whatever it means to be in love and devoid of social liberty. i'm going to be a hypocrite here and use some personal testimonial because i don't think anyone will challenge this. out of all the marriages i've seen, maybe 30 percent haven't failed. and thats a generous number. i'd use a statistic but there's no way to quantify those marriages in which the love is gone but they still are under the same roof.

we need to remove social constructs around love and family. (incest, pedophilia, etc are unspoken exceptions of course.) the only way to do that is to progress to a better economic system.

here's the best source on this if you can't read a whole book imho
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wor...y/ch02.htm

if you can, read ancient society.

religion was the natural effect of the oversaturated ignorance and suppressed science that class society oozes. conversely, but just the same, it is the coping mechanism of those marginalized under class society, marx puts it best..

Quote:The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

religious puritanicalism and prejudice are the cornerstones of homophobia. both are results of class society which has evolved into capitalism. without socialism, all attempts at social reform will fall short. soon the lgbt community might be granted equal legal status in the states. but the homophobia and transphobia will remain infused within our social structures. violence and abuse will continue against those who come out of the closet. we will see something similar to the victories by the afrocentric civil rights movement in the 60s, the second class citizenry's oppression will become unspoken and subliminal, while the privileges they can now attain legally mean little without economic and social equality.

this is worth special focus

(07-14-2012 05:37 PM)Younes Wrote:  I believe it is because of the lack of social security and welfare in America that leads to people, especially females to depend on marriage to save their future considering the economic perspective.

theres seem decent analysis here. the economic hardships of the working class push women to rely on marriage. i'd like to explain this further.

with the advent of an industrialized society, the nuclear family was soon expected to generate two incomes. traditionally, it was the woman who would raise the children and keep the household and the man who would keep a wage. now, we expect both husband and wife to go to work, but our social order still dictates that women raise the kids and clean. this phenomenon is known as double exploitation.

decent read
http://www.marxist.com/origins-womens-oppression.htm

---

(07-14-2012 04:41 AM)Younes Wrote:  Oh the idyllic American family values and traditions, this is a major problem that the politicians and commentators don't wanna admit into because it will challenge the American idea of an family, same goes for the high number of divorce rates.

the bourgeois will never acknowledge the inherent problems of capitalism dawg

[Djoser]

Apparently, marxist.com is the source and best source for everything.

[matt romney]

i cited marxist.org too bastard.

[Djoser]

ANYTHING MARXIST IS BEST SOURCE

[1871]

(07-15-2012 12:45 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  I knew what he was saying, just wanted to know the fucking purpose. No point of comparing atrocities.

Does this mean that you don’t compare the atrocities of the Taliban with those of the US?

Quote: Laz
due to 1871's disproportionate attacks on muslim nations, its a little suspicious of american exceptionalism. here yael points out how marginalized the lgbt community here is and 1871 is pointing away from the u.s. straight at the imperialist's next target.

Do you mean that the focus was the US and not imperialism directed against the gay community?

http://nottoomuch.com/entry/1293/iranian...ond-belief

^

Quote:Laz

religious puritanicalism and prejudice are the cornerstones of homophobia.

[matt romney]

(07-15-2012 06:51 AM)1871 Wrote:  

(07-15-2012 12:45 AM)YaelTheGreat Wrote:  I knew what he was saying, just wanted to know the fucking purpose. No point of comparing atrocities.

Does this mean that you don’t compare the atrocities of the Taliban with those of the US?

(07-15-2012 03:55 AM)Laz Wrote:  due to 1871's disproportionate attacks on muslim nations, its a little suspicious of american exceptionalism. here yael points out how marginalized the lgbt community here is and 1871 is pointing away from the u.s. straight at the imperialist's next target.

(07-15-2012 06:51 AM)1871 Wrote:  Do you mean that the focus was the US and not imperialism directed against the gay community?

http://nottoomuch.com/entry/1293/iranian...ond-belief

i'm just really confused at that sentence. did the homos start a country that we can invade for oil now?

[1871]

Do you mean that you are erasing homosexuals from history ?