And it won't be the last time, for sure. So there was this blog from a while ago at Menstrual Poetry (which I totally intend to add to my blogroll now) about the coolness of same-sex marriage legalization in California. A great post on what marriage is and should be. And disallowing certain kinds of marriage is, yes, unconstitutional. Limiting marriage to "one man and one woman" seems a little unenlightened at this point. People don't always pair out that way. (Sometimes they don't make pairs at all, but that's several different posts.)
And yes, if we break the "man/woman only" rule, people are totally gonna marry their pets, or kids, or furniture, or something, now. Because that's the same thing as two consenting adults who are committed to and care for each other. Like, oh, Britney and K-Fed? /sarcasm
Now on the one hand, I think marriage is definitely patriarchal and fairly heteronormative, two things I try and avoid. On the other hand, until the Twisty Revolution totally reshapes society, it's the best way for two people to be together with as much protection and help as the laws can give them. As a clitoriste with a partner I someday hope to entangle on a lifetime level, I'm all about giving us more options. And as with abortions, whether you intend to do it or not, it should be an option for those who want or need it.
But one of the comments on there was... well, conservative. From a guy who apparently posts often on there. I think I may have broken some netiquette rules with this reply to his comment, but the guy was such a smug, arrogant jerk (and making some fairly broad and unfounded statements, by the way), that it pissed me off.
Yes, I know. I posted angrily. On a post that was last commented on a month ago. Bad Lemur, no pingbacks. Some gems from this dude include :
"Marriage is and should always be between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage, which is a religious tradition, is for procreation."
"There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution either. Our founding documents are all based on Christian doctrine."
"They [the ACLU] are only about promoting the liberal agenda to include holding up homosexuals and pedophiles as examples."
Oh, and this whole bit (emphasis mine):
"The problem with two people having the same sexual organs who want to “conjunct” as you put it is a perversion, it’s un-natural, and its immoral. The problem is that there is a congenital defect at birth where there is an abnormal hormonal imbalance. Rather than treat it medically, people like you have accepted it as natural rather than correct it medically as with all other congenital defects that are treatable.The problem is that it is not “politically correct” for medical practitioners to speak out, yet there is plenty of peer reviewed studies and documentation that proves what I have stated. It is a liberal agenda to allow this to continue rather than do what is right for these people to lead normal lives by providing them the medical treatment they need rather than allow them to continue this way. The APA was forced to remove homosexuality from the DSM-III because of political pressure - but - the APA still feels it is a medical and psychological condition that is treatable."
My response to this upwelling of genius:
Yeah, BoBo, have you considered that you (and conservatives in general) wanna tell other people how to live? You can't just leave people alone? What's it matter to you if two guys in Maine wanna get married because they're in love, or a woman in Florida would rather have her partner visiting her in the hospital than her (possibly hostile) family? But no, if you can't understand something, it's gotta be a sickness, or a perversion. Because of course it has to fall under your definition of "normal and natural", or it's perverse and evil.
That, to me, is the mental illness, and "people like you" have "accepted it as natural" and think it's the normal way to be.
I'm perfectly natural- a human being like everyone else, and not evil, and certainly not mentally ill. (By the way, we've been around since recorded history, and we haven't eaten all your babies and ass-raped your pets so far). And if, as you say, the APA still feels that all gay folks are crazy and that it's reversible... cite your sources. Tell me where the APA specifically states that. 'Cause I think you made that up.
You freakin' panty-sniffers are more concerned with checking genitals and sticking your noses into bedrooms of consenting adults around the country than letting its citizens- ALL of them- lead normal lives. On their own. Without your input.
I know, not exactly on a genius level myself there, but I was mad as hell! People like that generally reduce me to the "frothing at the mouth" stage within minutes. I mean, I don't know a single feminist/liberal/queer who doesn't hate that pairing of "homosexuals and pedophiles". Like it's the same. Like if you think the former's ok, you must be sick enough to think the latter is.
Ugh, assbags. It's all I can do not to metaphorically key their cars. Am I immature? Maybe. But sometimes I wanna say: screw the nonviolence, I do NOT have time for this shit. Break out the fucking pipe bombs and let's just get on with it!
Deep breathing. Yeah, right.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
2 days ago