What's new
By:

What's JazzFanz's stance on Marriage Equality?

One Brow said:
Why does it need to have a different name?
Click to expand...

Why woman is woman and man is man? Lets just call everybody human??? Marriage = man + woman. Union/partnership/whatever = man + man, woman + woman with the same rights as marriage... so simple, yet why so opposed? It is just terminology, really.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Is my marriage identical to yours? Does it need a different name? If your answers are no to both, do you have a sound, secular reason for saying this difference is relevant?
Click to expand...

Are you married to a person of the opposite sex? If you answered yes then the basis of your marriage is the same as mine regardless of how you and your spouse choose to carry out or participate in your marriage.
 
AKMVP said:
Why women is women and man is man? Lets just call everybody human??? Marriage = man + women. Union/partnership/whatever = man + man, women + women with the same rights as marriage... so simple, yet why so opposed? It is just terminology, really.
Click to expand...

Oh?
 
Scat said:
Are you married to a person of the opposite sex? If you answered yes then the basis of your marriage is the same as mine regardless of how you and your spouse choose to carry out or participate in your marriage.
Click to expand...

Married to the opposite sex is different than being married to the same sex. Still married, though.
 
Scat said:
If it's different why would you call it the same thing?
Click to expand...

sports-cars-pictures-car.jpg


220px-Volkswagen_Beetle_.jpg


Yes. They're both different. Yes. They're both cars.
 
AKMVP said:
Why woman is woman and man is man? Lets just call everybody human??? Marriage = man + woman. Union/partnership/whatever = man + man, woman + woman with the same rights as marriage... so simple, yet why so opposed? It is just terminology, really.
Click to expand...

If it is just terminology, why have different terms?
 
Scat said:
Are you married to a person of the opposite sex? If you answered yes then the basis of your marriage is the same as mine regardless of how you and your spouse choose to carry out or participate in your marriage.
Click to expand...

Can you specify why the gender of my spouse is the primary basis of my marriage, as opposed to an incidental feature of the people to whom I am sexually attracted? Are you saying you would have married anyone of the opposite sex, as long as they were the opposite sex, or do you really think your marriage is based on things besides gender?
 
PearlWatson said:
There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" but if there was voting based on religious convictions wouldn't violate that. Sorry.
Click to expand...

From the Supreme Court Decison Everson v. Board of Education:

""The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16."

Voting based on religious conviction is not illegal, creating a law based on religious beliefs is. You cannot have a law that is founded on one's religious beliefs. If I sponsored a referrendum that said everyone had to go church and it passed with 100% of the vote it would still be unconstitutional and therefore uninforcable. If you want to ban gay marriage, the law banning it cannot have anything to do with anyone's religious beliefs so good luck to anyone who wants to try and find a valid secular argument for banning gay marriage. I for one don't think that exists.
 
One Brow said:
In both cases, from what I can tell, the parents in question started out in heterosexual relationships, then came out as lesbians. So, you are just wrong, as usual.
Click to expand...

It ain't hard to understand that they replaced their sperm donors with lesbian lovers because they didn't believe having a father for their children mattered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top