Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in ...

Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?

There are 1159 comments on the The Marion Star story from Mar 1, 2014, titled Is 2014 the year for gay marriage in Ohio?. In it, The Marion Star reports that:

Robert Johnson-Keeton grew up in a religious community just outside Chillicothe.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Marion Star.

d pantz

Akron, OH

#801 Mar 23, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
That is less than marriage in many ways, as I patiently explained for you freeeks. And to the extent that in some contexts "common law marriage" confers the rights and responsibilities of marriage that's because the _government_ give them that (partial) recognition.
The common law thing is not an argument about government not regulating marriage. It demonstrates, again, how the government does determine or regulate marriage.
You didn't address the other _obvious_ ways in which government must regulate marriage.
Can you even remember what they were, you time wasting pos?
The "get government out of marriage" business is craziness from anti rational people, G. Stone included, imo.
IT DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU'RE MARRIED AND LIVE. You don't understand the law. No one was questioning the way the government regulates marriage, just your gross misunderstanding of how they do it.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#802 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Life has choices.
Choices have consequences.
If they are offended by the perceived penalty, they have the right to make a choice rectifying the perceived injustice. If they do not do so, they have no one to blame but themselves.
<quoted text>
Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriages to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional?
a personal choice that hurts no one? I agree with "rectifying the injustice" that's why I post here and try to explain how marriage law discriminates against way more people than just gay people who think they need to get married, amongst other things. But the labels people put on me remind me exactly of the labels the "fundies" put on you.
Here is a compelling interest: to tax everybody equally without writing respecting the establishment of your belief that you need to get married. To end discriminatory insurance and lending law based on marital status....
http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/0...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#803 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
once again, how is placing a financial burden on people (gay or straight) who choose not to get married based on the belief they don't need to, equal protection. And don't give me the they're different crap you seem to hate when its focused on you.
Simply put, the additional burden does not exist. There could be tax advantages of being married, and should an individual choose not to marry that choice and its consequences are theirs to make.

It isn't a matter of being different, it is a matter of making personal choices, and affording constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law.

Your entire argument is ridiculous, and it is hysterical to watch your attempts at rational thought.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#804 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, the additional burden does not exist. There could be tax advantages of being married, and should an individual choose not to marry that choice and its consequences are theirs to make.
It isn't a matter of being different, it is a matter of making personal choices, and affording constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law.
Your entire argument is ridiculous, and it is hysterical to watch your attempts at rational thought.
you're wrong. The licenses makes you eligible for special insurance plans and loans/ debts based on marital status. According to Brotherly Love, there are over 1,000 but I'm not sure so I'm going to quote him on that.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#805 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
a personal choice that hurts no one? I agree with "rectifying the injustice" that's why I post here and try to explain how marriage law discriminates against way more people than just gay people who think they need to get married, amongst other things. But the labels people put on me remind me exactly of the labels the "fundies" put on you.
Here is a compelling interest: to tax everybody equally without writing respecting the establishment of your belief that you need to get married. To end discriminatory insurance and lending law based on marital status....
http://m.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/0...
Marriage isn't going anywhere, stop whining. As for penalties on single people, your claims are patently ridiculous. Choices have consequences. If you feel that the tax burden of being single is unacceptable, get married. If anyone would have you.

Marriage will be afforded equally to all, including same sex couples, in the near future. There is no valid argument against such equal protection.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#806 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
you're wrong. The licenses makes you eligible for special insurance plans and loans/ debts based on marital status. According to Brotherly Love, there are over 1,000 but I'm not sure so I'm going to quote him on that.
No, I'm not wrong. Marriage is a choice, and choices have consequences. If one feels that they are unfairly burdened by taxation, health insurance rates, etc, then they are free to marry and avail themselves of the benefits.

Your argument is idiotic, and marriage as a set of protections of the law isn't going anywhere.

Did you have an argument that was on topic?
d pantz

Akron, OH

#807 Mar 23, 2014
Why should there be consequences for choosing to be single , being together and believing you don't have to get married, or worse/better??

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#808 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
Why should there be consequences for choosing to be single , being together and believing you don't have to get married, or worse/better??
Because adults realize that in the real world there are choices that have consequences.

Why don't you run along outside and play?
d pantz

Akron, OH

#809 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage isn't going anywhere, stop whining. As for penalties on single people, your claims are patently ridiculous. Choices have consequences. If you feel that the tax burden of being single is unacceptable, get married. If anyone would have you.
Marriage will be afforded equally to all, including same sex couples, in the near future. There is no valid argument against such equal protection.
I agree I was just sayn a better way to treat everybody equally would be to abolish all law that fiscally discriminates based on marital status because the law discriminates against not just gay people , but people who never get married too. Yes they chose not to get married but why should a choice have such harsh consequences? Because they're bad people? Evil? What?

“Zuzu's Petals”

Since: Sep 10

Bedford Falls

#810 Mar 23, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Since gay men can't stop being gay, are you arguing that having the option of legal marriage will INCREASE irresponsible sexual behavior in men?
If gay kids have the same levels of love, support, and acceptance that their straight counterparts do, including the gentle push toward responsible relationships, you argue that this will INCREASE their chances of contracting STDs in adulthood?
Can you provide proof of this?
It seems absurd, because in a monogamous relationship, there is zero chance of contracting HIV, and if protection is used outside of a monogamous relationships, the incidence will be low.
No, I am not arguing anything. Just merely pointing out the risks to the behavior. Got a problem with that?

“Zuzu's Petals”

Since: Sep 10

Bedford Falls

#811 Mar 23, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
I have yet to read any of the anti-same sex marriage people explain why they care.
Why do you care? Where's the damage?
Right here! Apparently, libs don't care if they become sick and die.

Despite the disturbing data, the United States' leading gay advocacy organizations - known pejoratively as "Gay Inc." by some HIV activists - barely make mention of or allocate any resources towards fighting the scourge, instead focusing on things like passing gay "marriage," fighting anti-gay bullying, and "fostering positive places of worship," according to US News.

"The recent rise of HIV/AIDS ... is huge and it's not talked about because 'Gay Inc.' says nothing about it," Peter Staley, founder of the Treatment Action Group, told US News.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#812 Mar 23, 2014
Zoe Regen wrote:
No, I am not arguing anything. Just merely pointing out the risks to the behavior. Got a problem with that?
No, just with the troll like fashion in which you are doing it.

The reality is that this is all the more reason to allow same sex marriage, which promotes monogamy. What do you know? Sometimes being an inflammatory troll backfires.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#813 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
I agree I was just sayn a better way to treat everybody equally would be to abolish all law that fiscally discriminates based on marital status because the law discriminates against not just gay people , but people who never get married too. Yes they chose not to get married but why should a choice have such harsh consequences? Because they're bad people? Evil? What?
Once again, there is no discrimination so long as the single individual has the opportunity to marry should they choose to do so.

The tax breaks or penalties occur from declaring two incomes jointly in one return. Clearly, a single person cannot report income in such a fashion. If they feel they are not getting a fair deal regarding taxation, then they are free to marry.

Choices have consequences, grown ups can understand this simple concept.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#815 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
<quoted text> well with less hetero people getting married these days the divorce industry (a multi billion dollar industry) is probably licking their chops. There's already a line of ssm's waiting for legal divorces too.
There are some, but the rate is lower. They also tend to bring down the total divorce rate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/gay-...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#816 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever since they were instated in 1913, they have been progressive with higher earners with more disposable income paying more.
While letting those who "already got theirs" off the hook. Taxing income stifles growth. "building wealth" creates more opportunities for others than merely "having wealth".
Dave H

Mansfield, OH

#817 Mar 23, 2014
Why is it that religious zealots boast the phrase "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"? According to these same religious zealots, God made everything, so that would mean that God DID, in fact, make Adam and Steve. I have seen better Christian behavior out of my dog than from people who claim to be Christians. I think you all better go back to church and learn what Jesus was all about. Shame on all of you!
Pam wrote:
No.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
One pair has children the other pair has diseases like aids, gonorrhea from cruising in public showers and bath houses and extreme promiscuity.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#818 Mar 23, 2014
TonyD2 wrote:
While letting those who "already got theirs" off the hook. Taxing income stifles growth. "building wealth" creates more opportunities for others than merely "having wealth".
Taxing income stifles growth? How do you explain post WWII recovery, when we were paying reparations and had the highest income tax rates in history?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
Once again, taxation is utterly irrelevant to this thread.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#819 Mar 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, there is no discrimination so long as the single individual has the opportunity to marry should they choose to do so.
The tax breaks or penalties occur from declaring two incomes jointly in one return. Clearly, a single person cannot report income in such a fashion. If they feel they are not getting a fair deal regarding taxation, then they are free to marry.
Choices have consequences, grown ups can understand this simple concept.
you didn't answer my question. Why does choosing not to or never getting married warrant such harsh "consequences"?? And we just went over the over 1,000 federal benefits for married couples. It regards more than taxes, it involves the government writing laws in respect to the belief people have that they need to get married. Which I have no problem with as long as it doesn't discriminate other groups but current marriage law does.
d pantz

Akron, OH

#820 Mar 23, 2014
Dave H wrote:
Why is it that religious zealots boast the phrase "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"? According to these same religious zealots, God made everything, so that would mean that God DID, in fact, make Adam and Steve. I have seen better Christian behavior out of my dog than from people who claim to be Christians. I think you all better go back to church and learn what Jesus was all about. Shame on all of you!
<quoted text>
according to them, god created Satan and that's where sin comes from. They think hetero sex out of wedlock is a sin too.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#821 Mar 23, 2014
d pantz wrote:
you didn't answer my question. Why does choosing not to or never getting married warrant such harsh "consequences"?? And we just went over the over 1,000 federal benefits for married couples. It regards more than taxes, it involves the government writing laws in respect to the belief people have that they need to get married. Which I have no problem with as long as it doesn't discriminate other groups but current marriage law does.
Simply put, it doesn't.

If one wants the protections of marriage, then they should marry. If not, then they can grow up, be an adult, and realize that different choices have different consequences.If they do not wish to participate in the incentives (or penalties) of marriage, that is their choice.

Grow up, kiddo.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Syracuse University Whitey Racists Gone Wild 1 hr Orange Trump Whit... 7
Black Hero Stops the White Madman 1 hr Jorge the Illegal 7
The Comey Interview 1 hr White Fangs 179
Pigs Break Arm Waffle Woman 4 Fifty Cents 1 hr Jorge the Illegal 3
Sean Hannity 2 hr Let Freedom Ring 100
Anniversary: Almost 4 yrs. in the afterlife 3 hr GlitterSucks 1
First Lady Barbara Bush has died, at 92 4 hr Consortium 27
Hi im Holly Hylton Your Local Racist Starbucks ... 6 hr d pants 89

Columbus Jobs

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages