What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

So all men aren't created equal in your mind. Where are YOU from?

All people are vested with certain inalienable rights and are equal under the law. It's just that states sanction people's behavior, including illicit and moral trespasses, according to those laws. You want homosexuality to be recognized and esteemed by the state rather than treated as a vice, a dysfunction, or an immoral and harmful activity. That's the battle you're fighting.

I'm now from San Francisco, fwiw.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You want homosexuality to be recognized and esteemed by the state rather than treated as a vice, a dysfunction, or an immoral and harmful activity. That's the battle you're fighting.

Granting marriage rights extends no qualitative opinion on a subject, rather extending equality. Granting marriage rights to interracial couples doesn't mean the state glorifies it. It's recognizing the right to equality.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

The Ming Dynasty was a state. We're talking state level society, here.

Well, all you need to do is become the Emperor of your own country, and you can have whatever harem you like....assuming your people are cool with it, and all.

 

[PearlWatson]

Secular government isn't in the business of recognizing religious figures.

Unfortunately governments got in the business of legalizing religious ceremonies.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Well, all you need to do is become the Emperor of your own country, and you can have whatever harem you like....assuming your people are cool with it, and all.

There is no collaborative or causation evidence that I'm aware of that suggests a monarchial or dictorial state results in a polygamous society.

 

[DutchJazzer]

You've presented a logical fallacy here. Traditional marriage is about baby making and establishing stable families whether married couples choose to make babies or not. I understand you want to change how marriage has historically been defined.

Let me ask you: what does homosexuality have to do with marriage at all? If you want to live with someone of the same sex, go ahead. It's your choice. Why do you need your state to call it a marriage?

amen brother

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Granting marriage rights extends no qualitative opinion on a subject, rather extending equality. Granting marriage rights to interracial couples doesn't mean the state glorifies it. It's recognizing the right to equality.

And what about 'Equality' for polygamists, polyanders, extortionists, pedophiles, and sadists? Clearly some 'qualitative opinion' has been made and has to be made by civil code. It's just that you want the line moved to accommodate your particular habit. You mean, you want 'Equality' for you because ostensibly same-sex co-habitation is more acceptable than whatever else....

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Unfortunately governments got in the business of legalizing religious ceremonies.

Governments don't legalize religious ceremonies. I'm picturing a raid at a marriage. Don't think that's ever happened.

Besides, marriage isn't a religious ceremony in the eyes of the state. If it was, then unreligious marriage ceremonies would be illegal.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

There is no collaborative or causation evidence that I'm aware of that suggests a monarchial or dictorial state results in a polygamous society.

This is a non-sequitur, but look up imperial China. I don't mean to get caught up trading barbs with you, but you've pissed me off.

You want ACCEPTANCE for homosexuality on par with the state's presiding legal definition of marriage. That is your own 'qualitative opinion' and moral judgment. It's not mine, and the more I listen to you the more hardened in my position I'm becoming. (edit: guys....just don't.)

I'm sorry this is such a divisive issue, and I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings through this discussion.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

And what about 'Equality' for polygamists, polyanders, extortionists, pedophiles, and sadists? Clearly some 'qualitative opinion' has been made and has to be made by civil code. It's just that you want the line moved to accommodate your particular habit. You mean, you want 'Equality' for you because ostensibly same-sex co-habitation is more acceptable than whatever else....

Polygamous marriage brings up issues in the marriage estate laws, among other things. One Brow alluded to this earlier. Legal ramifications, no matter the initial reasons to ban plural marriage, give reason to disallow plural marriage. Polygamists, interestingly enough, enjoy more legal benefits than homosexuals when it comes to marriage rights, since they're generally legally married to someone. Extortionists and pedophiles don't operate under the condition of consent, so are nonanalogous. Sadism doesn't really have anything to do with marriage as far as I'm aware.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This is a non-sequitur, but look up imperial China. I don't mean to get caught up trading barbs with you, but you've pissed me off.

You want ACCEPTANCE for homosexuality on par with the state's presiding legal definition of marriage. That is your own 'qualitative opinion' and moral judgment. It's not mine, and the more I listen to you the more hardened in my position I'm becoming. (edit: guys....just don't.)

I'm sorry this is such a divisive issue, and I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings through this discussion.

Monarchial Europe didn't practice polygamy in any form.

Homosexual Americans aren't allowed the same rights as heterosexual Americans for no reason other than they are homosexual. I see this as anti-American. If there is discrimination of marriage rights, than why are their rights protected elsewhere?

Why would you consider my feelings hurt? I consider your stance to be based almost solely on religious conviction, to which the state should not adhere to since it's a self described secular government. Nothing you've said has any personal effect on me.

EDIT: Oh, and just to piss Trout off: My stance comes from intellectual superiority.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Monarchial Europe didn't practice polygamy in any form.

Homosexual Americans aren't allowed the same rights as heterosexual Americans for no reason other than they are homosexual. I see this as anti-American. If there is discrimination of marriage rights, than why are their rights protected elsewhere?

Why would you consider my feelings hurt? I consider your stance to be based almost solely on religious conviction, to which the state should not adhere to since it's a self described secular government. Nothing you've said has any personal effect on me.

EDIT: Oh, and just to piss Trout off: My stance comes from intellectual superiority.

You're presuming my conviction is 'religious.' I'm presuming your habit is immoral and potentially harmful to people who do it. Hence, even a purely secular government could confer limited recognition to gay couples over concerns for public health and safety, just as they restrict the use of marijuana.

It sounds like we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You're presuming my conviction is 'religious.' I'm presuming your habit is immoral and potentially harmful to people who do it. Hence, even a purely secular government could confer limited recognition to gay couples over concerns for public health and safety, just as they restrict the use of marijuana.

It sounds like we'll just have to agree to disagree.

See, I presume your conviction is religious because I can't see other logical reason.

And what habit are you referring to? I do bite my nails on occasion. I guess that's immoral and potential harmful.

 

[fishonjazz]

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?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's the same thing. Calling it different is a separate but equal thing.

 

[PearlWatson]

There were oppressive laws during slavery, but Jim Crow refers to the post-Reconstruction period. Under Jim Crow, all Americans were legally equal, though segregated. it's actually a good analogy to "civil union, no marriage" in that regard.

Unconvincing, because of that whole segregation, real suffereing, and actual physical inequalities thing.

Do you care that it is offensive to blacks that homosexuals compare the discrimination and suffering former slaves faced to not being able to have their unions (that have all the same benefits of marriage) legaly defined as marriage?

I think the comparison actually hurts the cause more than helps.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

See, I presume your conviction is religious because I can't see other logical reason.

And what habit are you referring to? I do bite my nails on occasion. I guess that's immoral and potential harmful.

By 'your habit,' I was referring to homosexuality, per the subject of the last 29 pages. You're right, I shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that you practice it or want to marry someone of the same sex. Best of luck with your nails.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

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?

I think you've summarized basically where most states are at on this issue.

 

[fishonjazz]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's the same thing. Calling it different is a separate but equal thing.

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?

 

[PearlWatson]

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?

The answer is NO. You have to call it marriage or it's Jim Crow.