But then it comes down to who voted for that government, right? If the majority of the people preferred it a certain way and voted for the government which supports that way, then that is the way. We do live in a democratic country after all.
What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?
- Thread starter Xsy
- Start date
But then it comes down to who voted for that government, right? If the majority of the people preferred it a certain way and voted for the government which supports that way, then that is the way. We do live in a democratic country after all.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Feel like quoting this post again.
As far as the last issue you spoke of (civil unions being second class or unequal or whatever) couldn't gay couples totally embrace the civil union label and try to make it seem even more awesome than the marriage label..... be like "shoot i didn't want to be married anyway, civil unions are way cooler" and say it with alot of attitude and make married couples wish they could call thier relationship a civil union.
Then when the straight people see how cool the civil unions are and want to change from a marriage to a civil union, the homosexual couple could be like no way jose you have to be gay to be able to call your relationship a civil union.
See i dont understand how a marriage is somehow better than a civil union assuming all the rights and benefits to each are the same. What makes the word marriage better than the words civil union from a homosexual couples perspective.
I understand (somewhat, though its still stupid) why straight couples think a marriage is better than a civil union, like because god said a marriage is between a man and woman blah blah blah.
I just dont understand why homosexual couples think that marriages are so much better than civil unions assuming the rights and benefits are the same.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Marriage has symbolic meaning spiritually, ritually, and religiously (yes, there are homosexuals that are religious). Calling it civil union deprives them of that meaning and separates them needlessly.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Majority can't pass laws that are unconstitutional.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I have seen people against gay marriage (like hotttnikkk) defend or explain why the marriage word is important to them, but i have yet to see why a homosexual couple is so set on thier relationship being labeled as a "marriage".
Im married and i honestly could care less if all of a sudden the government was like we are now going to say that you and your wife are no longer "married". You are now in a partnership or civil union. As long as nothing changed in my wife and i relationship and we lost no rights or anything why should i care if the name changes.
I guess i dont understand why people are against gay marriage, but i also dont understand why anyone we be against a gay civil union.
Edit: Darkwing gave an explanation of why homosexuals might be hung up on the word marriage while i was writing this post.
Im married and i honestly could care less if all of a sudden the government was like we are now going to say that you and your wife are no longer "married". You are now in a partnership or civil union. As long as nothing changed in my wife and i relationship and we lost no rights or anything why should i care if the name changes.
I guess i dont understand why people are against gay marriage, but i also dont understand why anyone we be against a gay civil union.
Edit: Darkwing gave an explanation of why homosexuals might be hung up on the word marriage while i was writing this post.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I imagine gay couples desire equality, and if the state only referred to the marriage contract as "civil union," then that accomplishes that. The religious community would have a fit if the state did that, though, I think. Probably rightfully so.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I guess im just better than most of you who care about labels.
Labels are not important to me, I see people and relationships as they are not as what they are called.
Seems like most of the people commenting in this thread believe that labels are more important than anything else and not actual relationships and the benefits than come from those relationships. I feel sorry for all the people on either side of the arguement. there are more important things to get upset about.
Me, im fine with gays getting "married". Im also fine with gays being in civil unions. Im also fine with heterosexuals being in civil unions or marriages.
Labels are not important to me, I see people and relationships as they are not as what they are called.
Seems like most of the people commenting in this thread believe that labels are more important than anything else and not actual relationships and the benefits than come from those relationships. I feel sorry for all the people on either side of the arguement. there are more important things to get upset about.
Me, im fine with gays getting "married". Im also fine with gays being in civil unions. Im also fine with heterosexuals being in civil unions or marriages.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Its all good
If you met physicians in internal medicine here in San Francisco, you might feel differently. It's not just a matter of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, but colo-rectal and other cancers, incidence of aneurysm, life expectancy and susceptibility to a number of conditions, let alone mental health. Of course, smoking and excessive drinking are also dangerous, but I can see why law makers are hesitant to call homosexuality "normal" and "natural." Again, I think this is ultimately the issue you're really trying to debate here, and you're acting like the worthiness of gay relationships is not even a question when--aside from people's religious persuasion--that is precisely the question. Legislators are required to protect the public good. You'll have to convince them that homosexuality qualifies, because I'm guessing most think it probably doesn't.
How is gay marriage treated in China and Russia? Those state governments have espoused atheism since their respective communist revolutions (which I think are despicable btw, but that's another topic).
You want to ban anal sex? Dudes put it in girl's butts too.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300382
According to studies, in places (Massachusetts) where homosexual marriage is legal, the physical and mental health of homosexuals is better. Found the link from here: https://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/news/la-heb-gay-marriage-health-studies-20120509
So it would do the public GOOD by legalizing gay marriage because its citizens are in better health.
How about AIDS though?
Apparently AIDS are 50 times higher in homosexual men:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609
Moreover, homosexual men with HIV are 90 times more likely to develop anal cancer than the rest of the population:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/mar/07032205
No where near as often though.
Good point. I wonder where this factors in. If everyone's really going to boink each other that way, then maybe we just declare morality broken and no longer discriminate. In many states that's also expressly illegal, and I'd imagine in order to get marital status for gay couples, that rule would have to be taken off the books. I can almost guarantee that's what law makers are picturing when they deal with this issue.
Still, just because people do this, doesn't mean it's good, and it doesn't mean the state should change its definition of a marriage. You still haven't won my vote.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Seems in China it was considered normal until western influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China
Russia is much less accepting. Wording suggests their constitution disallows it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Gotta ban Africans from having sex since they have a high chance of transmitting AIDS.
EDIT: At any rate, since physical health improves where homosexual marriage is legal, if it were legal in the US, the expectations should be that AIDS cases would lower.
Bad example.
Africans don't have the same level of access to condoms as we do. Unfair comparison.
Gays/Straights in US have the same level of access to condoms, yet still those lopsided statistics exist.
So now Hotnickkk has gone from not wanting gay marriage to not wanting gays to have sex?
I read an abstract of that study and a large part of results were improvements on 'mental health care'. Improvement on 'physical health' was minimal (mean of 5 vs 4.67).