Ohio Amendment

[OUMoose]

I don't know if you both were receiving phone calls about this issue but the ones I had were very misleading. Some said if you vote yes this, this, and this will happen. If you vote no then it's subject to change due to the wording of the amendment :idunno: . Then I somewhat heard the opposite from the other cantidate's office. Who were we supposed to believe :idunno: ? How do you sort through who was telling the truth and who wasn't? I was frustrated towards the end and was definately tired of the phone calls.
:asian:

I wasn't getting the phone calls (hugs his Nextel), but I had more than one person come up to me on the street and get me to try to sign a petition.

 

[jfarnsworth]

Aw man.... don't tell me that you live by the cell phone and you don't have a home phone?

 

[OUMoose]

Heck ya! Gets rid of the accursed telemarketers too, though that seems to be changing as well... *shakes his fist at the FCC*

 

[Phoenix44]

I don't see why we need legal marriage AT ALL.

Parents should support their kids, and should have access to their kids, regardless of marital status--and in fact the states already have laws to that effect (although enforcement varies unfortunately)

Regarding medical decisions, if you believe that your spouse is automatically your health care proxy, you are mistaken. You must DESIGNATE a health care proxy whether or not you are married. Under HIPAA and state privacy laws, you must also designate individuals who may receive your medical information--your spouse included.

Everyone should have health insurance. Why should anyone's health insurance depend on being married to someone who works for a big company? How ridiculous.

You should be able to designate whomever you want to receive your pension. And Social Security should remain viable.

If you have the desire or the need to have some sort of a ceremony, religious or secular, to bind your union, that's great. But why should any of your secular rights have anything to do with it?

 

[lvwhitebir]

I don't know if you both were receiving phone calls about this issue but the ones I had were very misleading.

I also didn't get any phone calls about it, although we screen calls through our answering machine. When I read it I realized just how strict it was and knew it wasn't for me.

On the news afterwards I heard it was the strictest resolution of all the states. I mean not only is marriage out of the question, but civil unions as well? What difference does the couple's sex have to secular benefits? But, hey, that's just my opinion.

WhiteBirch

 

[OUMoose]

What difference does the couple's sex have to secular benefits?

None whatsoever, but correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't living together unwed in any instance considered "living in sin"? Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're a man and woman, 2 men, 2 women, a guy and a sheep, etc...

 

[jfarnsworth]

. I mean not only is marriage out of the question, but civil unions as well? What difference does the couple's sex have to secular benefits? But, hey, that's just my opinion.

As I've stated before it means nothing to me. What two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. After hearing the people on the phone I came to the conclusion that even if people lived together they would still would not have the same options as married couples. No pension, retirement, insurance, adoption, and a few others that I forgot (i'm at work). It's just frustrating. The common law apparently is gone. Only another way for the government to screw someone.

 

[Flatlander]

None whatsoever, but correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't living together unwed in any instance considered "living in sin"? Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're a man and woman, 2 men, 2 women, a guy and a sheep, etc...

Interesting point. Sounds like religious law to me.....

 

[Kane]

I've been reading a lot of these posts, and it seems like many of you are getting the wrong idea about marriage. It is not just about religion.

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. It has always been that way. ALWAYS! If you think this is just a radical Christian fanatic belief think again. I identify myself as not to be religious. I do not currently follow a God, I am actually agnostic. I still think marriage should be between a males and females. That isn't what only God-like figures promote. The laws of nature are against homosexuality. Just like inbreeding. Why not make it legal for a mother and son to get married? Honestly I don't see how this is anymore sick than to members of the same gender getting married. What about child-lovers? Why don't we make it legal for a 15 year old girl to marry a 45 year old man if we are going to say a man and a man or woman and woman should get married?

Oh and please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Gay people should be burned alive or anything. I know some gay people and they are very nice people. I personally don't care what they do. If they are attracted to their own gender let them be. It shouldn't however be promoted. We don't want a society of homosexuals. By legalizing gay marriages will promote homosexuality.

That is coming from a person that doesn't follow a religion at the moment. So it is not only a Christian or religious thing.

 

[raedyn]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.

Definitions change.

The laws of nature are against homosexuality.

How do you figure that?
- There are examples of same-gender partnership in other species.
- We have documentation of same-gender relationships going back a few thousand years. It doesn't seem to be going away, despite countless attempts over the centuries to out-law, sterilize, murder, harass, and otherwise punish gay people.

Why not make it legal for a mother and son to get married? Honestly I don't see how this is anymore sick than to members of the same gender getting married.

There's nothing 'sick' about same-sex relationships. This is a false analogy.

What about child-lovers? Why don't we make it legal for a 15 year old girl to marry a 45 year old man

Completely unrelated. Smoke and mirrors to the issue at hand. But with parental consent or permission of a Judge, most states allow this, anyways.

Oh and please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Gay people should be burned alive or anything. I know some gay people and they are very nice people. I personally don't care what they do. If they are attracted to their own gender let them be.

But they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple, right? Is that what you are saying?

It shouldn't however be promoted. We don't want a society of homosexuals.

Why the hell not? I'm straight, I'm happy with that, but I'm perfectly happy being surrounded by my gay friends as well. What would that hurt? The answer: absolutely nothing. It would make homophobic heterosexuals uncomfortable, sure. But then all the bigoted Whites were also uncomfortable when the Black people weren't segregated anymore. That's not reason enough to stop progress; it's the bigot's problem.

By legalizing gay marriages will promote homosexuality.

Guess what, gay people exist whether the law recognises & protects them or not. Every citizen should be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities regardless of their personal attributes - skin colour, gender, orientation, religion etc.

That is coming from a person that doesn't follow a religion at the moment. So it is not only a Christian or religious thing.

It's still a narrow-minded and prejudiced thing, religious-based or not. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm also entitled to disagree with them and to challenge them when you make public statements such as this.

If I (a woman) decided that I was going to marry a woman, that doesn't effect you a sniff. If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, I'm okay with that. Just don't marry someone of your own gender. Simple.