I had a look, but i honestly just can’t be arsed to address every aspect of this person’s wilful ignorance. They insult dogs, women and ‘deviant’ sexualities, lack any grasp of logic and… i just can’t be arsed.
So don’t do it, and piss off.
I should respond to some of the reblogs i’ve got, but that would be a massive, massive timesuck in a ridiculously hectic week. I’ll try to when i’m less busy, though.
Meantime, i shall express my simpler purpose—because it seems to have got lost or misunderstood.
I’m not saying that it’s wrong for gay couples to want to get married and to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I understand the desire. But i’m saying the practice is entirely outdated and should be entirely eradicated.
A few people have levelled the criticism—which i did anticipate, but apparently not forcefully enough for it to be a point that needs no further underscoring—that “yes, but, getting married offers these rights…”.
I know it does. But it shouldn’t. A biggie, i know, is hospital visitation rights—now, why in the world should that even REQUIRE a contract?! If the patient decides they would like romantic partner to visit (or their best friend, or their godparent, or their fuckbuddy, or whoever) them, they shouldn’t need to have previously signed a legally binding contract with that person—of any sort, but least of aall one that promises to feel a certain way towards them until they die—in order to have that whoever by their bedside.
Other benefits include tax breaks. I think that’s highly bizarre—isn’t it? Isn’t it bizarre to offer tax breaks to those people who have a certain type of relationship? Isn’t it bizarre to offer financial bonuses to those who sexual or romantic partnerings conform to certain standards of length or somesuch other measure of significance? Isn’t it bizarre to suggest that it’s only the monogamous sexual-romantic enjoinment, guaranteed in theory, by contract, to last until death, of precisely two people that deserve these monetary prizes?
So, then, isn’t it similarly bizarre not to want (i do understand the want!) but to PUSH for these prizes to be extended to homosexual couples? I think so. I think, instead, it’s a more worthy, radical, long-term, queer and egalitarian strategy to push for marriage not to exist any more.
Perhaps revamping the tax system will be difficult. But because something is difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. This is not, after all, a matter of money, or “waaaaah but it’s hard”. This is a matter of equality. It’s about not privileging certain types of relationships over others that are deemed somehow ‘inferior’. One of these is friendship. I, to use myself as an example, being a person who has little time for romance, may never get married. But i do have extremely strong, enduring friendships—if I and my best friend live together in blissful awesome bestfriendship, why shouldn’t we get financial benefits, too? The answer is that there’s no logical reason why not. But it’s also that those benefits shouldn’t exist in the first place.
If marriage did not exist, and had never existed up to this point in social history, it would not be necessary to invent it!
They stopped short of allowing marriage, but it’s still a step forward.
…is it, though?
(I know, i could have picked any marriage equality parade post to piss over—but i’m picking this one. Extend it to all.)
Is this progress? Is reinforcing the institution of marriage progress? Why is marriage the goal? Why isn’t the eradication of marriage the goal? The idea of being legally contracted to someone is so… nonsensical… undesirable… archaic. Why not let’s push to get marriage outlawed and the privileges afforded to married couples extended to everybody, sans lifetime contract, rather than clamor to make this oppressive, weird practice all-inclusive?As you may have noticed before, I deeply disagree with ^that.
Here’s why:
- Marriage represents a big deal to me. It’s the fusion of two minds, wills people (ect..) towards one main goal: To live a nice and happy life free from having to watch how you look all the time and to raise yo’ babies right. If you don’t want to get married, fine. Enjoy your life-long dieting and single-parent-hood, but don’t try to forbid others from this thing we like to call marriage.
- In my opinion, it is not the state’s decision whether any marriage is legal. Since to me marriage is mostly a spiritual and non-legal experience/agreement, I believe that this decision lies with the church. Not any particular church, mind you, just the one that the couple agrees to.
- And since the power of marriage is in the hands of the Church (to whose beliefs the couple subscribes to), the state only has the power to issue Civil Unions. That is what I believe the state should extend to gay couples, that is what I see is lacking in that particular bit of civil inequality: The right to unite.
- Marriage is simply a ritualized declaration and sealing of Monogamy. Monogamy extends very far back in out human development. To outlaw this would be to outlaw a great deal of our genetic heritage. Besides, it’s totally optional.
- FUCK YOU! AHAHAHA!
- ^
Wow, it’s like you didn’t actually read a word i said bar “get marriage outlawed”, and even then you put it through an illogical Rube Goldberg machine in your mind to reach the thing (not remotely like what i wrote) around which you formed your “rebuttal”.
1. What you described is not marriage. What you described is one form (out of many forms) of loving relationship. And guess what? Love doesn’t actually require a contract!
(Also, way to shame relationships that don’t conform to your weird-ass prescriptions. Nice going, pal.)
2. You actually do seem to agree that what you call “marriage” (what i call one form of loving relationship) has nothing to do with the law (which is what everyone else calls marriage—marriage is a legal contract); so, if relationships have nothing to do with the law, surely you must support the eradication of legally-contracted relationships?
3. Here is where you have it rather backwards: the rights and privileges afforded to those who marry, and/or who partake in civil unions, should not exist. Or—they should, but they should exist for everybody. They should apply to any sort of relationship, according to the participants therein, and they shouldn’t require a legal contract to exist.
4. Marriage doesn’t actually prevent or in any real way prohibit non-monogamy. And non-monogamy is not some awful, terrible thing, either. Genetics and development don’t really come into it.
They stopped short of allowing marriage, but it’s still a step forward.
…is it, though?
(I know, i could have picked any marriage equality parade post to piss over—but i’m picking this one. Extend it to all.)
