Leave a comment

metropolis22786 June 11 2013, 03:13:36 UTC
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.....?

Reply

teacoat June 11 2013, 04:56:32 UTC
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.

Reply

metropolis22786 June 11 2013, 05:46:11 UTC
I'm probably going to go through this again tomorrow once I've sobered up. But..... Yeah. There's a lot of problematic language here.

"Queers" this and "Queers" that.

It's 20fucking13, ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

Reply

romp June 11 2013, 06:03:33 UTC
I use queer as an umbrella term--are you saying that's passé? :/
Or that this wasn't the right audience for it?

Reply

mephisto5 June 11 2013, 07:48:52 UTC
'Queer' is not purely perjorative everywhere. It's used as an umbrella term in a number of places.

Reply

redstar826 June 11 2013, 13:36:34 UTC
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As in, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing marriages period, that the institution of marriage is outdated and unnecessary, etc etc

Reply


Leave a comment

Up