- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,075
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has.
as usual facts and court cases prove your statement wrong
Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has.
The "pedophile card" isn't weak at all if the argument is that people should be allowed to marry whatever they love and want to have sex with. It might not be an argument against homosexual marriage, but it's certainly proof that there's no right to marry whatever you want to have sex with and that was the argument I was responding to.
The quote was: "Homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they genuinely love and are sexually attracted to, unlike heterosexuals. So no, they don't have the same rights. Try again.".
And I merely pointed out that pedophiles don't get to marry who they "genuinely love and are sexually attracted to", either. So much for the "rights" issue.
Problem is that your definition of marriage is discriminatory and mine isn't. You are wanting to exclude people based on their sexual preference and I do not.
Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has.
Homosexual marriage makes no sense at all and is, in fact, an oxymoron.
1.)I am not interested in excluding people based on their sexual preference. I am interested in marriage staying the sensible institution it has always been (for the most part), as a union of the opposite sex.
2.) Homosexual marriage makes no sense at all and is, in fact, an oxymoron.
I did address the subject head on. Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has. The person who didn't come at this head on was the one that said that if you don't have the right to marry whatever gives you a chubby then you don't have equal rights and I pointed out that was wrong.
I think we're done here. Its seems no one is really interested in actual discussion and all I'm doing is agitating homosexuals. It's enough that my state hasn't capitulated to the politically correct insanity on this.
The quote was: "Homosexuals do not have the right to marry who they genuinely love and are sexually attracted to, unlike heterosexuals. So no, they don't have the same rights. Try again.".
And I merely pointed out that pedophiles don't get to marry who they "genuinely love and are sexually attracted to", either. So much for the "rights" issue.
Yes, because they ARE NOT responsible for interpreting the constitution, they were never given that grant of power, they took it. I'm not familiar with Coulter's arguments, but yes, I do believe the reconstruction amendments were targeted at, you know, reconstruction of the country without slavery.
I think we're done here. It seems no one is really interested in actual discussion and all I'm doing is agitating homosexuals. It's enough that my state hasn't capitulated to the politically correct insanity on this.
What's your state?
ohio_
Ah. What's going on in that fine state with regards to ssm?
Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor's parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:
(1) An adult person;
(2) The department of job and family services or any child welfare organization certified by the department;
(3) A public children services agency.
(B) For the purposes of division (A) of this section, a minor shall not be required to obtain the consent of a parent who resides in a foreign country, has neglected or abandoned the minor for a period of one year or longer immediately preceding the minor's application for a marriage license, has been adjudged incompetent, is an inmate of a state mental or correctional institution, has been permanently deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction, or has been deprived of parental rights and responsibilities for the care of the minor and the right to have the minor live with the parent and to be the legal custodian of the minor by the appointment of a guardian of the person of the minor by the probate court or by another court of competent jurisdiction.
(C)
(1) Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state.
(2) Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.
(3) The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void ab initio. Nothing in division (C)(3) of this section shall be construed to do either of the following:
(a) Prohibit the extension of specific benefits otherwise enjoyed by all persons, married or unmarried, to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes, including the extension of benefits conferred by any statute that is not expressly limited to married persons, which includes but is not limited to benefits available under Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code;
(b) Affect the validity of private agreements that are otherwise valid under the laws of this state.
(4) Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, country, or other jurisdiction outside this state that extends the specific benefits of legal marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state.
Effective Date: 05-07-2004
3101.02 Method of consent.
Any consent required under section 3101.01 of the Revised Code shall be personally given before the probate judge or a deputy clerk of the probate court, or certified under the hand of the person consenting, by two witnesses, one of whom shall appear before the judge and make oath that the witness saw the person whose name is annexed to the certificate subscribe it, or heard the person consenting acknowledge it.
Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.52, SB 124, §1, eff. 1/13/2012.
Nothing. Ohio has a sane position on the matter.
Henry v. Himes
District court proceedings
On February 10, 2014, in Henry v. Wymyslo, four same-sex couples legally married in other states sued in U.S District Court Southern District of Ohio seeking to force the state to list both parents on their children's birth certificates. The judge assigned to the case, Judge Timothy Black, is the same assigned to Obergefell. Three of the couples were women living in Ohio, each anticipating the birth of a child later in 2014. The fourth was a male couple living in New York with their adopted son who was born in Ohio in 2013.[17]
While this lawsuit was pending, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to ask the court to declare Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Judge Black gave the state time to prepare its appeal of his decision by announcing on April 4 that he would issue an order on April 14 requiring Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.[18][19] Following the resignation of the lead defendant, Ohio's director of health, Ted Wymyslo, for reasons unrelated to the case, Lance Himes became interim director and the case was restyled Henry v. Himes.[20] On April 14, Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,[21] and on April 16 stayed enforcement of his ruling except for the birth certificates sought by the plaintiffs.[22]
Court of Appeals proceedings
After the state attorney general filed the necessary paperwork on May 9, 2014, Henry is currently on appeal in the Sixth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on August 6.
Cowger v. United States
On February 18, 2014, two men married in Chautauqua, New York, in 2012, and fathers of an adopted daughter since 2006, filed suit against the Federal and Ohio State governments in U.S. district court. They sought family healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act.[23] On March 28, the plaintiff couple voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit after obtaining a family policy. Their attorney commented that the lawsuit may have helped to clear up the confusion they had encountered with the insurance marketplace.[24]
Initiative to repeal constitutional ban
FreedomOhio and Equality Ohio are seeking state officials' approval of a ballot initiative that would replace the constitutional amendment and allow same-sex marriage.[25][26] Two prominent Republicans, Senator Rob Portman and former Attorney General Jim Petro, support repealing the same-sex marriage ban.[27]
Um...that's not what I'm gathering from Wikipedia.
I think your little haven from gay marriage is living on borrowed time.
Maybe, but I wouldn't make plans to come here to marry your boyfriend if I were you.
Ah. What's going on in that fine state with regards to ssm?
Nothing. Ohio has a sane position on the matter.
If I did have a boyfriend, I'd put twenty dollars on being able to marry him in Ohio within a year. And that's a conservative estimate.
Maybe, but I wouldn't make plans to come here to marry your boyfriend if I were you.
Yea, great honor in clinging on to bigotry.Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.
I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering.
I agree, Id make that same bet and then if i was gay i go to ohio to get married just cause he said not too lol
You are deluding yourself. Bigotry is not a majority anywhere, just an unpleasant relic of ignorance.We the people don't want our state to endorse homosexual marriage. I imagine it's a matter of time before the deviant left wins this but for now, the will of the people still prevails in my state. Thanks for asking.
You can come out now, it's probably safe. You'll still have to find a guy willing to marry you.