The Intersection Between Queer Liberation & Animal Liberation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2008 4:43 PM GMT
    I blogged about the commonalities that I see and many gay and lesbian activists see between the struggle for gay rights and animal rights. I know most people here don't share my convictions on animal rights, but if you are interested in checking it out and sharing your thoughts here is the linkage...

    http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/06/intersection-between-animal-liberation.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 12:56 PM GMT
    Since humans are the Superior animal, we are all responsible for animal welfare. We are the ones whom make them homeless, from the urban sprawl, orphans to, from our cars, and hunting.

    yet I am only responsible for my own liberation, and not anther's. I am not a breeder, so I am not responsible for another. Yet I feed other men's children, house them, pay for their education via my taxation. yet they are not my responsibility. So One fails to see, how they both come under the one banner; sorry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 12:57 PM GMT
    I knew the second i clicked on this who posted it... ugh.

    Where's my chinchila coat? This drivel makes me a frosty bitch icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 1:03 PM GMT
    I think the premise is absurd. I want equal rights for gay people so that should I or my partner die, the other can get his social security, or that if one of us is on life support, the other can make an informed decision. I'm not looking to give my social security to my dog and I already have the right to make an informed decision about my dog when it one day is at death's door.

    Linking the two weakens the position of gay rights advocacy.

    I'm not suggesting that the fight for humane animal treatment is absurd, but it's got zilch to do with the very real and political struggle for equality among humans. Animals cannot and never well be our equals.
  • HereNBoston

    Posts: 221

    Jun 20, 2008 1:20 PM GMT
    Have you ever read the Story of B by daniel quinn? I got the same kind of vibe from your post. Basically they talk about our society being a "taker" society, where the entire world has been mutilated into a big food factory for humans. eco systems are destroyed, animals tortured and lead depressing lives in cages all so we can revel in our superiority as the dominant species.

    I really don't think there's any link between the two, but I do find them equally important. Mostly from my beliefs that world wasn't made as a big play pen for humans to f*ck up however they like. I think we're more just neighbors on this world who should be finding ways to live side by side with nature. all in all, given the actions of humanity, i'd say we're not being very neighborly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:33 PM GMT
    McGay saidI think the premise is absurd. I want equal rights for gay people so that should I or my partner die, the other can get his social security, or that if one of us is on life support, the other can make an informed decision. I'm not looking to give my social security to my dog and I already have the right to make an informed decision about my dog when it one day is at death's door.

    Linking the two weakens the position of gay rights advocacy.

    I'm not suggesting that the fight for humane animal treatment is absurd, but it's got zilch to do with the very real and political struggle for equality among humans. Animals cannot and never well be our equals.

    If my partner and I where die together. All our estate goes to our dogs, so they will still have a home and cared for. Safeguards have been put into place with this. Then when they are gone, it all goes to an animal shelter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:35 PM GMT
    Not a bad idea. In the U.S., however, you cannot will your SS income to anyone. It only goes to surviving dependents who are human.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:46 PM GMT
    I even think this is a little nuts. Treating animals with respect and affording them humane treatment has little to do with giving them the same rights that gays and lesbians are asking for.

    It's this sort of equating animal treatment to the gay rights movement and nazi Germany that make animal rights advocates sound insane.

    The animal rights movement needs to be centered in science, technology , biology and ethics... not insanity and shock.

    Sorry Hippie, but you are doing nothing but making yourself and the rest of us look silly and uneducated.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Jun 20, 2008 4:05 PM GMT
    From Hippie's blog:
    "Queers are different purely based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but ultimately we are all people. We share a common bond of love, emotion, and desire to live out our lives freely and openly. The same applies to animals, they look different and act different but we share with them a yearning to be free, to love, and to take care of our families."

    Apart from the syntax that (hopefully) unintentionally implies animals are people, the oddest part of the post is the idea that chickens have a yearning to love.

    Data?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 4:07 PM GMT
    Animals...people...people....animals, what the hell, I'll be a little poney if you want me too.
    .....................My little poney

    The first gay cruise ship!! Take that christians.
    ..................................Noah's Ark Replica
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Jun 20, 2008 4:08 PM GMT
    according to hippie4lyfe's blog Queers are different purely based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but ultimately we are all people. We share a common bond of love, emotion, and desire to live out our lives freely and openly. The same applies to animals, they look different and act different but we share with them a yearning to be free, to love, and to take care of our families.

    Apart from the syntax that unintentionally (I hope) implies animals are people, the oddest part of the post is the idea that chickens have a yearning to love.

    Data?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 4:15 PM GMT

    Oh, MuchMore, I made a snide reference too! Scold me too, MuchMore, please! I've been bad!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 4:17 PM GMT
    Hippie, for someone who goes on about animal rights you sure are beating this dead horse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 4:41 AM GMT
    I find the notion of "speciesism" pretty extreme, but the argument here isn't altogether new. One of the defining characteristics of the early gay rights movement was its (utopic) envisioning of all liberation movements as allied. That fantasy long ago proved untenable.

