?

Log in

Kand... that bar in your lj..my only question is...why? [Please read… - Unspoken [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The things you've left unsaid

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

[Feb. 15th, 2004|12:27 pm]
The things you've left unsaid

un_spoken

[goddramon]
[mood |indescribable]
[music |Linkin Park - In The End]

Kand... that bar in your lj..my only question is...why?
[Please read disclaimer at bottom of rant]
What's so important about this 'gay marriage' debate? As for myself, I'm going to be honest. I find homosexuality, in either gender, to be more disgusting than words can express. As for this marriage nonsense, I don't see the point. Two people, of either gender, love each other (or think they do), they want to live together for the rest of their lives, they do. Where does the marriage come in? Only thing I see that makes me want to marry anyone at all is the tax deductions. And I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere in the IRS codes to allow two people who're living together who aren't 'married' per se to file together under the lower rate.

So please, explain this to me. Oh, and enlighten me as to the significance of something that looks like something I made up in Paint back when Windows 3.1 was new, please.

Now, the disclaimer. Sorry if I offend anyone, I don't mean to, these are only my thoughts and I felt it would be better here than somewhere else so that maybe someone else could dump their 2 cents in, too. If you can't deal with this kind of thing without becoming offended or upset, don't bother.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: kandriamage
2004-02-15 09:51 pm (UTC)
I think it's a matter of wanting it, those who are same sex cupples don't tihnk it's right just because of what they do, they can't get married.

Pluse getitng married takes any relashonship to the next level, sure you can live with someone but then it's still liveing with someone, nothing really showing your love and commitment there.

least that's the best i think come up with half asleep...
(Reply) (Thread)
From: goddramon
2004-02-16 03:23 am (UTC)

Re:

"Pluse getitng married takes any relashonship to the next level, sure you can live with someone but then it's still liveing with someone, nothing really showing your love and commitment there."

One simple word: BS. As I've said, I don't plan on getting married. Why do people have to fight over it?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kandriamage
2004-02-16 05:21 am (UTC)

Re:

simply, becuase they can. People can explain, and argue and point to this or that or name religus roots in marrige.

but it all boils down to it's the usa, and they aruge and protest because they can.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: oneggshells
2004-02-16 05:29 am (UTC)
Now wait I'm not offended by this, as much as I'm puzzled. Now what your saying is because of a inside feeling I have, a feeling I can't control I should forfeit rights that someone who has different feelings has?

It's like denying the right to vote to blacks in the past, because they are born with darker skin.

It may make some people uncomfortable, but everyone deserves the same rights, be it the right to get marred, to vote or even to eat in a restaurant.

But then again, that is only my opinion on the matter.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: goddramon
2004-02-16 06:16 am (UTC)

Re:

Hardly. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, and I'm glad that you're not offended. I see no point in the denial, but I see no point in the fight over it, either. Hell, if they were to abolish all marriage tomorrow, I couldn't care less. My only problem is the simple question of "why?" Why the fighting, why the nonsense, to use a very old, and rather dumb quote..why can't we all just get along?

My own feelings on other matters aside, I don't see a 'denial' here. I took a jog over to the library and looked, btw. I was right, there is a loophole in the rules that allows two unmarried people to file together, though they get a smaller tax deduction. I forget the place it is, but it is there. Hell, I think I'll exploit that in the future.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kandriamage
2004-02-16 09:01 am (UTC)

Re:

pft when it comes to tax codes, a call to mom can give you all the info you need on it... she dosn't work at a tax place for no reason.

it would be intresting ot see what it would be like if all marriage was abolished...

and as for why the fighting, it's beacuse people want ot stand in the way of allowing same sex marrage and people have to fight them...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: marryoh
2004-02-16 07:45 am (UTC)
I don't want to say that what you said really offends me, because it doesn't too much. I can see your points, but I'm still in favor of the marriages.

The way I see it, if two people love each other, they should be able to get married. If it's legal for a man and woman to get married, then why can't two men or two women? If it's all right for one couple to get hitched, why not any couple?

Disregarding the fact that many people think gay men and woman are "disgusting," let's move onto something else. Is love disgusting? I should hope not, or everyone would be vomiting up their meals every second of the day, right? Many people should be able to agree that love is a beautiful, wonderful thing and to cherish every moment of it. If one person is allowed to be open about their love, why can't another?

I agree with oneggshells. It may make some people uncomfortable, but everyone deserves the same rights, be it the right to get marred, to vote or even to eat in a restaurant. We're a nation struggling with creating everyone to be equal, why let this issue stop us?

If it really shouldn't be making people uncomfortable since it's their life and they alone can choose how they want to live it. If someone doesn't like it, they can just ignore it and go about their own life. No need to think twice about someone else's, right?

