|
Bel_Canto posted:This is an incomplete and deeply misleading characterization of the radical queer position. Queer liberation is about people having the freedom to construct the kinds of sexual and emotional lives they want without fear of persecution, opprobrium, or artificial social hinderance. The problem with marriage advocacy as it's practiced in the U.S. is that it paints marriage as the only culturally acceptable queer relationship, and other sorts of relationships and arrangements are very explicitly characterized as less worthy of regard, protection, or even acknowledgement. These relationships evolved because they worked best for the people concerned, and the enshrining of marriage as the ideal relationship status for queer people actively harms the people who practice such alternative relationships. I have zero problem with people having the ability to get married, and indeed I think that they absolutely should. The problem arises when marriage becomes the only socially acceptable option, and people whose circumstances demand a different kind of arrangement are relegated to the fringes even more than they often are already (since a great many people with such alternative arrangements are poor queer people of color). Well, yeah. But acceptance of gay marriage is still a huge step forward. And I don't see it as increasing some sort of bias against gays who don't wan't to get married, any more than some straights don't want to , except of course for the original bigotry which will still be there. At some point the bigotry will be "hmmm... yeah, maybe the MARRIED gays are acceptable, I guess... but those wanton single ones who blah-blah-basically behaves like straight people not getting married? Yeah, I still don't like -those-". And yeah, that's still bigotry, but it IS less. And that's how poo poo like this mostly works. One excrusiating step at a time. Is it enough, for now? poo poo, no. The eradication of bigotry and ignorance is ALWAYS too slow. But that doesn't mean small victories shouldn't be seen as such.
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:By what metric? No one's arguing that there were pockets where liberalism had more push but you're suggesting a very strange notion right here. He's most likely talking about spending priorities, and he's right. Then there's Social Security. On far too many things, the Democrats of today are like the Republicans of yesteryear. Which means, the Democrats are all about the holding action, yet slipping further right all the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I'm curious to hear the basis for these claims. True, but don't go confusing folks with actual knowledge and nuance. Remember, all previous generations are to be vilified because they didn't make society culminate in a Utopia for ME, when I was born. Talk about spoiled.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Pretty sure that under a civil system, that gays could get married also. It just means that state recognized marriages are done at a judge/whatever. And if you wanted to you could hold your own goofy religious/non religious party, it just doesn't mean anything. Its not 'separate but equal', its just unfeasible in the USA at this time. Yeah, but I'd say that even unfeasable is putting it mildly. And one of the reasons some of us are reacting so strongly to it, is that it is a common libertarian talking point. I should say CONSERVATIVE libertarian talking point, but hey, oh, that's mostly redundant. It's not the theory that's a problem, it's the impossibility of the practice. For some libertarians it seems like a way to enforce homophobia without getting their purity soiled. It's like, "Hey, homosexuals we're totally fine with you, but your rights are clearly inferior to our right to hate poor people, so keep on truckin', we'll be there to defend your rights once you get 'em after the revolution."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 17:14
|
|