I don't want to get in the middle of your debate and I can't really say that I feel strongly one way or the other. I do not know any gay people so it would be immature for me to say that they cannot get married. But I can see where all of you are coming from on this. But Chadoh21, what you posted states that religion is not part of the law. It does not state that people cannot vote based on their religious beliefs. People vote based on how they believe and religion is based off of belief.

I don't recall anybody saying a thing about the Bible being the Constitution. If you morally believe that gay marriage is acceptable then that is your "Moral Belief." As I've already stated, people vote based on what they believe. You obviously believe that gay marriage is alright, but you must feel that way for some reason besides what the Constitution says. Those are your Morals. So your saying that the "other side" has only mentioned their "Moral Beliefs" pertains to you too. Plus nobody is arguing that the Constitution isn't the law of the land.

"I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN".

 

Ok. so I understand correctly that gays have to pay taxes and follow all the same laws of society but do not get all the rights? A gay man or women spends a lifetime of ups and downs with the one they love, but when they die, they get none of the retirement benefits? Even though they had to be vented too afterwork and nurse the war wound of life for 30 years like any good spouse?

 

I realize people like to pull out the bible card on this, but I am sure they are following all the rules of religion themselves. Pick and choose the parts you like I always say. In reality my guess is that homophobes, in their deepest darkest moments, woke up in a cold sweat in the middle or the night or after some guy on guy fooz ball  turned wrestling and got a tingly feeling.  and it scares the heck out of them.

Whether I think Gay Marriage is Moral or not is not the issue.  

 

So everybody's moral beliefs are the issue but not yours? What makes your beliefs so special that they shouldn't be brought into the debate especially when you are saying that somebody else is wrong just because of his moral beliefs?

 

I respect your right to believe gay marriage is wrong. Thats all on you. But you cross the line when you try to dictate to me what I can or can not do because it offends your moral or Religious sensibilities.  

 

Perhaps you should go back and read my first comment on this thread. It will tell you where I stand on this issue.

 

The State Constitution is very clear and so is the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution on this issue. ALL Citizens are EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, and thats ALL of them, not just the ones that don't make straight people uncomfortable. Marriage in this country is a Civil matter and as long as I am a good hard working, tax paying American I am entitled to ALL the same Rights and Privileges as every other American Citizen.

 

I'm not sure why you brought this up because I never said that is was wrong or unlawful. Your trying to put words in my mouth with this just the way you try to put words in my mouth with the whole "the Bible is not the Constitution" thing.

If religion did not play a major role in this country, we would not be "One Nation Under God."

 

I am not arguing anymore. Our opinions are our opinions and we can't change each other by arguing. I stand by marriage between a man and a woman. The US has been around for how long, and just now gay marriage is a major issue...

If religion did not play a major role in this country, we would not be "One Nation Under God."

 

I am not arguing anymore. Our opinions are our opinions and we can't change each other by arguing. I stand by marriage between a man and a woman. The US has been around for how long, and just now gay marriage is a major issue...

 

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America"

 

Penned in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist. Note how there is no mention of god or religion.

 

Did you know that the Knights of Columbus began the charge in 1951 to have the words "under God" added to the pledge, feeling that the notion that the pledge was without a deity was failing in the words of Abraham Lincoln, who actually used the word "under God" in his address to Gettysburg? In 1954, a Presbyterian minister began a major push and began preaching sermons about the Gettysburg Address at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in D.C. -- where a lot of U.S. Presidents come to worship. Of course, on February 7, 1954, he knew that Dwight Eisenhower would be in attendance, so his sermon was basically him ranting about how the pledge should have the two words in because of Abraham Lincoln's Gettyburg's address -- and Eisenhower, sitting in the "Lincoln pew," and as a Presbyterian himself, pushed for the phrase to be added and was successful in that year,

 

"These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded."

 

When the pledge was recited in school, I would deliberately omit the words "under god" from the "pledge," given that even back in grade school, my belief in a religious organisation was all but nulled. The school required us to recite the pledge, and I got into trouble more than a few times for refusing to say those two key words. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

 

We are... one nation under the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I've never once supported gay marriage and I never will. I do not believe two men or two women should be married. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. I am not all that surprised by the attacking replies I am receiving on here since this is without a doubt a board with those of the liberal political beliefs, therefore the moral beliefs of many conservatives are only represented by a select few like myself.