    I do find normative cultural ideas about animals confusing. On the one hand, we are incredibly sentimental about our pets but we seem to regard undomesticated animals as undeserving of protection.

    There does seem to be an attitude that animals, including pets, properly exist only with the permission of humans, that any feelings we ascribe to them are pure anthropomorphizing. Why do we grant ourselves this "indulgence" with our pets but not with the animals we eat or that exist in the "wild."

    People seem to regard animals as robotically programmed entities that, lacking self-reflective capacities, don't experience suffering (beyond physical pain), much less pleasure. Nor do we imagine them expressing any kind of moral discernment.

    I've been thinking a lot about this because -- I hesitate to admit -- I've been asked to write a paper on the Lolcats phenomenon after wondering at a seminar why this particular expression of so-called anthorpomorphizing has become so manically popular (not that you're manic, Caslon).

    I tend to think it is some kind of compensatory reaction to the way we have cut ourselves off from "nature" and the things that animals can teach us.

    But I ain't know yet.













  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 4:48 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidHippie, for someone who goes on about animal rights you sure are beating this dead horse.


    ROFL Zombie

    This is more absurd shit from the poster of those disgusting slaughterhouse pictures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 4:50 AM GMT
    obscenewish saidI've been thinking a lot about this because -- I hesitate to admit -- I've been asked to write a paper on the Lolcats phenomenon after wondering at a seminar why this particular expression of so-called anthorpomorphizing has become so manically popular (not that you're manic, Caslon).


    Hm, could it be that it's just a phenomenon like the old blonde jokes or light-bulb jokes or JAP jokes?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 5:14 AM GMT
    Well, there are reasons particular comedic memes become popular at any given time. They don't emerge independent of the rest of popular culture. And I suspect the Lolcats are connected in some way to whatever makes a growing number of other people fanatical about animal rights. Different responses, perhaps, to the same underlying anxiety.

    (edited)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 7:09 AM GMT
    It's evolution, baby!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 7:11 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidHippie, for someone who goes on about animal rights you sure are beating this dead horse.
    Zing!
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    Jun 21, 2008 11:21 PM GMT
    hippie's blog as quoted by Square jawThe same applies to animals, they look different and act different but we share with them a yearning to be free, to love, and to take care of our families.

    Anthropomorphise much?
    It is always a dangerous game to play, this tendency of yours to ascribe human feelings and cognition to other species. Let's deconstruct shall we.

    To be free: The way you use freedom in this context implies more than a simple desire not to be restrained. Most animals, at least those with a certain level of brain complexity, do not like to be enclosed in restrictive spaces. Reptiles seem to have very little problem with it, their brains are much simpler. However, the Enlightenment inspired sense of freedom you use is not something that can be shared by other species. I don't think you'll be seeing a chimp version of Declaration of the Rights of Man anytime soon.

    To love: Animals can form social bonds, but again there is absolutely no evidence beyond anthropomorphic description that they have anything analogous to our concept of love. Your dog may bond with you as a member of its pack; it may appreciate that you feed it; but to say that it loves you is to project your own feelings.

    To take care of families: Most species have precocious young, so there is nothing comparable to a "family." Even those with altritial young have a biological imperative to ensure the propagation of their genes. To place the label "family" on this care is to seriously misunderstand basic behaviors.

    Language is a powerful tool. Let's not undermine our work for equal rights by making outrageous arguments backed up by faulty premises, poor logic, and unfounded assertions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2008 6:56 AM GMT
    hippie4lyfeThe same applies to animals, they look different and act different but we share with them a yearning to be free, to love, and to take care of our families.


    Free the Lesbian worker ants from the tyranny of the queen and her consorts! They have been repressed under the totalitarian rule of the anthills for far too long! Sacrificing their lives for the greater good of the empire. And for what? Not even a grave!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2008 5:55 PM GMT
    Though no longer a vegetarian, I am generally very sympathetic to animal protection efforts. BUT, did that blog HAVE to use this exact wording?:

    "Gay Liberation and Animal Liberation are married partners."

    It just conjures up unfortunate imagery!
    icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2008 6:01 PM GMT
    Sedative saidFree the Lesbian worker ants from the tyranny of the queen and her consorts! They have been repressed under the totalitarian rule of the anthills for far too long! Sacrificing their lives for the greater good of the empire. And for what? Not even a grave!

    Oh my gawd, I can hardly breathe, I'm laughing so hard right now. Oh shit - screw crunches, I'll just read Sed's posts! icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • gingerstrap

    Posts: 78

    Jun 26, 2008 6:02 PM GMT
    There was a great article on this in The Gay and Lesbian Review a few issues back. I'm a huge Animal lover and Animal Rights person and I see the connections. The odd wording obviously upset some. I don't think the point is that gay people and animals are the same, but that often times the treatment is similar and a great number of people who deny gay people rights also treat animals poorly.