Halo Halo: Cake, Flowers, Pizza and Jesus

April 2024 Forums Comments Halo Halo: Cake, Flowers, Pizza and Jesus

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #115052
    jondwhite
    Participant

    Just read this article properly and it is bordering on the offensive.

    #84337
    PJShannon
    Keymaster

    Following is a discussion on the page titled: Halo Halo: Cake, Flowers, Pizza and Jesus.
    Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

    #115053
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    jondwhite wrote:
    Just read this article properly and it is bordering on the offensive.

    It would help enormously if a) you specified when and where this article appeared and b) what you found offensive about it…

    #115054
    jondwhite
    Participant

    May 2015 Socialist StandardI thought the comment "Wouldn’t it have been easier just to find another bloody baker?" was objectionable.The job of bakers under capitalism is to bake for profit not to express their bigotry.

    #115055
    ALB
    Keymaster

    Is that all ! I thought that it was something serious. Anyway, the baker didn't want to express his bigotry only to not express someone else's view. Why should they be forced to do this?

    #115056
    jondwhite
    Participant

    Well in reference to the Southern Baptist florist and pizza shop opposed to gay weddings raking in thousands of dollars profit, the conclusion of the article pretty shamefully states "There must be a lesson there somewhere." The implication being there is more profit in opposing gay weddings than supporting them.

    #115057
    ALB
    Keymaster

    No, that just a wry, rhetorical ending not to be taken literally, not that I think anyone would have done.

    #115058
    rodmanlewis
    Participant

    I, for one, don't recognise same-sex "marriages". I'm not opposed to or support these now state-approved arrangements, but it is not marriage in any meaningful sense of the word, apart from the inheritance factor. Seems to be something of an affectation. A sop to a section of the working class by the state to keep 'em happy for a while, and to make them feel as if they've made "gains".To be clear, I don't support or oppose conventional marriage either, but I recognise the function they serve in a private property society.

    #115059
    jondwhite
    Participant

    So what is meaningful marriage and what function does it serve that other types of marriage do not?

    #115060
    rodmanlewis
    Participant

    Heterosexual marriages exist to establish property rights, and to indicate the lineage of any children. These days, it may be useful to highlight inherited medical problems. Historically, it also had the effect of gaining societal approval of activities you otherwise didn't talk about.Same-sex "marriages" are biologically sterile unions, and seem only to exist to establish property and inheritance rights with the maximum tax avoidance on the same basis as heterosexual marriage.And why stop there? How about bisexual (i.e. three-way) marriage? Or four-way?Same-sex "marriage" is no more marriage than nationalisation is socialism.

    #115061
    jondwhite
    Participant

    I think you are discriminating against same sex marriages more than you would for heterosexual marriages. If marriage is a property society construct why not recognise as meaningully as for biologically sterile pairs?This seems to be the pertinent work on the matterhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

    #115062
    rodmanlewis
    Participant

    Same-sex marriage is even sterile on the property front. If partner A dies, their property goes to partner B. When B dies without "remarrying" what happens to their property? Even if they leave a will their estate will still be taxable–they're back to square one.It's a bit like the old days when people got married just before the end of the financial year, so that they could gain the greatest tax benefit.

    #115063
    einsturzende
    Participant
    rodmanlewis wrote:
    Heterosexual marriages exist to establish property rights, and to indicate the lineage of any children. These days, it may be useful to highlight inherited medical problems. Historically, it also had the effect of gaining societal approval of activities you otherwise didn't talk about.Same-sex "marriages" are biologically sterile unions, and seem only to exist to establish property and inheritance rights with the maximum tax avoidance on the same basis as heterosexual marriage.And why stop there? How about bisexual (i.e. three-way) marriage? Or four-way?Same-sex "marriage" is no more marriage than nationalisation is socialism.

    Let me ask a hypothetical question with a factual basis. My aunt and my uncle were wed in 1977 and my uncle passed away last year but they never had children. Since the marriage was devoid of "lineage", is their marriage to be considered null and void?

    #115064
    rodmanlewis
    Participant

    It would only be null and void if it was their stated intention at the time of their marriage not to have children. Again, I'm not saying I'm supporting or opposing these institutions. It's a question of definition.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.