traditional marriage should be under attack.

i'm sick of hearing about same-sex marriage.

one of my favourite pieces of art was in a gallery at McGill, where i was for god knows what reason. but it was basically this 50s' style retroish poster that said "Gay Marriage - You Might As Well Be Straight!" and the artist was so overthetopfully gay that it tickled my fancy. cos it was an interesting thought, and something that hardly ever gets brought up in the current same-sex marriage debate.

so, in the interest of pissing off bleeding-heart liberals as well as bible-thumping traditionalist conservatives equally, i'd like to say that, no, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. not in the way that we think of marriage.

why? well, this is the part that's gonna piss off the falwell types. and hopefully make some people who believe themselves progressive (or at least objective) do a little progressive thinking. note that this is a development of something that laura kipnis talks about at some length in against love. i was going to quote directly, but i was too high to find the quote. and of course, in the process of writing my recollections of her point, i came up with my own. remember?

basically, i think that the whole debate over same-sex marriage is misguided. the movement in favour of gay marriage takes as one of its premises that gay couples should be able to enjoy the same economic and social benefits as heterosexual couples. why hasn't anyone made the extremely obvious seeming observation that maybe ... just maybe ... reaping the benefits of a social contract to which we all contribute shouldn't be keyed to our marital status? essentially, government resources are being directed to married couples rather than spread equally amongst all people. why should married couples get all of this money (both in the form of baby bonuses etc., and in the form of tax breaks, etc.)? shouldn't resources be distributed equally, regardless of whether or not one is married? it's just a covert means of control by which the state enforces a traditionalist morality upon its citizens.

oh yeah, neocons. you're saying. oh! but what about the benefits that wives get when their husbands die! (yeah, they don't use no gender-neutral language, that's for fucking sure.) what about all this shit! well let me tell you what I think about that shit. i think it's all pinko commie liberal bleeding-heart welfare-state bullshit! i think that citizens need to, as part of this OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, take responsibility for their own damn well-being. if Tyrone gets gunned down in a drive-by, and Lakesha can't take care of little Tyrone Jr. and LaShawnna without her "crive victims recovery benefits" and the linke (note also that the obviously racist example is me playing tongue-in-cheek neocon! it's fun; try it), that's their OWN FUCKING FAULT. they should have invested in stocks and bonds. and Tyrone was probably a good-for-nothing loser stoner anyways.

yeah, that's right neocons. your arguments got rebutted with a neocon rant. what the fuck do you think of that?

*i like the fact that total neocons reading this right now is likely ... 0. maybe this guy though! NEOCON FUCK!!! Pass the BONG!

sorry. (if you're wondering how many times i said "neocon" in those two paragraphs, it's 6. well, 7 counting that last one.)

where was i.... right. so, what's the logical conclusion here? i think it's that maybe the state should get the fuck out of what people do with their interpersonal relationships? honestly, how can it be justified that the state has any say in who or how we marry? i think that the best way to preserve the sanctity of "traditional marriage" is to withdraw the involvement of the state. individual churches and their congregations should be free to recognize their own concepts of marriage as they saw fit. there you go, mormons. you can marry tons of girls (though it still better be consensual.). there you go, christians, you can feel free to deny from your pulpits that whatever the gays do sure isn't marriage. and gays, atheists, hindus, muslims, scientologists, zoroastrians and all you other underappreciated minorities, you can do whatever the hell you want to celebrate the decision to be faithful and loving and monogamous.

besides, gay couples would never get married in a court house, would they? so why do they need the government's help? they'd have it someplace nice and well-decorated and tasteful, and they'd probably make up their own vows and whatnot. if they want to get married, why don't they just start doing it? just call your partner your husband, and the republicans be damned!

i dunno. maybe i'm totally out there. but it just kinda seems like a crutch to me. i don't see why the church or the state need to be involved in order to validate the sanctity of a real union based in love, trust, caring, and all of those things that "traditional marriage" is really supposed to be.

that's all.