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...

what he said
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xsy
One Brow said:
Absolutely, since Lawrence vs. Texas. The gay marriage fight is entirely about legal recognition.
Click to expand...

It ain't about the actual "rights" but forced acceptance, seeing as California already had legalized civil unions before the marriage recognition fight.
 
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...

This is exactly how I feel as well - great post. Respect & Rep'd.
 
PearlWatson said:
It ain't about the actual "rights" but forced acceptance, seeing as California already had legalized civil unions before the marriage recognition fight.
Click to expand...

Civil unions do not offer the full protections of marriage, even in California, and much less so in manhy other states.

Of course, back in the late 60s, Loving vs. Virginia forced a lot of acceptance as well, overturning the law in 13 states. Do you think that was a bad thing?
 
One Brow said:
Civil unions do not offer the full protections of marriage, even in California, and much less so in manhy other states.

Of course, back in the late 60s, Loving vs. Virginia forced a lot of acceptance as well, overturning the law in 13 states. Do you think that was a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes we get it. You think being black is the same as being gay. Has anyone, other than me just now, even responded to your attempts to make the connection?
 
Scat said:
Yes, yes we get it. You think being black is the same as being gay. Has anyone, other than me just now, even responded to your attempts to make the connection?
Click to expand...


I just assume that anyting he says is connected to racism. That is his answer for everything.
 
Scat said:
Yes, yes we get it. You think being black is the same as being gay. Has anyone, other than me just now, even responded to your attempts to make the connection?
Click to expand...

Well, I've never been gay, so I can't judge from my perspective. Gays experience more direct and overt discriminaiton, blacks more continual and subtle discrimination.

However, I was not making a direct analogy/comparison, but rather a comparison to how people should, or should not, be expected to accept homosexual marriages. No one today complains that in the 1960s, people were forced to accept marriages they thought were morally wrong. Thus, I find the complaint that people might be forced to accept gay marriage to be a complaint of convenience, and not a serious argument against legalizing gay marriage, because people only lodge that complain out of convenience.
 
anywhoo we should stop arguing marriage isnt for 2 men.

just like salary you need to be working to get salary.
you need to be a man and a women to deserve mariage.

and mariage is what 2 men need.
this is getting ridiculous what is this world cumming to that we are debating about why 2 man cant get married.
 
One Brow said:
Well, I've never been gay, so I can't judge from my perspective. Gays experience more direct and overt discriminaiton, blacks more continual and subtle discrimination.

However, I was not making a direct analogy/comparison, but rather a comparison to how people should, or should not, be expected to accept homosexual marriages. No one today complains that in the 1960s, people were forced to accept marriages they thought were morally wrong. Thus, I find the complaint that people might be forced to accept gay marriage to be a complaint of convenience, and not a serious argument against legalizing gay marriage, because people only lodge that complain out of convenience.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my argument that the separate genders are what make a traditional marriage. There is nothing different between me and a black man, but there are big differences between me and a woman.
 
Xsy said:
First of all, "Promoting Homosexuality"? Ffs, dude. First of all, no one here or in the government PROMOTES people to change their sexual orientation. My parents PROMOTED the heterosexual lifestyle to me, and guess what? Turns out I'm not into chicks. **** me, right? I really wanted to be straight, but it didn't happen. Trust me, I tried. From puberty until I was 19 years old. I fasted, prayed, and guess what? I'm still gay. I was even planning on going on a mission. I was raised in the PERFECT LDS household. Happy home life, loving family of 6, church every Sunday, seminary every day in high school. So please, don't bring up the argument that I may have had a "liberal" upbringing or an abusive parent.

The term you're looking for is "Supporting Homosexuality". "SUPPORT". It simply means we DON'T have equal rights, and we want the government to SUPPORT the rights of two adult consenting men who love each other. Nothing more. No promoting. No one is trying to turn you and your family gay, here.

You just have the worst word selection pretty much ever



Holy crap, dude, buttsex cancer isn't this giant epidemic that's killing the nation-- and HIV is more than treatable now. And I've just got to know-- what does ANY potential disease have ANYTHING to do with a LOVE COMMITMENT?

Let's flip this logic back and use it against heterosexuals, shall we?

"Unwanted pregnancy is much, much, much, much, much more common than HIV. Unwanted children lead to abortions, which I'm guessing in your book, is a bigger sin than contracting HIV. Therefore we should ban Heterosexual marriage-- to protect marriage from abortions and orphaned children."

Sounds stupid, right? Well you're making the same argument. Get a better one, because this one is ****.

Fast food kills more people than HIV and Buttsex cancer-- ban fast food?
Cars kill more people than HIV and Buttsex Cancer-- ban cars?

No.

You're going to die. Some people die from cigarettes, some in car accidents, and others from having too much gay buttsex. And that's why America is so great.

