?

Log in

No account? Create an account
where's the right to legislate a personal belief? - Wise Tits — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Wise Tits

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

where's the right to legislate a personal belief? [Sep. 5th, 2008|05:22 am]
Wise Tits

wise_tits

[jesuismeursault]
[Current Location |home]
[Current Mood |annoyedannoyed]
[Current Music |rien]

i was just in the store and noticed people magazine announcing the marriage of ellen degeneres and portia de rossi. i thought, good for them, i guess, if that's what they want to do. it got me thinking about the whole issue of gay rights, which got me thinking about people in general. i don't understand the reasoning behind not allowing gay marriage, especially when we are given equal protection under the law in the constitution. i know the arguments that use the bible as a backdrop but, as far as the law goes (and it is strictly a legal matter), marriage is just a contract between two people. so, why can't anyone of legal age get in on it, gay or straight? you can't deny a gay person a home or car loan because he/she is gay; that would be against the law, so why does it work with this specific contract? i see this as more legislation of people's personal opinions. person A does not like the idea of gays marrying for whatever reason (usually religious, which shouldn't matter in a legislative matter in the first place), so that person decides to make laws banning it. my question to person A is: why do you care? allowing same-sex marriage does not mean you then have to marry someone of the same sex. i'm not a lesbian and the idea of being with another woman is not an appealing one for me, but that doesn't mean that i should be able to tell others they cannot marry someone of the same sex. personally, i don't care what goes on between two consenting, law-abiding adults. and i suppose it's a good thing i don't care, since it's none of my damned business in the first place. i don't understand the desire to legislate personal opinion. if you don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't marry someone of your same sex. if you don't like the idea of abortion, don't have one. if you don't like inter-racial marriages, then marry within the confines of your race. it's that simple. why must everyone else be forced to be like the most pseudo-pious/self-righteous among us?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: hahahasyyke
2008-09-08 05:33 pm (UTC)
I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong with marriage. I am not against it, and I think I'd like to get married.
But the idea that a marriage loses its sanctity if it's between two men or two women is ridiculous, considering many male/female marriages are based on something much less. I don't even know how to word what I am trying to say, so hopefully that kind of makes sense.
And...
ACTUALLY, I wasn't saying "half" as a reference to that statistic, I was being loose with my words. Honestly, I could care less about statistics - most of them seem to be flawed in some way anyhow. Me saying "It's a promise that's broken half the time" isn't much different than you saying "Most Christians". Although, even if 1/3 of marriages end in divorce, that's certainly not to say that 1/2 of the promises aren't broken anyway. You have to take into consideration married couple who have affairs, hate eachother, and still stay together.

Anyway, the symbolism makes sense. The legalities make sense. But a great deal of couples have turned marriage into a joke - So protecting the sanctity, if a huge issue in the gay-marriage scenario, should be applied to a lot of people. If the law can deny marriage to a gay couple "to protect the sanctity of marriage", the law should be able to deny marriage to anyone without a detailed look at their life as a couple - people who haven't lived together, or haven't been together for a while. You know, those people who get married 2 months in and still live with mom and dad?

Yeah. That's what I was getting at, more or less.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: d_h_belmont
2008-09-08 09:58 pm (UTC)
As I've said before, you can't possibly legislate the sanctity of marriage. I don't really remember what I've posted here, or what has been posted that referenced something I said, but if I've said it before, oh well.

This issue is simply a tool that politicians (meaning Republicans) use to dupe the Evangelical Christians into voting for them. It's why so many people came out to vote for President Bush in 2004; they handed him the election. It's a shame, too, because you will never see a candidate who will say that they are in favor of gay rights and will do everything in his or her power to give them civil rights. The closest thing Obama, which some argue is "the most liberal senator" (which probably isn't true), can say is that "He will fight to allow a person to visit their same sex partner in the hospital." Whoop-de-fucking-do. He couldn't even say anything suggesting a legally recognized partnership. Poor bastard.

Traditional marriage. HA! 100 years ago, marriages were prearranged, and were used as sort of business arrangements between families.

So I sort of came into this subject late because I was busy doing other things. I guess anything I say at this point is just beating the dead horse, huh?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: hahahasyyke
2008-09-09 09:41 pm (UTC)
"As for "sanctity of marriage", it's just a BS excuse anyway, especially since straight people have already done more to ruin said sanctity than gays and lesbians could ever hope to accomplish."


Uh, that's pretty much what I've been saying the whole time.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)