From: Miles Jackson
By this reasoning, we shouldn't use the term sexism because it stigmatizes men indirectly, and we shouldn't use the term racism because it stigmatizes whites indirectly. You're misconstruing the word "heterosexism" here: not even indirectly does it stigmatize heterosexual sex. Think of it this way: if your sexual orientation blocks or facilitates your access to valuable social resources in a society, you live in a heterosexist society.
^^^^ CB: I don't know if you noticed, but I am explicitly saying that oppression of homosexuals, does exist, but is not in the same "order of magnitude" as male supremacy, bourgeoisdom and racism. So, no, what you say above does not follow from what I said. Also, sexism stigmatizes men ( male supremacy) directly , and racism whites (supremacy) directly, so I'm not sure what you mean there.
^^^^^^
--True, gays and lesbians in our society are not economically disadvantaged like many minority groups, but just the issue of gay marriage alone demonstrates the heterosexism of our society: straight couples can marry and enjoy over a thousand discrete politically sanctioned benefits and rights that a gay/lesbian couple cannot. (Again, note that none of this implies a stigmatization of "heterosexual sex"; it just emphasizes that you should not receive preferential treatment by the state because you're heterosexual.)
^^^^^ CB: Well, on that one I don't think marriage is such a great thing, so... Are gays sure they want to leave the garden of eden they are in ? :>)
I can see a transexual deal to unify the sexual preferences: we support marriage for gays , if gays support civil unions for heteros. We would be like ships passing in the night.
Anyway, yes lets have marriage for gays and lesbians. Are there any other demands for law changes ?
^^^^^^^
Take a look at Zaretsky's Capitalism, the family, and personal life. Heterosexual family relations are a crucial component of actually existing capitalist societies. Could capitalism exist without heterosexism? Sure. However, just as sexism and racism interconnect with and reinforce capitalism, even though they are not necessary components of every possible capitalist society, just so with heterosexism.
^^^^^^ CB: Coincidently,I was just rereading Zaretsky the other day. It is a good book. Zaretsky just came out with another book.
Heterosexual sexual relations are a crucial component of _all_ human societies, including pre-class societies ( in fact all mammalian species etc.) We would be an extinct species without them. There is no special link of hetersexuality to the class oppression of capitalism.
I'd say male supremacy and racism are necessary components of capitalism. Capitalism has always had specially oppressed labor segments, such that we can say :
capitalism ==> wage labor and specially oppressed labor,
in the modus ponens sense.
So, not specially oppressed segments of labor to divide the working class, not capitalism.