But again I ask you, WHAT DOES MARRIAGE HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS? Gay sex happens with marriage or not. Legalizing gay marriage will not 'create' new homosexuals-- it will simply accommodate those already existing on the planet. This doesn't affect your life in any way. At all. Your kids won't turn gay because they see gay people. They're gay if they're gay. There's nothing you can do about it.



And that's why you're a ****ing retard. I'm sorry, I tried to be respectful for this topic, and I probably deserve an infraction for that, but holy cow.

I've made a huge mistake by making this topic-- it saddens me to see such ignorant posts like this.

Basketball topics from now on for me.

Like, holy crap-- how would allowing gay marriage, a commitment between two people, SPREAD HIV? If anything, it would literally reduce the number of people being infected by HIV.

I seriously just cannot fathom this logic you're busting out.
Click to expand...

I can see you're passionate about this, and that's probably why you created this thread. Your rights to live with whomever you want and do whatever you want (as long as you don't hurt others) are supported and protected by the concepts of co-tenancy and civil union in most states. It does not seem necessary for states to amend the concept of marriage as a matter of policy in order to accommodate your lifestyle. Earlier in this thread, some people have mentioned that even if civil union were identical to marriage in terms of rights and privileges, but still called civil union, they would not be satisfied. In my opinion, this is not about legal rights, as these people want social acceptance and recognition on par with married couples, and they want the states to take the lead in promoting that social acceptance by making a statement.

Some people in this thread are trying to bundle same-sex marriage in the same category as the civil rights movement and women's sufferage--that is, the right to be free from slavery, the right to earn a fair wage, the right to vote, and the right to be free from segregation. Yet, gays and lesbians are already have these freedoms like everyone else, and their right to co-habitate is also protected. So I think that comparison is a bit obtuse. Before some states can fully recognize gay couples, they may have to change their view on whether certain same-sex acts are even legal, so that there isn't a legal contradiction.

You asked my view, and I've given it. I can post links to medical studies if that's useful to back-up my concern for public safety. Some of my view on this also comes from knowing people in the San Francisco medical community, not that all gays and lesbians do what goes on here in San Francisco.
 
One Brow said:
People insisted that they did. People insisted that estate rights, medical decisions, and other legal niceties be accrued to married people by the government.
Click to expand...

Brigham Young disagrees, but it doesn't matter why they interfered. They did. Once they messed in religious ceremonies they made who is allowed to receive a marriage certificate an important issue for religious people.
 
LDS church LITERALLY supports polygamous marriage less than 200 years ago.

LDS members claim the sanctity of marriage hasn't been changed for 'thousands' of years.





I know, they don't support polygamous marriage anymore-- but to say the sanctity of marriage has been the same through world history is ********. Back in Biblical days, a wife could be obtained for a sheep and three oxen.
 
PearlWatson said:
What "protections" are they missing.
Click to expand...

I've posted more than enough situations in which gay marriage would benefit gay couples more than gay civil unions.

Please read ALL of my posts and then make rebuttals.

I've covered literally every legitimate aspect against gay marriage. Turns out, y'all don't got a leg to stand on.
 
Xsy said:
I've posted more than enough situations in which gay marriage would benefit gay couples more than gay civil unions.

Please read ALL of my posts and then make rebuttals.

I've covered literally every legitimate aspect against gay marriage. Turns out, y'all don't got a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

csy wonderng what you think on the take of allowing gay marriage would dilute the difference between sexes.
which would make males less masculine
and females less masculine.
 
DutchJazzer said:
csy wonderng what you think on the take of allowing gay marriage would dilute the difference between sexes.
which would make males less masculine
and females less masculine.
Click to expand...

No.

People are going to be who they are, no matter what. Men are typically going to be more masucline, and women are typically going to be more feminine. Gay marriage is illegal in most states-- doesn't stop homosexuals from existing. Legalizing homosexuality won't cause more homosexuals.

The US already went through Women's rights only a couple decades ago. Turns out, there's still tons of housewives out there. They didn't all turn into lesbians.
 
I feel like you guys think I'm some fruity *** limp wristed gay dude.

Guys, I'm just like you. I swear. I like steak, sports, video games, and typical guy things. The fact that I'm gay doesn't mean I'm going to turn your kids gay. The fact that I want to get married one day doesn't make your marriage any less valid.

I just want to be able to be on my husband's insurance policy, or maybe to be respected on the same level as my straight friends who have wives. I want to be on that same level of commitment and social status. I'm never going to convert to heterosexuality-- it doesn't work that way. The same reason you can't suddenly become homosexual.

The fact that I can't be there just makes me feel as small as an ant. I hate being looked down on. It doesn't feel good. I didn't choose to be gay. I would never choose to be gay. I am gay, though, and the least I want is the respect as any other adult male in a serious relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top