What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[One Brow]

Unfortunately governments got in the business of legalizing religious ceremonies.

People insisted that they did. People insisted that estate rights, medical decisions, and other legal niceties be accrued to married people by the government.

 

[One Brow]

I'm presuming your habit is immoral and potentially harmful to people who do it.

Can you provide non-religious evidence supporting your presumption?

 

[One Brow]

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.

I think it unfortunate that people allow their irrational distate to blind themselves to the common causes of civil rights. Anhyone who remembers what "separate but equal" really was won't be confused by the pretense that it does not apply to "civil union but not marriage". Both involve a deliberate attempt to hide the belief in superiority under a cloud of supposed legal equality.

 

[bigb]

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?

What about the lesbian woman who grew up her whole life wanting to be "married"? Even though they would have the exact same rights (except being able to say they are "married"), they still don't have a marriage certificate. A lot of people get hung up on that word. To some, being married is acceptable, whereas having a civil union is not. I get where you are going with this argument, but some people get hung up on that one simple little word.

 

[One Brow]

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.

First of all, like any other large group with divergent opinions, some homosexual people would be satisfied with this, and others would not.

Second, what is your reason to create a separate class of legally recognized committed relationships?

 

[One Brow]

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.

So, as long as the reason is religious and there is a sufficient majority, treating a minority as second-class is acceptable?

 

[One Brow]

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.

Great. Let's reserve marriage for homosexuals. Heterosexuals can have civil unions. You'd support that, right? It's just a word.

 

[One Brow]

be like "shoot i didn't want to be married anyway, civil unions are way cooler"

Personally, I prefer riding in the back of the bus.

 

[One Brow]

Apparently AIDS are 50 times higher in homosexual men:

All sexually transmitted diseases have a lower incidence rate in homosexual women than in heterosexuals. Do you see that as supporting marriage for heterosexual women, or were you just flopping around for a justification you don't really believe?

 

[One Brow]

... then maybe we just declare morality broken and no longer discriminate.

What is the basis for your moral system?

 

[PearlWatson]

This is for all you Jim Crow Card throwing retards!

 

[One Brow]

A for effort.

Too bad it was a play on Obama's "You didn't build that" comments.

Sorry. For a moment, I thought you were aware of the manufatroversies regarding the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. I should have known better.

Anyone who has done even meager research into Shakespeare's plays knows that most of the plots are taken from plots of other writers. Shakespeare didn't invent the language that he used, didn't build the society capable of supporting theater. Shakespeare would not have written his plays without all those things he didn't build. It's obvious to anyone, yet somehow controversial.

 

[fishonjazz]

So, as long as the reason is religious and there is a sufficient majority, treating a minority as second-class is acceptable?

If you read my other posts then you would see that i dont think that civil unions are second class. if civil unions have the same rights as marriage then to me they are the same and equal.

By the way i would not care if the name of my marriage was changed to civil union as long as nothing else changed. Marriage and civil unions are both just words out of the same alphabet to me.

 

[One Brow]

Hi again, I'm claiming that states should be reluctant to sanction homosexual marriage so as not to promote homosexuality and its potential physical/mental health risks to the public at large.

So, since homosexual women are healthier than heterosexual women (in the sense of having fewer STDs and no other significant differences), you support marriage for homosexual women, right?

 

[fishonjazz]

Personally, I prefer riding in the back of the bus.

Riding in the back of the bus is different than riding in the front. You have to walk farther to get on and off the bus and its harder to see where you are going. So i could see why someone would be upset at having to ride in the back.

If civil unions were given the same rights as marriage then there would be no difference between the 2 so why would anyone care?

 

[One Brow]

This is for all you Jim Crow Card throwing retards!

Does someone need their boo-boo kissed?

 

[bigb]

If you read my other posts then you would see that i dont think that civil unions are second class. if civil unions have the same rights as marriage then to me they are the same and equal.

By the way i would not care if the name of my marriage was changed to civil union as long as nothing else changed. Marriage and civil unions are both just words out of the same alphabet to me.

Again, I'll ask this question: If everything else is the same, why differentiate between the two? Why not call everything a marriage or everything a civil union?

 

[One Brow]

If you read my other posts then you would see that i dont think that civil unions are second class.

However, you also don't care if homosexual are allowed to use marriage. The ones who do care are the ones that see civil unions as being second-class, and your posiiton is to accomodate their view.

 

[Stoked]

Again, I'll ask this question: If everything else is the same, why differentiate between the two? Why not call everything a marriage or everything a civil union?

Everything done by the state/feds should be a civil union and everything done by a church should be a marriage. problem solved.

 

[fishonjazz]

Again, I'll ask this question: If everything else is the same, why differentiate between the two? Why not call everything a marriage or everything a civil union?

I will answer your question again: I dont care what they call it and would be fine with it all being the same.

See my mom and dad taught me this really cool saying when i was a kid: Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

In others words it is dumb that straights want to keep thier precious word marriage.... but it is also equally dumb that gays are upset at being called a civil union. They are just words. Why do gays want to be called married? Why do straights want gays to be called civil unions? I dont think there are any really good reasons for either and both are equally dumb and umimportant.