[Jerrek]

But this is just discrimnation ? Leagl rights are being denied to these people because of there sexual orientation.

Well Scarlett, two issues:

One, there is no discrimination. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same "rights." They can both marry a member of the opposite sex. If a straight man was able to marry a guy but not a homosexual, that would be discrimination. However, since both have the same priviledges, there is no discrimination.

Two, there is no legal right to marry. The Constitution does not guarantee you a right to marriage.

Are they saying that if you are in a same sex marrage then you suddenly stop being married when step into Ohio (and suddenly become married as soon as the step out ?)

I personally do not recognize a same sex "marriage." If two guys told me they're married, I will not recognize it. The State of Ohio decided the same thing. So, irrelevant of where you are in the world, we do not recognize same sex unions. It just so happens Ohio law can only be applied on Ohio, so for pure legal reasons, yes, if you step into Ohio you are "unmarried."

So basically they are saying you are going to be trated as if you are hetrosexual regardless of your personal preference's.

No? How is that treating you like a heterosexual?

IMHO Same sex relationships are here to stay, there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. The sooner governments/people accept that the better.

I don't particularly care about same sex relationships. I do NOT want them to rape the tradition of marriage, which has come from centuries, no, millenia, ago. If they want some variation, go ahead. But do not call it marriage.

p.s. they don't have to like it, just accept that people will love people of the same sex and stop discrimination.

And as I mentioned, you can love whoever you want, and there is no discrimination.

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

Philip, a few points. These are not "rights" as I mentioned earlier. Marriage is a priviledge. Second, we have to draw the line somewhere. Next up is polygamy, then marriage to animals, and then children is up next. I have a moral code, and no matter how much society wants to break it down, I will stand my ground.

Marriage is for the protection of the family, especially the children. You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children). Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural. A child needs a mother and a father. Not two of the same. Both have roles to fulfill. (Yes, I'm aware the divore rate is high, and that is very sad too.)

By keeping marriage as a union of a man and a woman, you are protecting the family unit, and our children.

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

So then you do not need to allow gays to marry. Excellent point.

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.

I am opposed giving any benefit to married couples because

a) marriages don't last these days
b) it discriminates from those that wishes to remain unmarried
c) it discriminates against those that can't get married

I do not want the government mixed up in this. But sadly, that is not the case. I would, however, support incentives from the government to build families and to REMAIN together. If you break up, say goodbye to any sort of incentive for the rest of your life. It harms children, and it breaks down society.

One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marriage is a religious ceremony...

Yes, my choice is in part based on religion, and in part based on common sense. Breaking down pillars is not a good idea, and marriage is a pillar of today's society.

Maybe it is just me, but it sounds like you're scoffing anyone making decisions based on his religion?

A thought, in the US there is supposed to be a separation of church and state

That does prevent me, and others, from basing their decisions on religion.






And please, to everyone referring to there "rights," there IS NO RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!