Amend Ohio Constitution?

**LanDroid** · April 25th, 2004, 02:14 AM

Marriage Amendment in works - Gay rights foes seek law with teeth.

**Raven Soul** · April 25th, 2004, 05:00 AM

That stupid (insert several foul words here)

Marriage should be shared with someone you love. Only when it comes to religion do you find it stating that it is a man and woman.

I am so sick of this subject because it is the "religious" do gooders, who probably have more skeletons in their damn closets then John Wayne Gacy.

Marriage should be available for any couple that truly loves each other. Man/Woman, Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

[ April 25, 2004 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Quoth the Raven ]

**gae** · April 25th, 2004, 01:47 PM

Gay folks already have civil unions.

Why must they be "married"?

**cincygreg** · April 25th, 2004, 02:03 PM

In reality the only difference between straights and gays is sexual prefferance.
You can say it's a "lifestyle" all you want, but in truth, the only difference is who they are attracted to physically.

To be honest again, on the whole ay marraige thing.

I DONT CARE!

If a stupid ring on someones finger is that big a deal to then buy your partner a ring. It's not like gays get married to have children, because they cant without the help of a member of the opposite sex. (yes that includes donated sperm and eggs)

They want something to show their "union" or their love for each other. So when it comes down to it, if they allready have a civil union then just get a ring and be happy.

This thing has been beaten to death and there are much bigger problems in the world.

[ April 25, 2004 11:04 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]

**gae** · April 25th, 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Quoth the Raven:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.

Why must they be "married"?

Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.<hr /></blockquote>Raven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.

Find another word.

Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.

I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.

**Raven Soul** · April 25th, 2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by gae:
[QBRaven, I'm with you on the love part. However, the word "marriage" has traditionally implied man and woman.

Find another word.

Until the gays started pushing this down our collective throats, I didn't care.

I do now. I'm tired of special rights for gays. Equal rights, sure. But not special.[/QB]

I am all for equal rights, and it would seem to make it equal, marriage should be allowed. Right now on that issue, there not equal.

**Raven Soul** · April 26th, 2004, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by gae:
Gay folks already have civil unions.

Why must they be "married"?

Because the love each other I would assume. Just like I want to marry Lindsay, I am sure Bill wants to marry Keith, out of love.

Emperor Napoleon · April 26th, 2004, 11:30 AM

"Marriage v. Civil Union"

I think little things like death benefits, insurance benefits, social security benefits, spousal support in case of divorce, etc etc hinge on the words to such a degree that without the legal sanctity of "marriage" the surviving "partner" is SOL.

I agree with Raven on this 100%. And 100 yrs from now people will look on this debate with as much chagrin as we today look upon laws 100 yrs ago that forbade people from living together without being married. As Raven said, it's all a church driven issue.