What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[One Brow]

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.

Other people would say there are tremendous differences between a white man and a black man. Ultimately, you have to demonstrate why those difference make a difference in who marries whom.

 

[One Brow]

What "protections" are they missing.

Varies by state.

 

[One Brow]

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.

Since the interferene is in legal terms, the determination of who should get married should be cast in legal terms, not religious.

 

[margodydek]

Xsy, I think I already know your answer, but how would you feel if a gay couple could possess every right/privilege as a married couple, but it wasn't called a marriage? Say they made it so that civil unions mirrored a traditional marriage.

 

[margodydek]

Other people would say there are tremendous differences between a white man and a black man. Ultimately, you have to demonstrate why those difference make a difference in who marries whom.

Me and a black man both have XY chromosomes. Switch that Y to an X and you have a huge biologicial difference.

 

[margodydek]

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've tried responding to this 3 or 4 times, but every time I do, I read what I wrote and it comes across as insensitive/misogynistic. I realized that it's really hard to get my point across with the right tone in print.

 

[One Brow]

Me and a black man both have XY chromosomes. Switch that Y to an X and you have a huge biologicial difference.

So, you are saing that differing melanin levels is not a significant determining factors for deciding who should marry whom on a legal basis, but differing chromosomes is. I understand that is your position. Now, can you demonstrate why that difference is significant in determining who marries whom, from a legal perspective?

When you do, please make sure to take into account women who are XY, such as those that suffer from the more severe forms of androgen insensitivity syndrome, and what that means for them being married. Such women have been marrying other men for centuries, after all. Should there be mandatory genetic testing for this?

 

[One Brow]

I've tried responding to this 3 or 4 times, but every time I do, I read what I wrote and it comes across as insensitive/misogynistic. I realized that it's really hard to get my point across with the right tone in print.

It couldn't be the that the message itself is insensitive mysogynistic, it must be the difficulty in expressing tone?

 

[One Brow]

Xsy, I think I already know your answer, but how would you feel if a gay couple could possess every right/privilege as a married couple, but it wasn't called a marriage? Say they made it so that civil unions mirrored a traditional marriage.

You mean, what if blond people weren't allowed to call their legal relationship to brunettes a marriage, but they could call it a civil union, and it would have all the same benefits of a blond-blond marriage? that would not be the leat bit insuling to brunettes, right?

 

[margodydek]

You mean, what if blond people weren't allowed to call their legal relationship to brunettes a marriage, but they could call it a civil union, and it would have all the same benefits of a blond-blond marriage? that would not be the leat bit insuling to brunettes, right?

Are girl scouts insulted by being being associated with girls scouts and not boy scouts?

 

[margodydek]

So, you are saing that differing melanin levels is not a significant determining factors for deciding who should marry whom on a legal basis, but differing chromosomes is. I understand that is your position. Now, can you demonstrate why that difference is significant in determining who marries whom, from a legal perspective?

When you do, please make sure to take into account women who are XY, such as those that suffer from the more severe forms of androgen insensitivity syndrome, and what that means for them being married. Such women have been marrying other men for centuries, after all. Should there be mandatory genetic testing for this?

Legally, I don't care if a gay couple has the exact same rights as a traditional marriage. I just don't think the definition of marriage should be changed to grant them those rights.

You're obviously more educated than me, so I'm not going to embarass myself, but I think it's pretty clear that there are significant differences in men and women (yes even greater differences than between a black man and a white man). I've expressed my opinions (and that's all they are - my opinions), and I think I've done it in a repectable manner. I respect everyone's opinion, but I think I'm done with this thread.

 

[One Brow]

Are girl scouts insulted by being being associated with girls scouts and not boy scouts?

Probably some are. Are you saying the brunettes would/should not be insulted?

 

[One Brow]

Legally, I don't care if a gay couple has the exact same rights as a traditional marriage. I just don't think the definition of marriage should be changed to grant them those rights.

It's been changed multiple thimes in human hjistorhy, according to the needs of the culture. Why is this time an exception?

I've expressed my opinions (and that's all they are - my opinions), and I think I've done it in a repectable manner.

I have no objection to you holding your opinion. I just don't think laws should be determined based on opinion (neither yours nor mine).

 

[margodydek]

It's been changed multiple thimes in human hjistorhy, according to the needs of the culture. Why is this time an exception?



I have no objection to you holding your opinion. I just don't think laws should be determined based on opinion (neither yours nor mine).

Last one. I don't care about the laws, I care about how our society defines marriage. I would hope that's not insulting to some, but it probably is. I think two people, regardless of who they are (heck I don't care if it's 5 people), should be able to enter into a union that legally gives them every right that any other couple/trio/etc has entered into. My final statment is that I believe men and women do, and should, have seperate distinct roles in our society, and I think by changing the definition of marriage, those roles become cloudy, and eventually they will cease to exist. I'm out.

 

[Gameface]

Last one. I don't care about the laws, I care about how our society defines marriage. I would hope that's not insulting to some, but it probably is. I think two people, regardless of who they are (heck I don't care if it's 5 people), should be able to enter into a union that legally gives them every right that any other couple/trio/etc has entered into. My final statment is that I believe men and women do, and should, have seperate distinct roles in our society, and I think by changing the definition of marriage, those roles become cloudy, and eventually they will cease to exist. I'm out.

And when you say men and women should have different roles, would one of the roles in question be who is in charge?

 

[Stoked]

And when you say men and women should have different roles, would one of the roles in question be who is in charge?

Would it matter as long as it was different roles. By that I mean it can vary from relationship to relationship.

For example I have a sister that is the dominate partner in her marriage and that works for them.

 

[nightmare3983]

It's been changed multiple thimes in human hjistorhy, according to the needs of the culture. Why is this time an exception?



I have no objection to you holding your opinion. I just don't think laws should be determined based on opinion (neither yours nor mine).

Aren't laws all based on someone's opinion of what is right?

 

[One Brow]

And when you say men and women should have different roles, would one of the roles in question be who is in charge?

He's not mysogynistic. He just really has trouble expressing his ideas in text without them sounding mysogynistic.

 

[Dr. Jones]

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.

No, I do not oppose the glorification of heterosexual marriage. No, I do not believe that haterosexual marriage brings confusion in the minds of children.
As I have stated before, I believe that heterosexual relationships are the intended natural order of my Maker.

At the fundamental level, that is bigotry, whatever the wrapping paper you put on it.

Is it? Maybe. I don't see it that way, but you may be right. Sometimes one's passionate belief system can blind them to such things.

Perhaps the same could be said of your stance that my beliefs are bigotry (a liberal-minded person telling a conservative minded how they should think).

 

[One Brow]

Perhaps the same could be said of your stance that my beliefs are bigotry (a liberal-minded person telling a conservative minded how they should think).

I agree that, to the extent I tell you how you should think when my talk is based upon no solid foundation, that is a form of bigotry on my part. In particular, I don't expect you to change how you think. If you can accept yourself who you are, I'm not the one to say otherwise. I struggle enough with my own bigotries to be judgmental.

I'm perfectly comfortable in saying what the law should be, though.