What's new
By:

What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

margodydek said:
I've steered clear of this thread for a while, but thought I'd throw in my $.02. Call me whatever you want, but I am totally fine with gender specific groups/clubs (I'll get to it later, but that's what I consider marriage to be - a gender specific group). I'm totally fine with "women only" gyms, and I'm fine with "gentleman only" golf courses (stay strong Augusta). Boy Scouts are for boys, which is why I'm sure one day a girl wanted to be a boy scout, but was told no, and thus we have the creation of Girl Scouts.

I see no problem with two men having the exact same civil rights as me and my wife, but I would prefer that it be called something besides marriage. Marriage for thousands of years has always been between a man and a woman. I hope this doesn't come across as offensive (which usually means it's going to be offensive), but I consider marriage to be our thing. By our, I mean man/woman.

The big problem I see if eventually the definition of marriage is changed, is that genders will be obsolete. I believe in God and I believe that a person's gender is of eternal significance. However, if kids grow up learning that it doesn't matter what gender you are, in essence if gender is subjective - if boys wish to wear dresses, let them wear dresses - then eventually men will cease to be masuline and women will cease to be feminine - and there will be some major sexual confusion.

I have more thoughts, but here's the gist of my manifesto
Click to expand...


Except for all the times over the past few thousand years when marriage was between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
 
Gameface said:
Except for all the times over the past few thousand years when marriage was between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
Click to expand...

Haha. Great point. But this does bring up an interesting subject. If the definition of marriage is changed, and same-sex marriage is made legal, then plural marriage must be made legal, right?
 
fishonjazz said:
I thought this was a great post as well. even if i dont totally agree.

Good job of explaining why you feel the way you do.
Click to expand...

I appreciate it when people can discuss this subject without spittle running down their mouths. I totally understand and respect the other side's point of view, and I consider myself to be anti-gay marriage, but in no way anti-gay. We've all got someone in our lives who is gay (whether they be family, friend or co-worker), and I'm no different.
 
margodydek said:
Haha. Great point. But this does bring up an interesting subject. If the definition of marriage is changed, and same-sex marriage is made legal, then plural marriage must be made legal, right?
Click to expand...

Well, I support legalization of both based on the same premise, so maybe.
 
One Brow said:
Does someone need their boo-boo kissed?
Click to expand...

I'm starting the anti-defamation league for Jim Crow victims.

The%2BHelp%2BMovie.jpg
 
fishonjazz said:
My position is not to accomodate anyone. My postition is for EVERYONE on both sides of the issue to get over and just not care.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that. One side is determined to estasblished their superiority, the other determined to get equality. Neither will just "get over" it.
 
PKM said:
I have 5 kids and simply don't want them to be subjected to the glorification of the topic ... Because I believe I would know that America is better off without adding the confusion of sexuality into the minds of children that may be watching.
Click to expand...

Yet, you probably don't oppose gllorification of heterosexual marriage, and don't feel heterosexual marriages add to the confusion of sexuality in the minds of children. At the fundamental level, that is bigotry, whatever the wrapping paper you put on it.
 
Stoked said:
Just a personal opinion and how I view fairness and equal status. I am no better than a man of another race and he no better than I am. Why should he get a special month? The only way I see all the racism and ******** going away is to stop making it an issue to kids from day one.... But by continuing to point out that we are different only reinforces it in my opinion.
Click to expand...

AKA blame the victimns of racism for pointing it out.
 
margodydek said:
Haha. Great point. But this does bring up an interesting subject. If the definition of marriage is changed, and same-sex marriage is made legal, then plural marriage must be made legal, right?
Click to expand...

Could you explain that in more detail. I don't see how the one follows from the other. Not that i'm opposed to plural marriages, I'm just curious if you actually have a chain of reasoning for your statement.
 
One Brow said:
Could you explain that in more detail. I don't see how the one follows from the other. Not that i'm opposed to plural marriages, I'm just curious if you actually have a chain of reasoning for your statement.
Click to expand...

There's a few different ways I could approach it. Let's see... pro-gay marriage people, who are gay, will say, "I want to marry who I love, just because you (heterosexuals or anti-gay marriage folk) don't understand how I could love someone of the same sex, doesn't mean it isn't love and doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to marry someone." Then is it really far fetched for someone to say, "just because you (us monogamous folk), only love one person, how do you know it's impossible to love two people at the same time?"

Or I believe the big argument for gay marriage is that as long as the two people who want to get married are consenting adults, then why shouldn't they be able to be married? In essence as long as the parties involved are 1) of legal age, and 2) consenting, then they should be able to do as they please.

So why if there are 3 or 4 or 12 consenting adults that want to enter into a so-called "marriage" why shouldn't they be able to? Who am I to define their love? And as long as they are of age and consenting, then they should be able to do as they please.
 
margodydek said:
There's a few different ways I could approach it. Let's see... pro-gay marriage people, who are gay, will say, "I want to marry who I love, just because you (heterosexuals or anti-gay marriage folk) don't understand how I could love someone of the same sex, doesn't mean it isn't love and doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to marry someone." Then is it really far fetched for someone to say, "just because you (us monogamous folk), only love one person, how do you know it's impossible to love two people at the same time?"

Or I believe the big argument for gay marriage is that as long as the two people who want to get married are consenting adults, then why shouldn't they be able to be married? In essence as long as the parties involved are 1) of legal age, and 2) consenting, then they should be able to do as they please.

So why if there are 3 or 4 or 12 consenting adults that want to enter into a so-called "marriage" why shouldn't they be able to? Who am I to define their love? And as long as they are of age and consenting, then they should be able to do as they please.
Click to expand...

My response to the first and second paragraph would be that legalizing homosexual marriage would not legalize homosexual love/activity, it would allow homosexuals access to a well-defined body of law. With regard to plural marriages, the laws would seem to be more complicated. That's a secular reason for differentiating homosexual and plural marriage.

Nothing stops 3 or 4 or 12 people from being in what they call a marriage among themselves. It's what the government recognizes that is the issue.
 
One Brow said:
My response to the first and second paragraph would be that legalizing homosexual marriage would not legalize homosexual love/activity, it would allow homosexuals access to a well-defined body of law. With regard to plural marriages, the laws would seem to be more complicated. That's a secular reason for differentiating homosexual and plural marriage.

Nothing stops 3 or 4 or 12 people from being in what they call a marriage among themselves. It's what the government recognizes that is the issue.
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't understand this as I was intended to, but couldn't the same thing be said about a gay couple living together?
 
Isn't the whole stance of pro-gay marriage that consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender? Then by that argument it shouldn't be too far fetched to say that, as long as all parties involved consent, 3+ consenting adults should be able to enter into a marriage as well.
 
margodydek said:
Isn't the whole stance of pro-gay marriage that consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender? Then by that argument it shouldn't be too far fetched to say that, as long as all parties involved consent, 3+ consenting adults should be able to enter into a marriage as well.
Click to expand...

They already do in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top