What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[PearlWatson]

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?

I don't care if someone thinks they are God, but I would have a problem if the government made us recognize that person as God, or the schools taught that he must be accepted as an alternative God.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I don't care if someone thinks they are God, but I would have a problem if the government made us recognize that person as God, or the schools taught that he must be accepted as an alternative God.

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

 

[PearlWatson]

....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>

I never thought it about it that way, but unfortunately it is all acceptance or nothing with the homosexuals.
They'll eventually get their way through activist courts when flooding the TV with homosexual shows backfires.

 

[DutchJazzer]

nobody opposed my man maryring man is illogical?

so we do all agree that gay marriage is illogical?
or does anyone have an argument making gay marriage logical?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

nobody opposed my man maryring man is illogical?

so we do all agree that gay marriage is illogical?
or does anyone have an argument making gay marriage logical?

Marriage is not about baby making. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find an example of baby making outside of marriage. Thus, the argument that homosexual marriage is illogical because you can't create babies in such a relationship is in fact illogical.

 

[Gameface]

I never thought it about it that way, but unfortunately it is all acceptance or nothing with the homosexuals.
They'll eventually get their way through activist courts when flooding the TV with homosexual shows backfires.

They'll "get their way" because it is the fair and just thing to do, in my opinion. Fewer and fewer people are willing to deprive other humans of their basic freedoms.

 

[One Brow]

I don't think they put that marriage amendment to a vote. Racist Darwiniacs just started legislating it to protect the aryan gene pool.

It was the law supported by the people. Many of the laws preceded Darwin's birth, and were supported on Biblical grounds.

 

[One Brow]

Was the government involved in marriage before the ban?

Always. Among otgher things, marriage was a part of estate law.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I never thought it about it that way, but unfortunately it is all acceptance or nothing with the homosexuals.
They'll eventually get their way through activist courts when flooding the TV with homosexual shows backfires.

This is also a very divisive issue, probably on par with legalizing marijuana. The people who oppose same-sex marriage are very opposed to it, and if they get mobilized it will be very difficult for something like this to get legalized. Any politician who supports same-sex marriage probably feels that he or she is putting their career in jeopardy. It might be hard to defend that position to the general population. This is probably why it hasn't taken hold.

 

[One Brow]

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

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.

 

[One Brow]

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

Then don't do it.

 

[One Brow]

William Shakespeare didn't write those plays.

George Washington led the British troops until 1782, and then switched sides.

Napolean won the Battle of Waterloo, but was betrayed by his troops.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Marriage is not about baby making. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find an example of baby making outside of marriage. Thus, the argument that homosexual marriage is illogical because you can't create babies in such a relationship is in fact illogical.

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?

 

[One Brow]

....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>

States used to consider having black skin as dysfunctional, and sought to limit their numbers by preventing intermarriage.

 

[One Brow]

Any politician who supports same-sex marriage probably feels that he or she is putting their career in jeopardy.

Depends on the state/district.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

States used to consider having black skin as dysfunctional, and sought to limit their numbers by preventing intermarriage.

...and that's relevant because? States make alcohol illegal if you're under 21. They outlaw traffic violations. Are these injustices destined to be rectified?

 

[G.I. Joe]

Hey guys, I have never posted here. But this one I have to chime in on.

Marriage is between a man and a women. Period.

 

[One Brow]

Traditional marriage is about baby making and establishing stable families whether married couples choose to make babies or not.

According to whom?

I understand you want to change how marriage has historically been defined.

There is no unique historical definition of marriage. Wife-selling was an English custom until 100 years ago. There's been polygamy, polyandry, contractual (temporary marriages), marriages to soldiers capturing your village, rape marriage, brother-in-law marriage, etc.

Why do you need your state to call it a marriage?

There are several hundred legal benefits to being married.

 

[One Brow]

...and that's relevant because? States make alcohol illegal if you're under 21. They outlaw traffic violations. Are these injustices destined to be rectified?

It's relevant because it means we can't count on the current opinion of state legislators to accurately assess fundamental civil liberties, such as choosing who to marry.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it's inappropriate or oppressive. The question on the table is the degree to which homosexuality should be recognized by states. It's not really about basic human rights because gay people's rights are already protected under civil union. This is really about how homosexuality should be acknowledged and labeled by the state. Gay people are asking for more validation and acceptance. Otherwise, they wouldn't be raising the issue in message boards like this one.

If same-sex couples want to live together, they can just go ahead. They're doing it anyway.