Language is so gay.
Apr. 11th, 2009 02:24 am*stares at title*
*flails*
There has been much awesomeness this month. [1] [2]
There has also been the suggestion made that we really need to stop calling it "gay" or "same-sex" marriage, because there's the implication in that that it's somehow different than "straight" or "mixed-sex" marriage, that there's some sort of special privilege being conferred here. It's about equality, and we need to be using language that reflects that.
*stares*
...but, no one gets "gay-married" in Canada! No one get's "gay-married" anywhere, so far as I know; they just get married.
...which is kind of the whole point, isn't it? We need to reframe the headlines. It should be not "same-sex marriage legalised", but "sex-discriminatory law amended" or some such, and we'll keep using those words until we have better ones, or they don't sound so strange anymore.
And if "sex-discriminatory" sounds ugly and unpleasant: good. Maybe it will encourage people to change their laws.
*flails*
There has been much awesomeness this month. [1] [2]
There has also been the suggestion made that we really need to stop calling it "gay" or "same-sex" marriage, because there's the implication in that that it's somehow different than "straight" or "mixed-sex" marriage, that there's some sort of special privilege being conferred here. It's about equality, and we need to be using language that reflects that.
*stares*
...but, no one gets "gay-married" in Canada! No one get's "gay-married" anywhere, so far as I know; they just get married.
...which is kind of the whole point, isn't it? We need to reframe the headlines. It should be not "same-sex marriage legalised", but "sex-discriminatory law amended" or some such, and we'll keep using those words until we have better ones, or they don't sound so strange anymore.
And if "sex-discriminatory" sounds ugly and unpleasant: good. Maybe it will encourage people to change their laws.