Is this progress? Is reinforcing the institution of marriage progress? Why is marriage the goal? Why isn’t the eradication of marriage the goal? The idea of being legally contracted to someone is so… nonsensical… undesirable… archaic. Why not let’s push to get marriage outlawed and the privileges afforded to married couples extended to everybody, sans lifetime contract, rather than clamour to make this oppressive, weird practice all-inclusive?
Marriage definitely isn’t for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherently evil or oppressive institution. I’d certainly agree that old-fashioned marriage vows that include language like “obey and serve” are hugely problematic, but plenty of marriages don’t include or embrace anything like that. I don’t see why we should try to destroy an institution that makes a lot of people happy and that a lot of other people would love to be a part of.
To me it seems like the solution is to make marriage completely inclusive, and then everyone from heterosexuals to QUILTBAGs can choose for themselves whether or not they want to participate in it. Civil unions and other alternative partnerships should also be available, but why destroy marriage?
Becaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuse marriage involves a legally binding contract. Literally, one contracts oneself to another person, under law, with the promise of feeling a certain way about the, for the rest of their life. It’s messed up!
If people want a religious ceremony, jump right in, do that. If people want to express their loving commitment to each other, fine. But what the fuck does the LAW have to do with it? What place does a contract have in an ostensibly loving relationship? It’s fucking weird.
I don’t care if it’s an institution that makes lots of people happy. Monarchies make lots of people happy… but they’re fucking weird, too. And shouldn’t exist. No, marriage isn’t the same, obviously, but just because “an institution” pleases “lots of people” doesn’t make it right.
So, really, why not let’s take the law shit out of love? If you love people and want to commit to them, fucking do it. But you don’t need to sign a contract to do that.
I clearly realise that “marriage” and “civil unions” (where they exist) hold certain legal benefits. But that’s part of the problem, not a reason to keep them.
Truly, i don’t get it. Why the contract? What’s a contract for? Why does love need a contract?
Well, this is genuinely surprising.
I think it would be genuinely surprising if they realised that deleting women in the first place is completely fucking ridiculous. Their only admittance here is that they failed to read the smallprint of the official Whitehouse Flikr (which even I was aware of) prohibiting manipulation of the images. In other words their apology is technical rather than moral in nature.
I was going to say there should be laws against deliberately excluding marginalised groups from the news, but then I realised this would eliminate most of the media. Perhaps that’s a good thing.
You have to understand, i have extremely, extremely low expectations of Hasidic Judaism—that usually go unmet! Hence my surprise at even the semblance of a fauxpology.
Well, this is genuinely surprising.
Sorry, anon, i’m not sure what you’re asking. When you say “…make male and female synonymous with words that are increasingly out dated[sic]”, which words are you talking about?
I like Geri Halliwell. Evidently you don’t.
Asserting that girls/women are “stronger” than boys/men isn’t just about physical strength. To me it’s about endurance—and women have had—and continue—to endure more than men.
Moreover, for an oppressed group to assert strength in the face of their oppressors takes guts. No, perhaps it’s not the most equality-spirited claim, but the UK for women 15 years ago was a far more hostile environment than it is even now (and it’s fucking shit now). I don’t blame Geri for feeling that statement necessary, at all. I believe it was.
Cissexism: the belief that trans* identified gender is less authentic/inferior compared to cis gender identity; de facto or de jure discrimination based on that belief.
Binarism: the belief that there are only two genders/that gender is binary; de facto or de jure discrimination according to that belief.
Not really, no—because there are “females” who don’t have “female reproductive organs”. And some “males” do. Hence, they’re not “female”.
I’d just call them “reproductive”. Issues, organs, etc..
Why not, for fucking once, cut me some fucking slack, anon? i’m a human being: I slipped up; gimme a fucking break.
Yes, i agree. Perhaps better to level your observation/complaint to the person who wrote it, though.
Help them get to 1,000,000.
Reblogging this again.
So, you know i posted that bullshit quote yesterday from Wendy Shalit?
Well, irony of ironies, i’ve come to a page in that book (A Return to Modesty) where an image has been COVERED UP! With thin card and sellotape. Thanks, asshole who sold it to me on Amazon Marketplace (qualitybargainbooks_uk).
A few minutes and a slightly ruined book after later, i uncovered the image. It shows several people, Naturists, from the waist up. Nude! How scandalous!! The caption reads:
NUDE AND BORED: Founding meeting of United Free Beaches of Florida, 1982. Photo by Al Bailey, courtesy of The Naturist Society.
I’m literally flabbergasted. Who would do that?!?!
This is the most exciting thing to happen to that shithole since former Blue Peter presenter Liz Barker was a student there.
Girl power was a formative slogan of my youth. That’s a fact.
You know what else is a fact? There is going to be a Spice Girls musical, called Viva Forever. It’s being written by the hilarious Jennifer Saunders. It’s being produced by Judy Craymer, who also produced Mamma Mia!, and it’s being directed by Marianne Elliot, the co-director of the brilliant and hugely successful War Horse.
That is all. For now.
Let this be true. And let them adapt it into a movie immediately so it can reach Philippine shores.
This isn’t the first comment/reply/reblog that has mentioned wanting a Spice Girls movie.
The thing is, though, THERE ALREADY IS ONE. It’s hilarious. It stars, among others, all five Spice Girls, Elton John, Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry, Bob Hoskins, Meat Loaf, Alan Cumming, Richard E Grant, Roger Moore, Jennifer Saunders, Elvis Costello, Jools Holland, Richard O’Brien and Bob Geldof.
It’s called Spice World.
It scores 2.9 on IMDB.
