isadore;411236 wrote:Anecdotal evidence is a weak proof for any large population. So what could give us wide evidence of attitudes on a gay issue in throughout Ohio. Gosh we do have a 2004 vote on the extremely draconian Ohio gay marriage ban that went beyond outlawing gay marriage to limit civil unions gay and straight. And how did Ohioans show their opinion in the secrecy of the election booth. Over 61% of Ohioans voted for it. 87 counties voted for it including those centers of enlightenment Cuyahoga and Franklin. Who voted against it, why Athens County by a nearly 60% to 40% vote showing either the progressive attitudes of THE Ohio University students and faculty or the fear of the county’s backcountry residence that it would interfere with their long term relationships with their farm animals. Hopefully in the last 6 years Ohioans attitudes toward gays have grown more accepting.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/electResultsMain/2004ElectionsResults/04-1102Issue1.aspx

So did California, including LA and San Diego counties. Seems like Ohio is equally as progressive using your straw man.

The reality of it is that tolerance of homosexuals and endorsement of changing an institution that was historically and fundamentally established between man and woman are two different things.

ts1227;411188 wrote:I know quite a few gays, and actually lived with one for a year in the dorms here.

Did you catch 'the gay' too?

BCBulldog;411268 wrote:So did California, including LA and San Diego counties. Seems like Ohio is equally as progressive using your straw man.

The reality of it is that tolerance of homosexuals and endorsement of changing an institution that was historically and fundamentally established between man and woman are two different things.

Hardly a surprise to find you providing a rational for blatant homophobia. The Ohio law went far beyond a protection of an institution. “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”

As to comparing the two elections, quite a difference. Ohio 62% to 38%, against gay marriage or any civil unions. Carrying only one county in the sates.
California vote showed both a 20% improvement in sentiment but also a less threatening proposal to begin with. The California vote 52% to 48% against, but it was known
at the time it did not effect domestic partnerships, so was nowhere near as draconian.
It was passed in 14 out 58 counties, urban, suburban and rural. I never knew until you told me that San Diego was considered liberal progressive, I always thought it was kind of conservative.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/domestic-191559-gay-marriage.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

I guess if I was gay and looking for a friendly state, the choice would be pretty obvious and not straw covered at all.

FairwoodKing;411185 wrote:I won't lower myself to respond to this trash.

I was being serious, what makes you deserve to be allowed the rights given ONLY to a man and a woman? Should I be able to buttfuck my dog and marry it? No. You allow the marriage of a man and a man, and next thing you know you have some creeps boning deers and shit.

Gay is a negative connotation for a reason in this country, if you want somewhere to do your weird ass shit, France is taking immigrants. GTFO.

fan_from_texas;411235 wrote:I disagree with this, as does virtually everyone else. It's perfectly fine to look at what other people do and decide that it's wrong. The question isn't whether we should decide what's right/wrong for others; the question is whether it's appropriate when it comes to homosexuality.

In terms of breaking laws, I agree with you. What I am saying is I am tired of people acting like their side of the argument is 100 present correct. Instead of saying I think it's wrong, people say it is wrong. It is unfair to decide what is write and wrong when it actually makes a difference in peoples choices. Having an opinion is one thing as I am not gay nor would I ever be. But Saying it should be illegal and other harsh things like that is just wrong IMO. I don't understand the large argument. Gays have never bothered me ever. Never have I been robed by a group of gays or been harassed. All I am saying is there is many more important things to argue about with the same amount of passion. Just like abortion. The law is not going to change so please passionate argue about something that may make a difference.

Little Danny;411252 wrote:Yep. Based on BoShemmy's argument, he has no problem with the KKK burning crosses or with Nazi Germany either.

What I meant was, i feel racism and bashing gays is a similar act. However most people in America do not see gay bashing as a problem like they do racism. Both are wrong in my eyes but some feel different.

bo shemmy3337;411355 wrote:What I meant was, i feel racism and bashing gays is a similar act. However most people in America do not see gay bashing as a problem like they do racism. Both are wrong in my eyes but some feel different.

But it shouldn't be illegal to BE racist. Or a homo-phobe. Talk about 1984! What is illegal is committing illegal acts because of your beliefs.

I never said it should be illegal to be a racist or a homo-phobe. People are entitled to their own opinion but actions are a different story. By not allowing gays to make their own decisions you are acting on your opinion. Like I said before I am not gay nor will I ever be for multiple reasons but to each his or her own. I am not going to be responsible for limiting another human being for any other reason than a crime.

bo shemmy3337;411353 wrote:Just like abortion. The law is not going to change so please passionate argue about something that may make a difference.

You mean, other than the fact that the law has changed a lot for both gays and for abortion? This isn't a static area of the law, by any means.

It is unfair to decide what is write and wrong when it actually makes a difference in peoples choices. Having an opinion is one thing . . . . But Saying it should be illegal and other harsh things like that is just wrong IMO.

I understand that needlessly being a jerk to someone is wrong. But I don't think it's wrong for people to take firm stances on issues relating to sincerely held beliefs. I firmly believe that molesting children is wrong, and I don't want to respect the choices of those who choose to do it. I firmly believe that speeding is wrong, and I don't want to respect the choices of those who choose to do it. Sure, these are just my opinions, as you'd say, but I don't htink it's unfair to decide what is right and wrong when it actually makes a difference in people's choices.

GoChiefs;411275 wrote:Did you catch 'the gay' too?

I didn't catch it, but they we actively recruiting me. I was even offered a high end Blender to join their team.

bo shemmy3337;411435 wrote:Like I said before I am not gay nor will I ever be for multiple reasons but to each his or her own.

Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

isadore;411312 wrote:Hardly a surprise to find you providing a rational for blatant homophobia. The Ohio law went far beyond a protection of an institution. “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”

As to comparing the two elections, quite a difference. Ohio 62% to 38%, against gay marriage or any civil unions. Carrying only one county in the sates.
California vote showed both a 20% improvement in sentiment but also a less threatening proposal to begin with. The California vote 52% to 48% against, but it was known
at the time it did not effect domestic partnerships, so was nowhere near as draconian.
It was passed in 14 out 58 counties, urban, suburban and rural. I never knew until you told me that San Diego was considered liberal progressive, I always thought it was kind of conservative.
http://www.ocregister.com/news/domestic-191559-gay-marriage.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory

I guess if I was gay and looking for a friendly state, the choice would be pretty obvious and not straw covered at all.

Like you said, it was in 2004. Right now, I would think that if given the opportunity to put civil unions on the books as a legally binding option that provides the same protections as marriage just without the term 'marriage', it would easily pass. If you recall, at the time in 2004, judges in various states throughout the country had been ruling that marriages could occur for homosexuals because of loopholes in marriage laws. Clearly, Ohio was attempting to close any loopholes.

Sure, they aren't direct comparisons, but you'll never find one. For that matter, you brought up the entire issue of voting on gay marriage as a way to judge attitudes toward homosexual rights and acceptance. That is a much further leap than me comparing Ohio's and California's marriage laws.

San Diego voted for Obama. Your own link told me so.

bo shemmy3337;411353 wrote:In terms of breaking laws, I agree with you. What I am saying is I am tired of people acting like their side of the argument is 100 present correct. Instead of saying I think it's wrong, people say it is wrong. It is unfair to decide what is write and wrong when it actually makes a difference in peoples choices. Having an opinion is one thing as I am not gay nor would I ever be. But Saying it should be illegal and other harsh things like that is just wrong IMO. I don't understand the large argument. Gays have never bothered me ever. Never have I been robed by a group of gays or been harassed. All I am saying is there is many more important things to argue about with the same amount of passion. Just like abortion. The law is not going to change so please passionate argue about something that may make a difference.

I think it is wrong that you continue to use "write" in the wrong form. It should be "right".

WebFire;411376 wrote:But it shouldn't be illegal to BE racist. Or a homo-phobe. Talk about 1984! What is illegal is committing illegal acts because of your beliefs.

This

BCBulldog;411542 wrote:Like you said, it was in 2004. Right now, I would think that if given the opportunity to put civil unions on the books as a legally binding option that provides the same protections as marriage just without the term 'marriage', it would easily pass. If you recall, at the time in 2004, judges in various states throughout the country had been ruling that marriages could occur for homosexuals because of loopholes in marriage laws. Clearly, Ohio was attempting to close any loopholes.

Sure, they aren't direct comparisons, but you'll never find one. For that matter, you brought up the entire issue of voting on gay marriage as a way to judge attitudes toward homosexual rights and acceptance. That is a much further leap than me comparing Ohio's and California's marriage laws.

San Diego voted for Obama. Your own link told me so.

It was very nice of you to bring up California. What do those votes show.
Ohioans passed a much more draconian law by a enormously larger percentage of the vote than California. That all parts of Ohio rejected giving gays the basic right of marriage or even of civil union. The elections were a definite sign of attitudes toward gays especially given the privacy guaranteed to the voters by Australian ballot. The elections were only a few years apart. While wide areas of California voted for gay marriage, no major area in Ohio did.
San Diego is so traditionally Democratic that Obama was the first Democratic Presidential candidate to win a majority in the county since World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_County,_California#Politics

I get called a homophobe quite a bit. If I may clear something up write ( ) here and write ( ) now...

I am petrified of spiders; ergo: Arachnephobia
Not a huge fan of heights either; thus: Acrophobia
I'm not real keen abou tsmall spaces; sooo, Claustrophobia.

I do not fear homosexuals. I do, however, disagree with the fact that I should accept their choices as an alternative lifestyle.

So please, do not label me a homophobe as if I am afraid of those who practice the lifestyle. I'm not! I just disagree with the said practice.

Jason Bourne;411843 wrote:I get called a homophobe quite a bit. If I may clear something up write ( ) here and write ( ) now...

I am petrified of spiders; ergo: Arachnephobia
Not a huge fan of heights either; thus: Acrophobia
I'm not real keen abou tsmall spaces; sooo, Claustrophobia.

I do not fear homosexuals. I do, however, disagree with the fact that I should accept their choices as an alternative lifestyle.

So please, do not label me a homophobe as if I am afraid of those who practice the lifestyle. I'm not! I just disagree with the said practice.

By why is it ok for disagreement to = oppression?

I don't know. Ask a compulsive liar!

Do you know how many bosses keep a liar around??? Sounds oppressive to me. For the homosexual, I suppose you'll have to take that up with someone in a position of power who you think is oppressing.

I do know, I'm not afraid of a homosexual, but yet I've benn called a homophobe on more than one occasion

isadore;411312 wrote:I guess if I was gay and looking for a friendly state, the choice would be pretty obvious and not straw covered at all.

If it was not for what's left of states rights, no gay couple in the union would have a choice as to whether they could have a legal recognition of marriage.

The federal government has made their definition of marriage quite clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

When can we force this definition on all those states that disagree? It was overwhelmingly passed by the federal legislature. We have no need of a constitutional amendment.

Surely there is some place in the constitution that allows the federal government to put an end to these renegades states assault on marriage. Maybe the necessary and proper clause? No wait the general welfare clause. Surely for the general welfare of all citizens of the union we can't have renegade states engaging in marrying those outside of the federal definition. We need a central definition of marriage and the feds have spoken.

See how that works? I told you central power is a two edged sword. It cuts both ways. That's why I prefer decentralized and balanced power.

Even though I may agree with the voters of the state of Ohio. I have no desire to force my will on other states or localities that disagree. If you want to marry gay couples in Massachusetts go ahead. I have no desire to force those in Massachusetts to conform to the will of federal law. You appear to be a hypocrite. You are ok with federal power when it serves your purpose. Yet when it does not in this case you show your true cards.

Jason Bourne;411941 wrote:I don't know. Ask a compulsive liar!

Do you know how many bosses keep a liar around??? Sounds oppressive to me. For the homosexual, I suppose you'll have to take that up with someone in a position of power who you think is oppressing.

I do know, I'm not afraid of a homosexual, but yet I've benn called a homophobe on more than one occasion

You didn't answer my question. Lying affects you, 2 gay guys getting married doesn't affect you one bit. 2 gay guys kissing doesn't affect you one bit. So why can't they be treated the same as a straight couple?

majorspark;411947 wrote:If it was not for what's left of states rights, no gay couple in the union would have a choice as to whether they could have a legal recognition of marriage.

The federal government has made their definition of marriage quite clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act


When can we force this definition on all those states that disagree? It was overwhelmingly passed by the federal legislature. We have no need of a constitutional amendment.

Surely there is some place in the constitution that allows the federal government to put an end to these renegades states assault on marriage. Maybe the necessary and proper clause? No wait the general welfare clause. Surely for the general welfare of all citizens of the union we can't have renegade states engaging in marrying those outside of the federal definition. We need a central definition of marriage and the feds have spoken.

See how that works? I told you central power is a two edged sword. It cuts both ways. That's why I prefer decentralized and balanced power.

Even though I may agree with the voters of the state of Ohio. I have no desire to force my will on other states or localities that disagree. If you want to marry gay couples in Massachusetts go ahead. I have no desire to force those in Massachusetts to conform to the will of federal law. You appear to be a hypocrite. You are ok with federal power when it serves your purpose. Yet when it does not in this case you show your true cards.

Long before the large majority of the states free their gay inhabitants from their oppressive laws restricting gay marriage, the federal government will save them. The executive and legislative branches are moving to end Don’t ask, Don’t tell. Striking down gay marriage restrictions are in the foreseeable future. If not by the Legislature then by the Judicial applying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Some states will refuse to act for generations.
Relying on the individual states to act is cruel. Ohio voter’s record on voting on giving rights to the oppressed in abysmal. They voted against giving blacks the right to vote after the Civil War and more than 40 years after the passage of the 15th Amendment. In the same election they voted against giving women the vote. States rights is again and again a method for oppression.
If we followed your viewpoints we would have dejure segregation in several of our states. With your viewpoint just let them. Blacks could move to those states that did not have segregation if they did not like the segregation. And southern states with voting restrictions and segregation could keep their racist systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Constitution

Let me give you an example of what I myself am up against. I will move back to Steubenville in a few weeks. I understand there is a gay bar in Steubenville. Even though I don't drink and I'm not looking for sex, I will go to that bar to find like-minded people to talk to. I will also look for a job in Steubenville. Suppose I find a job and someone sees me in that bar and reports me to my boss. In the State of Ohio, I can be fired solely for that reason. Ohio does not include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination laws.

When I move back to Ohio, I will do everything in my power to see that the law is changed.

FairwoodKing;412104 wrote:Let me give you an example of what I myself am up against. I will move back to Steubenville in a few weeks. I understand there is a gay bar in Steubenville. Even though I don't drink and I'm not looking for sex, I will go to that bar to find like-minded people to talk to. I will also look for a job in Steubenville. Suppose I find a job and someone sees me in that bar and reports me to my boss. In the State of Ohio, I can be fired solely for that reason. Ohio does not include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination laws.

When I move back to Ohio, I will do everything in my power to see that the law is changed.

Going to a gay bar doesn't prove that one is gay. Nobody could possibly fire you for frequenting this place.

Footwedge;412136 wrote:Going to a gay bar doesn't prove that one is gay. Nobody could possibly fire you for frequenting this place.

They most certainly could. In Ohio you can get fired for looking at your boss wrong.

FairwoodKing;412104 wrote:Let me give you an example of what I myself am up against. I will move back to Steubenville in a few weeks. I understand there is a gay bar in Steubenville. Even though I don't drink and I'm not looking for sex, I will go to that bar to find like-minded people to talk to. I will also look for a job in Steubenville. Suppose I find a job and someone sees me in that bar and reports me to my boss. In the State of Ohio, I can be fired solely for that reason. Ohio does not include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination laws.

When I move back to Ohio, I will do everything in my power to see that the law is changed.

If you see someone in a gay bar and they are like-minded as you are , why would you think they would report you to your boss if they knew the consequence.

This seems to be a problem if even your own turn on you. It just doesn't seem like you are providing us a solid foundation if you can't trust your own.

Footwedge;412136 wrote:Going to a gay bar doesn't prove that one is gay. Nobody could possibly fire you for frequenting this place.

You're wrong about this. Here in Seattle, I could not be fired for frequenting a gay bar. In Ohio, I could. In Ohio, I could be evicted from a home that I was renting for being gay. In Washington, it would be illegal to try anything like this. That's the difference in the two states' laws.