What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[Darkwing Duck]

Neither. I got your point.

People of a certain criterion(age in this case) don't deserve choice because they are parasites on those who have authority over them.
Why can't we apply that same logic to other people of a certian criterion like homosexuals? If they have businesses, they didn't build that. Total parasites on the government that has authority over them. They have no right to complain about what they don't have. They should appreciate what the government allowed them to have.

Age is a completely different criterion than sexual orientation. Can't be used interchangeably.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Well, let's turn this around.

Homosexuals don't deserve a choice. Homosexuals are parasites on the society created by heterosexuals. They have the basic necessities. They can't really complain. They should appreciate what they have, not what they don't. They have no right to be picky about how we have defined marriage since the birth of this great country.

Neither. I got your point.

People of a certain criterion(age in this case) don't deserve choice because they are parasites on those who have authority over them.
Why can't we apply that same logic to other people of a certian criterion like homosexuals? If they have businesses, they didn't build that. Total parasites on the government that has authority over them. They have no right to complain about what they don't have. They should appreciate what the government allowed them to have.

Yep, you are an idiot.

The kid thing was meant about choosing their parents. Kids can't choose their parents. If your kid (assuming you have a kid) one day said "Dad, **** you I want so-and-so to be my dad" he doesn't have that choice. You can't choose your parents. The original topic is about same-sex couples (yes I know, some of you have forgotten how everything we are arguing about relates back to the OP). The point is that if a kid is born to a same sex couple, or is adopted by one, he/she should be happy about it because it's better than nothing.

 

[PearlWatson]

You might be right if you lengthened it out: "legal marriage in the United States as of (enter date)." But it's not defining marriage. Try telling a Dutch gay married couple that they're not married because the US or one its states says you can't be. They'll laugh in your face.

The clamor now, and why the restrictions should be changed, is that homosexual couples that see themselves as married cannot receive the same legal benefits that married couples have (the reason to be "legally" married in the first place). And if the state allows the legal benefits, the same benefits that marriage affords heterosexual couples, then it's legally married. Trying to use different terminology creates a separate but equal scenario, something that obviously doesn't work.

Okay then. The government defines what legal marriage is and they've been involved in defining legal marriage for hundreds of years.

It appears that many of the people against redefining marriage are fine with the government defining homosexual marriage (<---in their eyes) as civil unions. Why wouldn't that be an acceptable compromise if they have the same benefits?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Okay then. The government defines what legal marriage is and they've been involved in defining legal marriage for hundreds of years.

It appears that many of the people against redefining marriage are fine with the government defining homosexual marriage (<---in their eyes) as civil unions. Why wouldn't that be an acceptable compromise if they have the same benefits?

Were Jim Crow laws an acceptable compromise?

 

[PearlWatson]

The kid thing was meant about choosing their parents. Kids can't choose their parents. If your kid (assuming you have a kid) one day said "Dad, **** you I want so-and-so to be my dad" he doesn't have that choice. You can't choose your parents. The original topic is about same-sex couples (yes I know, some of you have forgotten how everything we are arguing about relates back to the OP). The point is that if a kid is born to a same sex couple, or is adopted by one, he/she should be happy about it because it's better than nothing.

You specificly said they didn't deserve the choice. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you reiterated that you didn't think they deserved the choice....because they were parasites.

If you think children don't deserve choice, why can't others think homosexuals don't deserve a certain choice for similar reasons?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

You specificly said they didn't deserve the choice. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you reiterated that you didn't think they deserved the choice....because they were parasites.

If you think children don't deserve choice, why can't others think homosexuals don't deserve a certain choice for similar reasons?

Children are the definition of parasites. What good do kids who the world? Do they work or contribute to society? I don't hate kids, I was a parasite not too long ago. Homosexuals have contributed a lot to society (William Shakespeare) and they make up parts of the military and workforce. Your comparisons are laughable.

 

[PearlWatson]

Were Jim Crow laws an acceptable compromise?

I need to invent an equivalent to Godwin's Law for Jim Crow (homosexuals comparing themselves to slaves.)

 

[DutchJazzer]

still dont get why a man wants to marry a man.
it is illogical, and senseless.

 

[PearlWatson]

What good do kids who the world?

I get it. Kids "who" absolutely nothing for the world. They're parasites. They're a punishment to parents everywhere.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I need to invent an equivalent to Godwin's Law for Jim Crow (homosexuals comparing themselves to slaves.)

Separate but equal is okay with you then, just not when it comes to people who were slaves or children of slaves, because comparisons are only responded to when the order of magnitude is the same, not the actual paralleling issue.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I get it. Kids "who" absolutely nothing for the world.

So hard to use context clues to figure out that I meant "do" instead of "who".

 

[Darkwing Duck]

still dont get why a man wants to marry a man.
it is illogical, and senseless.

Why would a man want to marry a Dutch woman. It is illogical and senseless.

 

[PearlWatson]

Homosexuals have contributed a lot to society (William Shakespeare) and they make up parts of the military and workforce. Your comparisons are laughable.

William Shakespeare didn't write those plays. If they are successful they didn't do that on their own.

 

[PearlWatson]

Separate but equal is okay with you then, just not when it comes to people who were slaves or children of slaves, because comparisons are only responded to when the order of magnitude is the same, not the actual paralleling issue.

I guess I'm fine with denying homosexual the benefits of marriage outright since they have no interest in compromise, but I noticed some jazzfanz thought this compromise would be acceptable. Now they know it isn't because homosexuals think they are former slaves.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I'm fine with denying homosexual marriage benefits outright, but I noticed some jazzfanz thought this compromise would be acceptable. Now they know it isn't because homosexuals think they are former slaves.

Why do you want to deny homosexuals marriage benefits?

 

[PearlWatson]

Why do you want to deny homosexuals marriage benefits?

I explained in my edit.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I explained in my edit.

Do you take issue when (if?) you come across a gay couple who call themselves married?

 

[PearlWatson]

Do you take issue when (if?) you come across a gay couple who call themselves married?

No

 

[Darkwing Duck]

No

And that contradiction is the problem. They think they're married. Most don't take issue with them thinking they're married, so why should they be unionized and not married?

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

....because most states might still regard homosexuality as dysfunctional and a vice at some level, and they don't want to encourage it as a matter of policy. So it becomes a question of the degree to which the states want to accommodate it.

</elephant-in-living-room>