Could someone please write an opinion piece in the paper about the question of gay marriage without being icky? Goddamnit! I was quite excited about this one because its subheading was "Denying public recognition to long-term gay relationships simply promotes homophobia," which I thought was close to being a sensible statement, except for that 'long-term' specification, which seemed unnecessary. It seems to me like there are different standards for that. Like, a long-term relationship for a straight couple is four years, but a gay relationship has to hit at least 7 years to be considered long-term, serious enough to merit marriage. This is just the feeling I get. Anyway, the piece was written by Muriel Porter, who is the head of my department at uni or something. I dunno. I think I'm supposed to go and see her about tranferring credit from my previous aborted degree. I'll get around to it. So yeah, I thought she might be an alright sort, because generally, the people in my vicinity are. But NO! Check this out:
"If gay people are denied proper public recognition of their partnerships, they are left with little other than the lifestyle offered by the gay community, which inevitably leaves them in a kind of shadowland."

Ew! I'm shuddering. Like, whoah! It's like that Andrew Sullivan argument Marty was talking about. You know, that gays need marriage to stabilise the community's rampant dark and furtive promiscuity blah blah blah. That made me mad.

Anyway, I guess her article wasn't all bad. Like, she also said this:
"It is disingenuous of church leaders to condemn homophobia in the same breath as they condemn same-sex unions. Denying gay people public recognition tacitly promotes homophobia."

So that's good. At least she is mentioning homophobia and agreeing that, yes, it does exist. And yes, the 'h' word even provides the underlying 'logic' to people's resistance to gay marriage, hello! And she takes on the stupidity of clinging to that Bible-quoting deal when most other Bible-named 'sins', like money-lending with interest, have since been exonerrated. So her article is not heinous at a Janet level. But, still, I just wanna read ONE opinion piece that has no shittiness at all in it.