Most feminists seem to think that it is a terrible discriminatory thing that gay marriage is not the law of the land (except in Massachusetts).
The arguments usually gpo along the lines that there is no set definition of "marriage" and that it ought to change with society, which should be dedicated to "equality." In practice, of course, what they want is not just "same-sex marraige," but to have it become so normalized that it is not even referred to as "same-sex marraige" but as "marriage" like all other marriage.
Which, of course, would destroy marriage. What is desired here is not simply to expand some notion of rights, but the total destruction of a gendered idea of marriage. Which will, in turn, make marriage meaningless.
Feminists understand this when they rail against the idea of calling Ifeminism "feminism." Why is it so hard to understand why people likewise balk at calling same-sex partnerships "marriage?"
Answer: it's not. The truth of the matter is that most such leftists are not delusional about the impact of gay mariage. They jsut hate marriage and want to destroy it by making it meaningless.
Claims that they don't see how same-sex "marriage" will hurt marriage are belied by the fact that so many of them hate the idea of marriage in the first place (I don't meant that they personally don't want to get married but that they think that marriage is a bad thing).
I remember another article at Pandagon that I cannot find right now where one of the writers was trying to explain why she supports "marriage equality" (i.e., same-sex marriage) while being opposed to marriage. I think what she said was something along the lines of "uf we are going to have marriage, we should have same-sex marraige so that we can show that we view same-sex relationships as legitimate." Nonsense. Being for same-sex marriage can easily be a part of being against marriage; the goal is to dilute marriage so as to make it meaningless.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment