Gay Pride

• FairwoodKing

  First of all, wills are not usually read until after the funeral service, so putting this stuff in a will would not necessarily work.
  
  Secondly, it's not the state that prohibits gay partners from having visitation rights in the hospital and at funerals, it's the family. It's up to the state to force bigoted families to acknowledge gay relationships. I have had many friends who have been caught in this trap. They were denied visitation rights to see their partners by the partners' families. Because of the new law that was recently passed, this could not happen in Washington. But it could happen in Ohio.
  
  I plan to move back to Ohio within the next few weeks. I will try to get a job. In Ohio, if they find out I'm gay, they can fire me. State law does not protect me.
  
  Arkansas recently pass a law forbidding adoption by gay parents. This is nothing but blatant bigotry. I know a lot of gays who have adopted and the children are doing quite well.
  
  Then there are the sodomy laws. Until a few years ago, two men or two women could be arrested in Texas for having sex together. Two men were arrested and took the matter to the Texas Supreme Court who finally overturned the law. If it were up to the voters, the law would still be in place.
  
  These are some of the reasons why I will become a gay activist when I move back to Ohio. There is still a lot of work to be done.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Ever hear of power of attorney?
  
  -edit:
  
  "First of all, wills are not usually read until after the funeral service,"
  
  What the heck? What is the executor doing before the service? That's one of the biggest parts of the will. Do you think a crematorium or mortician is going to do anything without the executor's approval?
• believer

  

  FairwoodKing;410169 wrote:These are some of the reasons why I will become a gay activist when I move back to Ohio. There is still a lot of work to be done.

  
  You certainly have the right to do be politically active and more power to you for it.
  
  That being said the bottom-line is that legislating "special rights" for a few (even if it's done usually erroneously and perhaps unconstitutionally from the judicial branch) usually tramples on the basic rights of many (IE: the family's right to be bigotted for example).
  
  The Bill of Rights covers everyone...period.
• Little Danny

  

  Dude, you are acting you will be the 1st gay person in Ohio. I am telling you, even though Ohio is not San Fran or Seattle, it is not that hostile to gays. They are gays everywhere here. If it was half as bad as you make it out to be none of them would be living here. Sure, Steubenville is not exactly Fire Island, but perhaps you should move to somewhere more progressive. It is your choice to live in a town where they are not as friendly to gays as some others (namely Columbus, Cleveland, Oberlin (they have gay dorms at that school for crying out loud), Dayton, etc.
• Curly J

  

  It's Cincinnati Gay Pride 2010 this weekend in Cincinnati.
• Sykotyk

  

  There's a difference between a right and a protection.
  
  If I, a straight male, want to marry the woman I love and get the benefits therein (automatic power of attorney, equal property rights, automatic beneficiary, caregiver, etc), the state rubberstamps it. If I were FairwoodKing, I would not be given those rights automatically. Even if they can make living wills, power of attorney, etc, that is only "Seperate but equal", which the Supreme Court ruled years ago is not a valid argument.
  
  The truth is, the government should have no involvement in a religious institution (after all, the 'moral majority' loves throwing out it is the institution of marriage). If you want to get married and have the clergy of your choice ordain the ceremony, fine. Have fun. Mazel Tov. But the state shouldn't enforce it. Confirm it. Or substantiate it.
  
  Ban government controlled marriage, and just allow civil unions for any two people who want to, for any reason whatsoever.
  
  Sykotyk
• FairwoodKing

  believer;410232 wrote:You certainly have the right to do be politically active and more power to you for it.
  
  That being said the bottom-line is that legislating "special rights" for a few (even if it's done usually erroneously and perhaps unconstitutionally from the judicial branch) usually tramples on the basic rights of many (IE: the family's right to be bigotted for example).
  
  The Bill of Rights covers everyone...period.

  
  You said it yourself. I'm saying that the family doesn't have the right to be bigoted if it means breaking up a relationship.
• believer

  

  FairwoodKing;410989 wrote:You said it yourself. I'm saying that the family doesn't have the right to be bigoted if it means breaking up a relationship.

  You can't legislate away bigotry but legislation can take away freedoms. Does removing someone's rights (even if those rights are considered bigoted) right the wrong? When you trample on someone's rights and free choice to give yourself a political, legal, moral, and financial advantage it's as dead wrong as the bigot's attitude.
  
  It's just as wrong as asking the government to confiscate my hard earned labor to pay for your health care.
• bo shemmy3337

  Tiger2003;409052 wrote:Male + Female = Marriage
  
  Male + Male = Wrong

  
  
  
  it is flat out wrong to decide what is write and wrong for others. Gays are going to be gay and bashing them is not going to change anything. They deserve the same rights as everyone else as they are humans just like you and me. The fact that racism is considered and horrible problem yet gay bashing is not is one of the worst things about this country IMO.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "If I were FairwoodKing, I would not be given those rights automatically. "
  
  I disagree, I don't think he's gay.
• WebFire

  believer;411075 wrote:You can't legislate away bigotry but legislation can take away freedoms. Does removing someone's rights (even if those rights are considered bigoted) right the wrong? When you trample on someone's rights and free choice to give yourself a political, legal, moral, and financial advantage it's as dead wrong as the bigot's attitude.

