[Blackhawk]

This has been popping up around town. Their gay community based criticism of the "marriage equality" movement is:

1) Marriage equality is about extending unequal benefits to still a limited set of people, not all people.

2) It's perks that are limited only to couples. If you're not monogamous, you don't get the twizzler.

3) It's state interference.

After that, their ideas go down hill. But hey, at least it's a start.

We've had the Billboard Liberation Front replacing corporate ads with their own messages for years here. If you make it look professional enough, generally the staff don't notice and leave it up.

[2Wycked]

While this argument isn't new, it is fairly uncommon - especially in the mainstream media. Some years ago, Time ran an article that suggested towards the end everybody should be able to get married - i.e. marry themselves if they needed to. WTF? Like that delusional woman in ND who married herself?

There are some serious problems with the article, though.

The easiest one is the paragraph at the end that suggests that without formal recognition of marriages or relationships by the state, you can't decide how to pass your property on or decide what taxes will be paid on it. Well, this person mustn't thought of the concept of a will - you don't have to go to probate court if you set up a valid will. One woman created an estate for her dog with an ungodly amount of money set aside for it - it was upheld. Secondly, you can move your money/assets around to minimize the tax burden, but you can't mandate what taxes will be paid on your estate. I thought the article referred to different approaches to how property is held collectively by marriage - but that concept is probably beyond them.

Next, the whole concept of assuming traditional values - such as one man and one woman raising their children together - are based on marginalization and devaluation is foolish. Just about any society that has progressed beyond grass huts has some form of formalized, monogamous relationship based on not just love, but interdependence (gender roles) and child rearing.

I don't think that means a society must necessarily disallow gay marriage or gay rights in general, but that the gays push to destroy the institution - they use the phrase "tear it down" - smacks me not just as disingenuous but also a way to devalue heterosexual relations. Instead of building up the validity of homosexual relations in general, it is easier and more selfishly gratifying to rip heterosexuals down.

However, heterosexuals have invited this whistling past the graveyard situation. Heterosexuals - most commonly the opponents of gay marriage - like to pretend that heterosexuals are more stable and less sexually depraved than gays - especially gay men. We've seen heterosexual women piss all over marriage via divorce and child support - we've seen male feminists/social conservative white knights and congressmen throw men under the bus. Also, many heterosexuals like to ignore how promiscuous they are. Susan Walsh has doggedly insisted only a minority of women are hooking-up in their 20's. Really? Women are fucking like jackrabbits - that's why their STD rates are climbing every year. And they are hypergamously jumping on the same dude's dicks, also contributing to the skewed STD rate. Why not let homo's get married? You have already flushed the institution out to sea.

Once again, the ignorant comparison of gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement. First off, gay women have long been given far more leeway in their sexuality, especially because they had more social options -i.e. be a nun. Is it any surprise some the most anti-sex (read: male sexuality) people were female nuns? Anyways, were black people given that same leeway? Hell no, black men have never had the upper hand with black women, much less having an equitable position.

Second, I remember some BS written about the Stonewall riots saying some lesbo got bopped on the head for complaining her handcuffs were too tight. Really? The violence is so comparable. In a formal argument, I would most likely concede gay men have an experience more comparable to black people, but you get to the stay in closet. Black people could never hide their skin color.

I got fairly pissed off writing this, so I forgot my other points. Regardless, while I am neutral on acceptance of homosexuality in general, it is bullshit articles like this that make me not want any part of the movement. Stop helping rip apart heterosexual communities, stop comparing yourself to black people and stop with the ignorance about the law. You can get most rights of marriage outside of actually being married if you bother to teach yourself about the law.

You are right, Blackhawk, it is a start. I just don't think it will end up anywhere good - even if they do get some things right.