You are viewing dpolicar

Previous Entry | Next Entry

but...
As long as I'm being Posty McPostalot today, I'll also capture here a comment from elsewhere. This was in response to someone asking, with regards to negative reactions to the Utah ruling:
Why should others’ joy be upsetting? Even they can’t say for sure. But this joy just makes them angry.


(Begin channeling.)
Well, you know how it is.

Here I am, living my life, maybe it's not as good as I'd like it to be, maybe my family life isn't exactly happy, let alone joyful, but at least it's proper. It's socially acceptable, and on the days when I wake up next to someone I don't really like much and go work at a job I hate to help support a family I've been feeling increasingly alienated by, on the nights when I stare at the ceiling after vaguely unsatisfying sex, I can take solace in knowing I'm doing all the right things.

It's not rewarding now, perhaps, but surely that means it will be rewarding later. Like, after I die, maybe?

But there's always that niggling doubt. We don't talk about it much, but it's there, like a toothache, or that college knee injury that never quite healed right. I can see it in my neighbor's face, when they think nobody's looking. But we don't talk about it... that would make it real.

But now here come those damned queers, doing the wrong things and being all improper and unacceptable. And sure, they've always done that, but it used to be we could look down on them, insult them, humiliate them, maybe even rough them up a little if it made us feel better. And, yeah, sure, OK, some of them got broken sometimes, even died, but, well, that happens, you know? It's not like we meant any harm. Besides, they're queers, it's wasn't like we were hurting real people.

But now? Now it's all upside-down. The queers are prancing around like they own the damned place. The TV is showing queer couples... I mean, not just like lesbian sex on porn sites, which I know isn't right but the flesh is weak, you know what I mean?... but this stuff? Queers just hanging around and telling jokes and going shopping and eating dinner together and shit like that, just like anybody... like it's normal. On fucking prime time TV!

For Chrissake, my kids are watching this disgusting crap!!!

And the government is siding with them! We can't rough 'em around anymore, everyone's all PC and shit, talking about "hate crimes" and crap like that. The queer in my office even has a fucking picture of his boyfriend on his desk!!! Right there, in front of God and everybody! And when I complain about it HR comes down on me, like I'm the one doing something wrong!

The damned queers have fucking taken over. It's like nobody understands right and wrong anymore.

And now they're fucking getting MARRIED?!??!??! Raising CHILDREN?!?!??

Well, shit. If we've gotten so turned around we treat queers like regular people, treat what they do together like it was a real family... then what the hell's the point of being proper and doing the right thing and suffering for the sake of our families like we're supposed to? In a topsy-turvy world where flaunting being queer is socially acceptable and beating the queers up for it is wrong, well, what the hell's the point??!??!?

Damned right I'm angry.


(End channeling.)

Tags:

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
totient
Dec. 23rd, 2013 10:56 pm (UTC)
A deeper "problem" with equal marriage is that it's a threat to unequal marriage. How can a marriage be a property transaction when neither of the parties is a woman? Or when both are? Next thing you know women will expect to be treated like people outside the bedroom too.
dpolicar
Dec. 23rd, 2013 10:59 pm (UTC)
Yes.

I often reply, when told that marriage equality threatens traditional marriage, that it doesn't do so in general, but it might well threaten the speaker's marriage. And if it does, I hope that marriage grows stronger to withstand the threat.
stormsdotter
Dec. 24th, 2013 12:15 am (UTC)
I don't have the mental spoons to form a reply that matches the awesomeness of this post.

I'm too busy cheering.
redbird
Dec. 24th, 2013 02:24 am (UTC)
And notice that hey, it's possible to marry someone who won't expect to make all the household decisions and do none of the cleaning.

My girlfriend figures that it's not my relationship with her that's a threat to those people: it's my fairly egalitarian relationship with my husband.
sethg_prime
Dec. 24th, 2013 04:12 am (UTC)
If I had six figures of law-school debt and the only way I could pay the rent was by clerking for Justice Scalia, I would frame an argument against same-sex marriage along these lines: Traditional marriage is an asymmetric relationship in which, for example, the husband accepts a duty to support his wife in exchange for the wife accepting a duty to have sex with the husband. In our politically correct age of course we hardly have any such duties imposed by the law, but if a state with opposite-sex marriage were to reinstate them, the gender asymmetry would be judged by the “intermediate scrutiny” standard rather than “strict scrutiny”... but if we construe the Federal constitution to require a state to recognize same-sex marriages, how could we ever again have gender-asymmetric marriage?

I find it interesting that I don’t see anyone—at least, nobody with prominence in the anti-SSM movement and nobody writing briefs in these cases—making that kind of argument.
dr_tectonic
Dec. 23rd, 2013 11:03 pm (UTC)
Sounds about right.
dcseain
Dec. 24th, 2013 01:59 am (UTC)
Yeah, that seems about right.
oneagain
Dec. 24th, 2013 02:21 am (UTC)
Maybe they don't understand what "gay" means? ;)
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )