There's various things about is article that are just..... Off.
Dunno if it's tone, or attitude, or what. But. The originating lines ...
Even as a vocal opponent of gay marriage in the US, it’s apparent to me that even if the change directly wrought by gay marriage is neutral at best, regressive at worst, the political logic behind it made it a justifiable and perhaps brilliant first step.
So this entire article is written by someone who doesn't believe that gay marriage should happen in the United States. And.....?
Seriously. Even if you don't believe gay marriage should be the be-all-end-all of the movement (which I don't), I don't understand how you can be AGAINST it.
I have a feeling that she is coming from an anti-marriage perspective in general. As in, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing marriages period, that the institution of marriage is outdated and unnecessary, etc etc
Dunno if it's tone, or attitude, or what. But. The originating lines ...
Even as a vocal opponent of gay marriage in the US, it’s apparent to me that even if the change directly wrought by gay marriage is neutral at best, regressive at worst, the political logic behind it made it a justifiable and perhaps brilliant first step.
So this entire article is written by someone who doesn't believe that gay marriage should happen in the United States. And.....?
Reply
Reply
"Queers" this and "Queers" that.
It's 20fucking13, ARE YOU KIDDING ME.
Reply
Or that this wasn't the right audience for it?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment