What's new
By:

What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

In other words, the word marriage is not the important thing to gays as far as i understand it.... it is the rights that come with the marriage. So wouldnt gay couples be happy in thier civil union as long as they got the rights that they desire.

For example: I wish someone would give me 1 million dollars. Now if someone actually gave me 1 million dollars but when it was given to me they called it 50 bucks, I would be very happy.... As long as it showed up as 1 million dollars in my bank account.
 
fishonjazz said:
That is not what i was asking.

So let me ask again to you specifically and i would also like it if xsy would answer this question...... Would everyone be ok with the scenario that gay couple in civil unions get the same rights as straight couples in a marriage?
Click to expand...

Personally, it doesn't affect me in any discernible way, so I don't really care. I find it stupid if that scenario ends up being the case, for reasons that I think are quite clear.
 
PearlWatson said:
The answer is NO. You have to call it marriage or it's Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

Why is the answer no? Why would gay couples care what thier relationship is labeled. As long as they get the benefits.

Seems like gay couples would be more open minded than that considering that gay couple want everyone else to be open minded about thier lifestyle.
Yet you seem to think that gay couples would be close minded about a silly word..... kinda wierd.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Personally, it doesn't affect me in any discernible way, so I don't really care. I find it stupid if that scenario ends up being the case, for reasons that I think are quite clear.
Click to expand...


So it is stupid to try to make everyone happy? Ok i guess some people just prefer to fight and argue and do everything the hard way.
 
fishonjazz said:
I cant remember who said it earlier in this thread but..... Why not just have people in civil unions recieve the same rights as married people? Wouldn't everyone be happy then?
Homosexuals would be happy cause now they can visit thier partner on thier deathbed and recieve life insurance etc etc, and people who are worried that gay marriage tarnishes the sanctity of marriage would be happy because homosexuals still would not be able to call thier partnership a marriage.

Everyone wins right? Right?
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, but apparently they are still not happy that it's called 'civil union' and not 'marriage'.

Not sure why though...
 
fishonjazz said:
Why is the answer no? Why would gay couples care what thier relationship is labeled. As long as they get the benefits.

Seems like gay couples would be more open minded than that considering that gay couple want everyone else to be open minded about thier lifestyle.
Yet you seem to think that gay couples would be close minded about a silly word..... kinda wierd.
Click to expand...

I imagine gays want to be married because they want to be married. If it's a "silly word," why do people care if they are considered married in the eyes of the state?
 
Hotttnickkk said:
That's what I thought, but apparently they are still not happy that it's called 'civil union' and not 'marriage'.

Not sure why though...
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should just be happy we straights recognize they exist. Marriage is OUR word. They can't have it. It's our precious, precious, precious. On a side note, I don't know why they care about a silly word.
 
So you see homosexuality as an innate 'characteristic' rather than a behavior, and that sanctioning the behavior equates to sanctioning the individual?
And didn't we already discuss the fact that the state definition of marriage affects more than just the individual involved?

If I use drugs and the state doesn't legalize my drug use, the state is making a moral discrimination against me and oppressing me? Is that the idea--because drug use isn't something I choose or indulge in, but rather I am innately a drug user and should be granted free reign to indulge in it as I wish?

What's the difference between drug use and homosexuality in this example? I mean, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... that's your logic right?
 
Darkwing Duck said:
I imagine gays want to be married because they want to be married. If it's a "silly word," why do people care if they are considered married in the eyes of the state?
Click to expand...


I agree with that as well. I think gays should be able to get married. But some people seem to have a religious issue with that word.
Just seems that gay couples would not have a religious issue with that word.
Plus unfortunately for them homosexuals are still in the minority, so it would piss off more people to call gay relationships marriage and we live in a democracy where majority rules, so it seems like homosexuals would feel happy with the outcome of civil unions being the same as marriage. Seems better than having civil unions less than marriage, but thats just me i guess.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Yeah, they should just be happy we straights recognize they exist. Marriage is OUR word. They can't have it. It's our precious, precious, precious. On a side note, I don't know why they care about a silly word.
Click to expand...

If it's just a word who cares?!?! You don't call a duck a sheep. You call it a duck.

Regardless, it's still just a word as long as they have the same rights.
 
fishonjazz said:
I agree with that as well. I think gays should be able to get married. But some people seem to have a religious issue with that word.
Just seems that gay couples would not have a religious issue with that word.
Plus unfortunately for them homosexuals are still in the minority, so it would piss off more people to call gay relationships marriage and we live in a democracy where majority rules, so it seems like homosexuals would feel happy with the outcome of civil unions being the same as marriage. Seems better than having civil unions less than marriage, but thats just me i guess.
Click to expand...

While some hold the idea that marriage is a religious idea, others see it (rightfully so, since marriage isn't restricted to religion) as something else, yet still meaningful. And the state shouldn't be dictating symbolic definitions based on religious doctrine because it's secular and would violate Amendment 1.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Here, here.
Click to expand...

facepalm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top