What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

[Dr. Jones]

"They can have Water, they just have to use that other drinking fountain."

Yeah, no. Equality or bust.

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a
state that respects the civil union.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for afamily member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

I knew it, it was a TRAP!!

 

[Zulu]

I think I'm with stoked on this topic, but have to admit that PKM intrigued me with his post!!

 

[Stoked]

One thing I will say is that I think a child needs a mother and a father. Two mothers or two fathers cannot provide the same kind of care as a mother and a father.

I am not saying gay couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children. I am just saying that I think a mother and father are what children need.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

"They can have Water, they just have to use that other drinking fountain."

Yeah, no. Equality or bust.

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will
be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to
disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a
state that respects the civil union.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for afamily member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind
of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as
taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like
Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint
federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:
Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union
don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single
family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries
potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the
fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful
inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate
institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all.
Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

I have a feeling Xsy had this copied and pasted ready for someone to say "Civil Union".

 

[Xsy]

homosexuality is a choice.

This right here is the most offensive thing you can say about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice? Have you seen the suicide numbers for homosexual youth? Do you not understand why people spend so many years hiding in the closet? Its because they're trying to force themselves into heteronormative behavior.

No one would CHOOSE to be gay. Too many kids kill themselves because they can't choose to be heterosexual.

Seriously-- look at the numbers of LGBT suicides/suicide attempts compared to non-LGBT suicide/suicide attempts.

That alone is enough proof, in my opinion, that homosexuality is NOT a choice. "God" gave us free will, sure, but you can't will your hair to change color, you can't will your skin to change color, and you can't will your sexual preference... unless you're bi, and you can swing both ways.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

This forum is too difficult to get one's point across without seeming offensive when not meaning to be. I'm offensive on purpose all the time, but I hate to do it on accident.

So, for me personally, homosexuality is a choice, and one that everyone deserves the ability to make. God allows free will .. and that is AWESOME. However, He made specific covenants. One was in the Garden of Eden.
God took Adam's rib and made a helpmate. He gave two instructions. To cleave one unto another and to procreate.

Some may choose to ignore the covenant .. I've never had a problem with it. But somehow, it bothers me to have the president of our nation making something that is an abomination in the eyes of God a national platform for a re-election. Let me just say, I have no probs with the gay community and their choice .. this is about making it a voting strategy and my spirit feels sick over it ..

If I were gay, what I just posted would infuriate me .. it would be read as me being a total religious pharisee and snob .. I assure you I have NO hate, I just feel like we're defying too many of God's covenants and our country continues to turn our back on Him.

Ducking.

A whole other discussion. I don't know what it is like to be gay, but I know what it's is like to be straight. I didn't really choose to like breast, asses, and *******, I just do. I imagine that is the same thing for gay people, even if some don't choose to accept it. I think it has to do more with your biological makeup.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This right here is the most offensive thing you can say about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a choice? Have you seen the suicide numbers for homosexual youth? Do you not understand why people spend so many years hiding in the closet? Its because they're trying to force themselves into heteronormative behavior.

No one would CHOOSE to be gay. Too many kids kill themselves because they can't choose to be heterosexual.

Seriously-- look at the numbers of LGBT suicides/suicide attempts compared to non-LGBT suicide/suicide attempts.

That alone is enough proof, in my opinion, that homosexuality is NOT a choice. "God" gave us free will, sure, but you can't will your hair to change color, you can't will your skin to change color, and you can't will your sexual preference... unless you're bi, and you can swing both ways.

Ok. I didn't mean choice in the way you took it. I get that argument, but didn't mean to go there. Should have been more cautious with my words.

 

[Xsy]

I have a feeling Xsy had this copied and pasted ready for someone to say "Civil Union".

I'm at work right now, so it wasn't really on hand-- but it was an easy google + copy/paste.

 

[Xsy]

Ok. I didn't mean choice in the way you took it. I get that argument, but didn't mean to go there. Should have been more cautious with my words.

With all civility, what way DID you mean it in? I'm curious!

 

[Xsy]

And before any LDS member brings this up, I completely agree that LDS temples or churches should never have to adhere to gay marriages.

Just like they don't adhere to atheist heterosexual marriages.

Or even LDS marriages in which the couple have yet to get their temple recommends.

Private institutions should absolutely be allowed to hold private marriages.

 

[Dr. Jones]

With all civility, what way DID you mean it in? I'm curious!

I was thinking in general terms of different things people may deem right or wrong. Most times, those things are generically described as choices. That was all, never intended to specifically tie homosexuality as being a choice.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I was thinking in general terms of different things people may deem right or wrong. Most times, those things are generically described as choices. That was all, never intended to specifically tie homosexuality as being a choice.

 

[Dr. Jones]

And before any LDS member brings this up, I completely agree that LDS temples or churches should never have to adhere to gay marriages.

Just like they don't adhere to atheist heterosexual marriages.

Or even LDS marriages in which the couple have yet to get their temple recommends.

Private institutions should absolutely be allowed to hold private marriages.

You may know I'm not LDS, but I'm curious. If you believe the LDS have the right to not allow a temple marriage, with the reason being it contradicts their belief system, do they also have the right to fight against gay marriage in America .. as a fundamental necessity to help protect those things they believe in?

The real question is, do you think both sides should have equal rights to fight for what they believe to be right?

 

[Dr. Jones]

No, not a back-pedal. I clarified that the ONE WORD 'choice' was not an intentional goad.

 

[franklin]

I hate that I had to get state permission to marry. I don't get why anyone wants into this repressive club, aside from the benefits of contract of course.


^^broken record

 

[spycam1]

Not everyone believes in God, and I'm not sure I've really heard arguments against homosexuality that didn't involve religion.

Laws prohibiting certain actions are not made based on what certain groups believe God views as okay, they are made based on what could objectively be said to help all individuals within the society coexist peacefully. Even if certain groups do believe homosexuality is "wrong" and even if they're right, that still is not a valid argument for why it should be illegal within the state.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The only reason some Christians want to ban homosexuals from being involved in "marriage" is because it's the easiest thing to actually adhere to so they can consider themselves "Good Christians". Will they still break all the other commandments/rules/whatever, yeah, but they can say they defended Christianity against teh gays.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Not everyone believes in God, and I'm not sure I've really heard arguments against homosexuality that didn't involve religion.

Laws prohibiting certain actions are not made based on what certain groups believe God views as okay, they are made based on what could objectively be said to help all individuals within the society coexist peacefully. Even if certain groups do believe homosexuality is "wrong" and even if they're right, that still is not a valid argument for why it should be illegal within the state.

Okay. But the question was what are JazzFanz'ers take on marriage equality.

 

[spycam1]

And before any LDS member brings this up, I completely agree that LDS temples or churches should never have to adhere to gay marriages.

Just like they don't adhere to atheist heterosexual marriages.

Or even LDS marriages in which the couple have yet to get their temple recommends.

Private institutions should absolutely be allowed to hold private marriages.

And they are. In every state within the U.S. where homosexual marriage is legal there is a section specifically calrifying that private institutions will not have to allow homosexual marriage, it merely means that institutions can feel free to do it if they please.

 

[Dr. Jones]

The only reason some Christians want to ban homosexuals from being involved in "marriage" is because it's the easiest thing to actually adhere to so they can consider themselves "Good Christians". Will they still break all the other commandments/rules/whatever, yeah, but they can say they defended Christianity against teh gays.

Ignorant and false. And stupid.