What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[Darkwing Duck]

It was brought in/got involved hundreds of years ago before Lincoln was even a Republican (<---no relation to today's meaning according to you)

For symbolic meaning of words that creates exclusion? Please give me some examples.

 

[PearlWatson]

For symbolic meaning of words that creates exclusion? Please give me some examples.

Marriage

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Marriage

Can't see any law or amendment or anything of the like where marriage is defined by exclusion that was deemed constitutional. Please guide me where that is the case.

 

[Stoked]

Because the relationships are still different, but yet their rights should be equal.

Go back and read my stance in this thread involving state and church and the role I believe they should have in marriage and civil unions.

 

[PearlWatson]

Can't see any law or amendment or anything of the like where marriage is defined by exclusion that was deemed constitutional. Please guide me where that is the case.

Marriage has always been exclusive to one man and one woman in this country, and it has never been unconstitutional to do so.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Marriage has always been exclusive to one man and one woman in this country, and it has never been unconstitutional to do so.

Not true.

 

[PearlWatson]

Not true.

Which part?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Which part?

First part

 

[PearlWatson]

First part

Elaborate.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Elaborate.

Plural marriages weren't banned until later in the country's existence.

 

[PearlWatson]

Plural marriages weren't banned until later in the country's existence.

Was the government involved in marriage before the ban?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Was the government involved in marriage before the ban?

Probably, but not likely in definining it.

 

[PearlWatson]

Probably, but not likely in definining it.

So once government was involved in defining it, it has always been exclusive to one man and one woman.

What's wrong with keeping it defined that way?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So once government was involved in defining it, it has always been exclusive to one man and one woman.

What's wrong with keeping it defined that way?

They've never been involved with defining it.

 

[PearlWatson]

They've never been involved with defining it.

Not allowing people to marry based on exclusionary criterion is being involved in defining it.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Well, let's turn this around.

Homosexuals don't deserve a choice. Homosexuals are parasites on the society created by heterosexuals. They have the basic necessities. They can't really complain. They should appreciate what they have, not what they don't. They have no right to be picky about how we have defined marriage since the birth of this great country.

I'm using his same logic.

Either you are an idiot or sincerely missed the entire point.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Not allowing people to marry based on exclusionary criterion is being involved in defining it.

No. They restrict who can marry and who can't. That's not defining the word.

 

[PearlWatson]

No. They restrict who can marry and who can't. That's not defining the word.

Okay that doesn't make sense to me, but it probably never will.

What is wrong with continuing with the same restrictions then?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Okay that doesn't make sense to me, but it probably never will.

What is wrong with continuing with the same restrictions then?

You might be right if you lengthened it out: "legal marriage in the United States as of (enter date)." But it's not defining marriage. Try telling a Dutch gay married couple that they're not married because the US or one its states says you can't be. They'll laugh in your face.

The clamor now, and why the restrictions should be changed, is that homosexual couples that see themselves as married cannot receive the same legal benefits that married couples have (the reason to be "legally" married in the first place). And if the state allows the legal benefits, the same benefits that marriage affords heterosexual couples, then it's legally married. Trying to use different terminology creates a separate but equal scenario, something that obviously doesn't work.

 

[PearlWatson]

Either you are an idiot or sincerely missed the entire point.

Neither. I got your point.

People of a certain criterion(age in this case) don't deserve choice because they are parasites on those who have authority over them.
Why can't we apply that same logic to other people of a certian criterion like homosexuals? If they have businesses, they didn't build that. Total parasites on the government that has authority over them. They have no right to complain about what they don't have. They should appreciate what the government allowed them to have.