Marriage equality is based on the notion that every kind of marriage is allowed and should be in a position to access civil rights. Homonormativity falls into this category. Homonormativity deals and addresses the problems of privilege that we see in the strangeness of a community. This occurs as they mix with capitalism, sexism, and cissexism that reaches to appoint of leaving many citizens or humans in the organization towards the achievement of better sexual freedom and equal treat. Homonormativity leads to a perceived assimilation of its ideals. It then constructs into LGBTQ culture. This stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender which was improved from gay community which was found not to represent all those it was referring to (Halberstam, 76). This article seeks to understand why queer studies scholars are skeptical of the mainstream gay and lesbian movements focus on marriage rights.

Homonormativity upholds the theory of neoliberalism which advocates the support of extensive economic liberalization policies such as freedom to do things like trade and the reduction of money that is used by the government for the improvement of the private sector. This is done instead of openly going to the point of criticizing monogamy, binary gender responsibilities and the role of procreation. Homonormativity also fragments the LGBTQ community to importance and standards of gender recognition. This is because sometimes these communities are looked down upon for not acting as expected and if they fail to assimilate they may become invisible in the society living with the suffering of shame.

This LGBTQ community has tried to overdo the western culture and change the standard life of a man or a woman. The societies should overcome the heteronormative ways and ideas of possessing the mindsets that are concerned with the anti-sexualism. From these theories, the culture of queer behavior is born. Their main goal and aspiration are to promote the radicalization of the people into the culture, therefore, helping in the culture building.

It is not a safe place for queer sex and the way it has changed the possibilities of identity, public culture, and the integrity. They claim it has saved quite a number since they did not have a point of reference. Establishing these kind of counter-publics bring a reaction to domination. The people make a space with questions that lack answers that look into a fight for their recognition and hearing. They create space that does the work of verbal and physical activism. When they are rejected they decide to go over the same through words or their voice or text of identification, therefore, making them accepted or functional counter-public.

It is ironical however how they use definitive words such as pan and gay to describe oneself. One cannot define the group as isolated since its almost everywhere. One should understand the culture and how these definitions make the culture unique. This means the culture is a world-making project since it involves many people as could be identified through self-realization occurs personally these terms allow exploration. Therefore, the LGBT culture has adopted unique ways that limit the fact that used to be used for one taking care of themselves to one realizing themselves (Berlant and Michael Warner, 105).

In this times, the people deciding to come out today have temptations that face them. They can only succeed however at mimicking the way of thinking by putting a limit on themselves in the heteronormative ways. People cannot be at peace unless they recognize themselves. The heteronormative terms help us in knowing how one wants to be seen. These words act as the base for setting the ground rules for all the people not leaving themselves out. Even though it is easier to know how a situation is, a heteronormative role or model helps in this. Therefore, the primary goal of the queer culture should be to remove the boundaries in between gender (Jagose, 167)

We can harmonize the critique of marriage that is brought in by the feminist and gay rights scholars by allowing equality in the marriages. The same-gender marriage facilitates the non-enforcing construction of traditional marriages. Therefore, a basic allowance of this type of marriage would improve the functional understanding of family and intimacy overall. Since it is well known that the argument of marriage is an important civil right, therefore it follows the importance of equality or also known as autonomy. Therefore, this results in tangible and intangible benefits including total fit in these categories and if institutions. The scholars, however, think it is dangerous to prioritize these marriages because in the recognition of the same-sex marriages the society is required to mark the equal significance and there are many rights that marriage lies upon in the relationship.

However, it is critical to this argument of same-sex marriage viewing it as the importance of the marriage in a normative view. This view has held the availability of the advocacy for these civil rights. There are issues that arise such HIV/AIDS, especially in the gay community. Until this issue about marriage equality is solved it will continue to lose attention in the LGBT community. People of transgender will continue to be ignored. This might be because many people who identify these ideas as queer will not agree to the prioritization with some raising issues such as HIV/AIDS or the sexual freedom is more radical than the goal of marriage.

Some activists and scholars have identified more important things than queer politics. These are things like the LGBT rights. This is because justice should be empowering these people everywhere. The movement should take care of the things like queer and trans community homelessness, violence against them, racial justice, health, and trans justice (McRuer, 14)

Works cited

Berlant and Michael Warner. Sex in Public., 2009

Halberstam, Judith. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011. Print.

Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory. Melbourne: Melbourne Univ. Press, 2007. Print

McRuer. A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, (2006) 79-105