What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it's a duck. You're conferring everything that is marriage but not calling it marriage. How can something NOT be called marriage when it fits everything that describes marriage?

There are people who use cocaine, drink too much and drive too fast, but the state doesn't advocate indulging in those behaviors. It's a moral and legislative decision on the state's part. In certain states, some homosexual behavior might even be considered "illegal." Of course, it happens, as does other promiscuity, extra-marital affairs, pornography, recreational drug use, chain smoking, and fudging expense reports, etc. However, you're asking the state to take a position to not merely protect these people's rights, but to condone their lifestyle. There's a difference, and I think that's really the underlying issue. There have always been homosexuals and homosexuals living together. So what position should the state take? Should the state say that this is great and on par with marriage between a man and a woman? That's quite a leap in a lot of states. I don't personally think it will get much traction, and I'm not in favor of it, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Gameface]

There are people who use cocaine, drink too much and drive too fast, but the state doesn't advocate indulging in those behaviors. It's a moral and legislative decision on the state's part. In certain states, some homosexual behavior might even be considered "illegal." Of course, it happens, as does other promiscuity, extra-marital affairs, pornography, recreational drug use, chain smoking, and fudging expense reports, etc. However, you're asking the state to take a position to not merely protect these people's rights, but to condone their lifestyle. There's a difference, and I think that's really the underlying issue. There have always been homosexuals and homosexuals living together. So what position should the state take? Should the state say that this is great and on par with marriage between a man and a woman? That's quite a leap in a lot of states. I don't personally think it will get much traction, and I'm not in favor of it, but that's just my opinion.

So everything that is legal is something I'm encouraged to do by the government? To legalize something is to condone it?

Let me just say, I completely disagree with you.

 

[Siro]

Man and man= Okay
Woman and man = Okay
Woman and woman= Okay
Woman and woman and man and woman and man = Okay
Man and man and man and sentient female monkey= Okay
Man and car= wrong!

 

[One Brow]

If you're an independent Christian though, and you quote me that verse in Leviticus, I'm gonna have to go ahead and read that whole chapter to you and ask some questions.

There's more than a verse in Leviticus.

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

 

[Deleted member 848]

Man and car= wrong!

Bigotry!! Not fair!! You can't tell me what I can and can't do with Betty back in the shop. The cold, cruel winters make a man awfully lonely sometimes....

 

[Darkwing Duck]

There are people who use cocaine, drink too much and drive too fast, but the state doesn't advocate indulging in those behaviors. It's a moral and legislative decision on the state's part. In certain states, some homosexual behavior might even be considered "illegal." Of course, it happens, as does other promiscuity, extra-marital affairs, pornography, recreational drug use, chain smoking, and fudging expense reports, etc. However, you're asking the state to take a position to not merely protect these people's rights, but to condone their lifestyle. There's a difference, and I think that's really the underlying issue. There have always been homosexuals and homosexuals living together. So what position should the state take? Should the state say that this is great and on par with marriage between a man and a woman? That's quite a leap in a lot of states. I don't personally think it will get much traction, and I'm not in favor of it, but that's just my opinion.

Being under the influence of illicit drugs, under the influence of a depressant, unsafe driving, and homosexuality. Yes, those are very similar things.

And you're seriously using, as an argument, laws that you would find on a stupid laws website? Cohabitation is illegal, right?

And marriage equates to condoning how? This whole thing of separating the two, "marriage" and "civil union" is at its surface insulting because they are the exact same thing, just with a different label. They're the same thing. Trying to give them two different names is solely trying to assign more or less value to one or the other. That sounds like the American ideal, right?

And besides, there's no qualitative measure for marriage anyway in the eyes of the state. One couple can't be married "better" than another. There's no legal basis for that. Marriage isn't "great." It just exists for a purpose.

What should the state do? Recognize that marriage isn't qualitative and treat it as such.

 

[Siro]

Bigotry!! Not fair!! You can't tell me what I can and can't do with Betty back in the shop. The cold, cruel winters make a man awfully lonely sometimes....

God is clear on the matter, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Jeep!

 

[Deleted member 848]

God is clear on the matter, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Jeep!

Your aimless, sheeplike adherence to faith completely clouds your perception of this world. Spaghetti Monsters, religious people like you absolutely nauseate me.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

So everything that is legal is something I'm encouraged to do by the government? To legalize something is to condone it?

Let me just say, I completely disagree with you.

To legalize something is to allow it and protect it. Same-sex couples are protected under Civil Union in however many states. It's legally protected already. That's not the issue. The issue is state recognition and re-defining what a 'marriage' fundamentally is and means.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

To legalize something is to allow it and protect it. Same-sex couples are protected under Civil Union in however many states. It's legally protected already. That's not the issue. The issue is state recognition and re-defining what a 'marriage' fundamentally is and means.

Marriage is fundamentally what a civil union already is. Why distinguish?

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Being under the influence of illicit drugs, under the influence of a depressant, unsafe driving, and homosexuality. Yes, those are very similar things.

