To Love or Not to Love

no picture RisaChen
Inscrit le 13 août 2012
  • 8 Articles

I believe in paternal state. That the government has the authority and power to intrude personal rights and freedoms as long as the citizens don't/can't consent-which is why I personally support the government's policy of forbidding underage children to have sex or their policy which forces children to go to school, since I personally believe that people who are young or perhaps cognitively incapable cannot consent to certain activities and therefore do not have the freedom to engage in them.

But my support only withstand until a certain form of 'rights intervention'. I support paternal state as long as the government is trying to forbid us from doing something that is harmful such as killing other people, from doing something that is considered as illogical such as driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol, but NOT when they try to define who to love and who to be loved.

Since 2001, only 11 countries legalized same-sex marriage. The other more-than-200-countries are either remain ignorant as they do not recognize any same-sex unions or remain opposing. Even in some countries including but not limited to Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the same-sex-sexual activities will be greeted up to death penalty. There, I thought committing death for the sake of fighting for your love only exists as a part of romance novel plot.

I do not get the reason why government of countries do not support gay marriage. As long as I know, it does not create any tangible harm, I mean, WHAT is the harm of 2 guys getting married? I never heard any fact saying 'every time a gay couple get married, 5 children die in the African continent'. But still, with no clear reason, gay couples are treated as if they are contagious deathly virus which should be isolated and even be liquidated as soon as possible.

Other than creating no harm, I also believe that gay couples can consent. I mean, they are adults- those who are believed as 'rational being' by the vast majority. Why bother restricting their act of pursuing happiness through marriage when some countries that remain opposing prefer to legalize UNDERAGE marriage?

The government clearly does not have the right to interfere religion- something that is considered as sacred and 'very personal'. Oh well, aren't feelings and infatuation are both very sacred and personal too? It comes from the mind, and some say, from the heart.

Let me ask you, have you ever fall in love? I am quite sure that most of us fell in love at least once, or maybe some of you are in love, at the moment. Do you ever choose who are you going to fall in love with? Is it even possible to control your feelings as it embarks? Can you stop your heart from skipping a beat whenever you see that particular someone? Do you have the ability to dismiss that very human nature of wanting to legitimately have whoever it is that you love? The answer is obvious: NO, you don't. NO, you cannot.

Love, infatuation and adoration are something inevitable and they come naturally. Love cannot be defined by anyone, nor can it be limited by any authority- including the government.

Even though some of countries still allow the existence of LGBT but not legalizing their marriage (what a weird stance), it still means that the government is trying to interfere way too far on deciding who has the right to love and to be loved.

Not allowing people to get married means that you are NOT acknowledging their love, and it is an indirect statement that you decided they have no right to love and to be loved by their lover.

No matter how authoritative you are, and no matter how much power you have from collecting trust from the society, no one gives you the right to decide who to love and who not to love.

If Britney Spears could get married for no more than 54 hours, then why can't those gay couple who are willing to have a lifelong marriage get married too?

comments powered by Disqus