I could go on, but this is long enough already. I understand that I probably won't be able to sway your opinion on this, but I just wanted to give you some of my thoughts on it.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: goddramon
2004-02-16 09:50 am (UTC)

Re:

I agree. Let people go about their lives as they like. But don't bother the rest of us with it while you have your little war with the government. And I agree with this one thing out of most 'orthodox'/'puritanical' religions. Love, romance, etc. should be kept in the bedroom. And that's between a male and a female, two males or two females. Don't force the rest of us who either find it bothersome or just don't give two shits one way or the other to watch and to see your sexual orientation. That's part of my problem as well, I guess.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gigantic
2004-02-16 08:24 am (UTC)
*here via browsing*

I think the problem with your stance on this is that you already have issues with marriage as a concept. On a personal level, I can totally relate there because marriage scares the hell out me. I don't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole, but what I think it comes down to is a matter of personal joy. Not the idea of getting hitched itself, but going through those motions adding to someone's pursuit of life, liberty, and the big H.

People want to fight for what will make them happier, and for the two women who've always wanted that white dress wedding but couldn't because they chose to skip the male counterparts, well. Marriage is still something they want, and so if protesting and causing noise in America is gonna help them get that, then why wouldn't they go for it, you know? At least that's how I look at it.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: goddramon
2004-02-16 09:45 am (UTC)

Re:

Alright...I get that.

As for the white dress part...no. There is tradition at stake here. that's a part of where I go wrong. If you're not going to follow the whole thing that revolves around marriage..you sure don't just 'modify' it as you like. These marriages probably aren't likely to be held in churches, don't treat them like they are.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gigantic
2004-02-16 10:23 am (UTC)

Re:

Well, not held in churches now. But then again, they've only begun to cause a stir, yes? And if nobody's willing to bust up tradition a little bit, then how is anything ever supposed accomodate new developments? Because even if there are those who continue to adamantly reject the acceptance of new things like homosexual men and women who want to get married, it doesn't mean the demand for it doesn't still exist. Though I would have to agree with you that one really isn't getting this matrimonial dream if they're changing certain aspects of it. But I guess those really invested in it will take what they get. They're only asking for the same opportunities, I think.

Sidenote while we're picking at tradition: Dude, my subjective issue with marriage is that I don't adhere to the tradition of it at all. I'm all for the chick getting married in a blue mini-skirt with her boyfriend in chucks and a tatty blazer. I can respect people who want to stick to the book, but I guess I'm one of those stubborn Generation Y boomers with a penchant for confusing the order. I can't understand the significance of a lot of supposed "traditions" because they're too ancient for me to find the roots, so I'm digging up new dirt and supporting people out to set fresh precedents.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2005-09-27 08:48 pm (UTC)

Re:

White dress and tradition have nothing to do with it. This is common-law marriage. Legal recognition and all rights, for gays and straights. Not stupid church doctrine. That has nothing to do with the law, and I hope everyone has figured that out by now :). Ceremonies can be done by the hundreds in whatever style wanted already...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: al_nino00
2004-02-16 11:14 am (UTC)
I wasn't going to get into this, but I figured I should get my two cents in. First, the 'debate' isn't always sparked by those that want the marriages. Its the media that does that sort of thing. Its like any other law, except the news and media finds the most controversial things it can and they do their damndest to make sure its in everyone's faces.

What's the point of marriage? For some people, its a spiritual thing. Marriage truly binds two people, rather than if they were just living together unmarried. Marriage isn't just about taxes and sex, it takes the relationship to the next level for some people, and its a stronger physical representation of their love for eachother if they're actually bound in that way.

If straight people are allowed to marry, why not non-straight people? They ARE people, and they deserve the same rights no matter what. As for you mentioning sexuality staying in the bedroom... the process of making these things legal is the only reason you see it more than usual lately. If they're allowed to marry, none of this will be a problem. Instead of having sex on capital hill to grab our attention, everything will be settled and they'll be in their bedrooms. You won't have to see it anymore.

As for the rainbow bar, it got your attention, didn't it? Moreso than simply 'Marriage is love.' Sitting there. The bar got you to click the link, and sparked discussion. It may be simple, but it did its job well.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whinetasting
2004-02-16 04:10 pm (UTC)
At least part of it is rights of the spouse. Besides taxes, things are different elsewhere.

Example 1: A woman goes into the ER for something (appendix burst, broken leg, whatever). Her SO of 15 years, who happens to be a woman and to whom she'd be married (or united, whatever floats yer boat on the phrasing) if not for the current laws, rushes to the hospital to see her. If her SO were a male husband, he'd be allowed in straight away, or as soon as she was out of an operating room, etc. However, the SO in this case gets told "Only immediate family." In this example, a husband is considered immediate family, but a woman who would be her wife if not for current laws, is not.

Example 2: Except for Disney employees and maybe a handful of others I've not heard of, most companies' employees do NOT get spouse coverage if you're not legally married. So, if two women were to be exclusive partners, it wouldn't matter how long this was the case; since they can't get legally married, the office of one will not give coverage (even at a small extra rate as many companies do for extended benefits) to the other. With the way the laws stand now, this is perfectly legal. However, if gays were allowed to marry (or again, be united, as it might not be a bad idea to throw the word "marriage" out the window as far as the government is concerned), it wouldn't be -- insurance for spouses is insurance for spouses, period.

There are other places this can cause problems, all stemming from the fact that exclusive gay partners cannot be considered united as spouses under the eyes of the law. Changing this would change a great many things for the better, and end a lot of this currently legal discrimination.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: escherichiacola
2004-02-17 02:38 am (UTC)
Don't bring gays into your unresolved issues with marriage.
(Reply) (Thread)