And you're seriously using, as an argument, laws that you would find on a stupid laws website? Cohabitation is illegal, right?

And marriage equates to condoning how? This whole thing of separating the two, "marriage" and "civil union" is at its surface insulting because they are the exact same thing, just with a different label. They're the same thing. Trying to give them two different names is solely trying to assign more or less value to one or the other. That sounds like the American ideal, right?

And besides, there's no qualitative measure for marriage anyway in the eyes of the state. One couple can't be married "better" than another. There's no legal basis for that. Marriage isn't "great." It just exists for a purpose.

What should the state do? Recognize that marriage isn't qualitative and treat it as such.

Yes, this is what we're debating: whether states should be allowed to make a subjective and moral judgment in passing legislation. At some level, all laws make moral judgments--how old is a minor, how long should someone attend school, who is entitled to vote, what should the standards be for releasing new drugs and food additives, etc. It happens all the time. It's normally a states' rights issue.

You have every right to voice your opinion. I respect that. If you think gay marriage and heterosexual marriage should be legally defined as the same thing, you're entitled to that point of view. I'm not really in that camp. Some people think that not separating marriage and civil union by name is insulting, irrespective of the legal protections each affords.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

People should be able to marry their dogs, their parents, their sisters, and their hands (for the ugly people). If your religion says that they will go to hell let them at least enjoy this life anyway since they will have punishment for it anyway.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You have every right to voice your opinion. I respect that. If you think gay marriage and heterosexual marriage should be legally defined as the same thing, you're entitled to that point of view. I'm not really in that camp. Some people think that not separating marriage and civil union by name is insulting, irrespective of the legal protections each affords.

Some people thought that NOT separating blacks from whites was insulting, and that interracial marriage should be legalized against. Those people argued using very similar arguments you're making here.

Basically, here's a conversation your argument is making with a homosexual couple wanting to marry.

"We can't marry?"

"No."

"Why?"

"Because."

"...Because why?"

"Because I believe you shouldn't."

"Why should you dictate what our relationship can and can't be?"

"Because my moral code, whether or not you believe in anything near it or not, dictates that what you're doing is immoral/sinful/wrong (all words you'd insert here translate to wrong) and I should have the ability to dictate what you can or cannot do, since you are sinful."



Anyway you try to argue it, you're putting gay people who want to marry on a lower plane then you. You're the superior. And you think that gay people are going to just say OK and not think you're an arrogant *******?

 

[TroutBum]

For such a heated topic, its admirable to see that people can still keep their civility.

Blow it out your ***, dong hair.

Dude I thought this same thing as I was typing it out. I was like "Man, I really hope none of the people here are super ugly, because this might just depress them."

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I took zero offense and am not depressed by your comments one bit. (it helps that I've got Kevin Bacon living in my trousers)

 

[Xsy]

It seriously blows my mind that some people think that their religious beliefs are the ones being attacked in this situation.

 

[Stoked]

It seriously blows my mind that some people think that their religious beliefs are the ones being attacked in this situation.

So you can only see you side of the arguement? I have seen some arguement in the media that are clearly attacking those that oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

 

[TroutBum]

It seriously blows my mind that some people think that their religious beliefs are the ones being attacked in this situation.

It doesn't blow my mind at all. I can see where they're coming from, even though I think it's rubbish.

 

[The Midnight]

Marriage is fundamentally what a civil union already is. Why distinguish?

In my opinion there is one aspect that should be different from a legislative stand point - the ability to raise children. And what I'm really getting at here is the ability for same-sex couples to adopt children (obviously, because they cannot 'make' children of their own).

I know that a lot of same-sex couples are loving people (similar to the different-sex couples counterparts). But if we are to have the children's best interest at heart, I think the natural thing to do is to have them raised in a family where there are both male and female role models.

Somebody made an argument in this thread earlier that having 2 parents is better than having just 1 parent. But are you saying same-sex couples will never break up and go their separate ways? There is no guarantees..

Based on this I see a reason for having a distinction between marriage and civil union..

I'm all for same-sex couples to have ALL the same rights that Xsy talked about earlier... except when it comes to adoption of children.

 

[One Brow]

I see them as you telling me I have to shut the **** up an accept everything you do. Like hell I do. I see then as hurting your cause far more than the help it. I think gay marriage should be allowed but if I have some lesbian in my face throwing that she is gay and I "have to" accept and love that well I'm way more likely to tell her to eat a dick and **** off than I am to support her.

Just like if you are dating a girl and some people come along to harrass you over it, you don't have any right to expect them to respect your dating. After all, they have every right to say you're a father, you should be living like a monk if you can't live with the mother of your girls, and you're not allowed to marry anyone else, ever. Right?

 

[One Brow]

I understand why some people would want this, but personally, I think that would be a bad position for a moral republic to take. FWIW, I wouldn't be considered Christian.

Perhaps you would be happier in a moral republic, then? How aobut Iran or Indonesia?