  
  BINGO!
• sleeper

  

  Gays are lucky they are even allowed to vote much less get married.
  
  Move to another country if you want to plug men's buttholes for life, this is America, not France.
• FairwoodKing

  sleeper;411170 wrote:Gays are lucky they are even allowed to vote much less get married.
  
  Move to another country if you want to plug men's buttholes for life, this is America, not France.

  
  It's because of assholes like you that there is a need for people like me. Go fuck yourself.
• FairwoodKing

  sleeper;411170 wrote:Gays are lucky they are even allowed to vote much less get married.
  
  Move to another country if you want to plug men's buttholes for life, this is America, not France.

  
  I won't lower myself to respond to this trash.
• ts1227

  

  Sykotyk;410948 wrote:There's a difference between a right and a protection.
  
  If I, a straight male, want to marry the woman I love and get the benefits therein (automatic power of attorney, equal property rights, automatic beneficiary, caregiver, etc), the state rubberstamps it. If I were FairwoodKing, I would not be given those rights automatically. Even if they can make living wills, power of attorney, etc, that is only "Seperate but equal", which the Supreme Court ruled years ago is not a valid argument.
  
  The truth is, the government should have no involvement in a religious institution (after all, the 'moral majority' loves throwing out it is the institution of marriage). If you want to get married and have the clergy of your choice ordain the ceremony, fine. Have fun. Mazel Tov. But the state shouldn't enforce it. Confirm it. Or substantiate it.
  
  Ban government controlled marriage, and just allow civil unions for any two people who want to, for any reason whatsoever.
  
  Sykotyk

  /thread
• ts1227

  

  Little Danny;410873 wrote:Dude, you are acting you will be the 1st gay person in Ohio. I am telling you, even though Ohio is not San Fran or Seattle, it is not that hostile to gays. They are gays everywhere here. If it was half as bad as you make it out to be none of them would be living here. Sure, Steubenville is not exactly Fire Island, but perhaps you should move to somewhere more progressive. It is your choice to live in a town where they are not as friendly to gays as some others (namely Columbus, Cleveland, Oberlin (they have gay dorms at that school for crying out loud), Dayton, etc.

  I know quite a few gays, and actually lived with one for a year in the dorms here.
  
  While Ohio isn't the South, it's about the closest you can get to it in terms of thought processes. Basically all of Ohio with exception to parts of Cleveland and Columbus are just as ass backward as Alabama (the rural areas are awful). Shit, I told my classmates from HS I had a gay roommate for college and they all thought I should beat him up, that's pathetic considering I just graduated in 2004. Ohio has a brain drain issue. Most all the progressives move away, leaving the older, bigoted generation in charge of a lot of this state (with exception to parts of the big cities).
  
  It's easy to say "move to somewhere acceptable", but that's like finding a needle in a haystack in Ohio, which is sad.
• believer

  

  ts1227;411188 wrote:Ohio has a brain drain issue. Most all the progressives move away, leaving the older, bigoted generation in charge of a lot of this state (with exception to parts of the big cities).

  Blanket generalization and total bullshit. The hypocrisy that comes from the left never ceases to amaze me.
• BCBulldog

  

  ts1227;411188 wrote:I know quite a few gays, and actually lived with one for a year in the dorms here.
  
  While Ohio isn't the South, it's about the closest you can get to it in terms of thought processes. Basically all of Ohio with exception to parts of Cleveland and Columbus are just as ass backward as Alabama (the rural areas are awful). Shit, I told my classmates from HS I had a gay roommate for college and they all thought I should beat him up, that's pathetic considering I just graduated in 2004. Ohio has a brain drain issue. Most all the progressives move away, leaving the older, bigoted generation in charge of a lot of this state (with exception to parts of the big cities).
  
  It's easy to say "move to somewhere acceptable", but that's like finding a needle in a haystack in Ohio, which is sad.

  
  Your anecdotal evidence is proof only that your classmates are bigots.
• Mr. 300

  

  Fairwaywood....you can move in with my next door neighbors. He's a special fella along with his roomy.
• UA5straightin2008

  

  homos are gay
• fan_from_texas

  bo shemmy3337;411105 wrote:it is flat out wrong to decide what is write and wrong for others.

  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.
• isadore

  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
• isadore

  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.

  are there times when we must apply legal sanction against the action of others, yes. But it should be avoided to the greatest extemt possible. Today we seem to be heading toward a new version of sumptuary laws.
• Con_Alma

  Sykotyk;410948 wrote:...
  The truth is, the government should have no involvement in a religious institution (after all, the 'moral majority' loves throwing out it is the institution of marriage). If you want to get married and have the clergy of your choice ordain the ceremony, fine. Have fun. Mazel Tov. But the state shouldn't enforce it. Confirm it. Or substantiate it.
  
  ...
  

  I absolutely could not agree with this any more than I already do.
• Little Danny

  

  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.

  
  Yep. Based on BoShemmy's argument, he has no problem with the KKK burning crosses or with Nazi Germany either.