Yet another off-the-wall reason why gay marriage is a Bad Thing: it means women can be replaced. Yes, that’s right, the removal of a woman as one-half of a marriage (at least among marriages between gay men) would be a defeat for women’s rights. Or their right to be brides. Or something like that.
Our [Canadian] Constitution’s phrases about “not discriminate” once meant “not treat unfairly,” but is now re-interpreted as “not distinguish.” It is taken to mean that men and women are the very same thing.
But they are not the same. Over the last hundred years there has been good progress in getting women represented in such institutions as the courts and parliament. If it is now decided that a man can represent a woman, will there be any necessity to have women in other institutions?
Right. If women can be booted out of gay marriages, then they can be booted out of the workplace, too.
Men are physically stronger than women. They have more influence in society. They earn higher incomes with better pensions. They are employable even after age 50. They are not subject to the potential dangers of childbirth, one of the many uncertainties of a marriage. How can two men, two equally privileged persons, say they form a marriage?
Gay marriage — yet another attempt by the patriarchy to degrade and oppress women. You heard it here, first (unless you heard it first on the CBC).
Yeesh.
(via Daimnation)
“How can two men, two equally privileged persons, say they form a marriage?”
So… a marriage, to these yahoos, is by definition a pairing of two inequally priviledged persons? That’s one of the prerequisites?
It’s not that people say this stuff, it’s that…
no, I guess it is that they say that stuff. Do they even read what they just wrote?
One can but hope not.
All those poor women denied the right to marry gay men, something they’d dreamed about since they were told what a dirty, disgusting business this sex stuff was, about the time they got their first corset and had their coming out party…