 

That is my story and I am sticking to it. I don't feel any rights are stripped here... I just do not believe they should be married. The purpose of marriage is to create new beings to follow in God's Footsteps, and we all know that can't be done with two men or two women..... If no straight couples want to adopt a child, then open it up to those in the gay ranks to adopt, but thats as far as I will go.

okay, whatever.  Just let me say that religious beliefs were the basis behind the 9/11 attacks too.  If you feel marriage is between one man and one woman in YOUR church, then so be it.  Go to church and enjoy the company of others who share the same sentiment.  However, in this country there is supposed to be separation of church and state.  Think about it -- today it may be the gays who can't marry because many Christians believe it is wrong and Christianity is the prevailing religion for the moment.  Tomorrow it may be anyone who is Christian who cannot marry because a different religion is the prevailing religion in the country at that time.  Without a separation of church and state we no longer have a democracy.  All we want are the same rights AND responsibilities when it comes to relationships.  Religion has been used to justify everything from slavery to burning people at the stake.  Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. 

If religion did not play a major role in this country, we would not be "One Nation Under God."

 

I am not arguing anymore. Our opinions are our opinions and we can't change each other by arguing. I stand by marriage between a man and a woman. The US has been around for how long, and just now gay marriage is a major issue...

Religion played a role in the founders leaving one country to start another one in the hopes of escaping the imposition of a particular religion.  Not sure what part religion played in the whole racial discrimination/let's steal the land from the Native Americans process though but I suspect there was some "moral" reason given.

YTown, if you were gay, do you think you would have the luxury of holding these 'moral' beliefs you have?  If you were gay, would you still be against gay marriage?  Its cliche and old but seriously, try walking in my shoes for one day and I guarantee you wouldn't feel the way you do now.  Guaranteed!

YTown, if you were gay, do you think you would have the luxury of holding these 'moral' beliefs you have?  If you were gay, would you still be against gay marriage?  Its cliche and old but seriously, try walking in my shoes for one day and I guarantee you wouldn't feel the way you do now.  Guaranteed!

 

A-f*ckin-Men

Separation of Church and State was not meant to diminish ones opinion to vote based on his/her religious practices. It was meant to separate government from including laws/legislation based on any particular religion and/or endorsing one particular religion for the people represented by such government. There is a difference. Separation of Church and State is a two way street and a perfect example is taking place in Texas at the Zion Ranch run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a breakaway sect of the Mormon church.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POLYGAMIST_RETREAT?SITE=OHCIN&SECTION=AMERICAS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I don't have much of a reason to be an activist for this other than my belief in equal rights but the other day my friend invited me to join a facebook group called "One Million Strong For Marriage Equality" which I did. Looks like they have a lot of discussion on the matter and it's really active; here's the link if you're interested and want to raise awareness or whatever.

 

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14430389076

I don't recall anybody saying a thing about the Bible being the Constitution. If you morally believe that gay marriage is acceptable then that is your "Moral Belief." As I've already stated, people vote based on what they believe. You obviously believe that gay marriage is alright, but you must feel that way for some reason besides what the Constitution says. Those are your Morals. So your saying that the "other side" has only mentioned their "Moral Beliefs" pertains to you too. Plus nobody is arguing that the Constitution isn't the law of the land.

 

What rights of yours are infringed upon by two men getting married?  Whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or would want to do it ourselves is not the issue.  It is up to each person to make decisions based on what they believe.  The government should only step in when those decisions harm others, otherwise they are taking away freedoms (and aren't Republicans supposed to be FOR freedom...that means freedom for everyone, not just what you want).

What rights of yours are infringed upon by two men getting married?

 

I'm sorry but what are you talking about? I never said that gay marriage was infringing upon my rights. Did you even read any of my post before the one you quoted? Because my first post clearly states that I am not against it.

 

It is up to each person to make decisions based on what they believe.

 

Once again, you should have read some of my earlier post. I said almost the exact same thing.

 

I also want to say that although I believe in God that does not make my stance (although I've already said that I'm neutral) wrong. Why is it that so many of you believe that just because you are religious that you don't believe in gay marriage? There are plenty of denominations that support gay marriage so don't go pointing fingers and start blaming all Christians for this.  Plus, I know some Democrats that don't support gay marriage, I work with one everyday and I know most of his family feel the same way as him. So the whole blaming the Republicans thing is kinda lame too. You might as well accept the fact that not everyone is going to support gay marriage no matter their religion, sexual preference, or political stance.

What rights of yours are infringed upon by two men getting married?  Whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or would want to do it ourselves is not the issue.  It is up to each person to make decisions based on what they believe.  The government should only step in when those decisions harm others, otherwise they are taking away freedoms (and aren't Republicans supposed to be FOR freedom...that means freedom for everyone, not just what you want).

 

This seems to me to be a pretty weak statement.  You say, "Whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or would want to do it ourselves is not the issue."  Your next sentence is, "It is up to each person to make decisions based on what they believe."  Don't these two statements sort of cancel each other out?

 

I've always wondered, what legal rights that they currently don't possess, do gay couples expect to get from gay marriage being allowed?  Easier adoptions?  Survivor benefits?  I know a lesbian couple who went to Massachussetts to get married and have their wedding, despite the fact they live in Indiana and will be moving to New York, and their marriage will be unrecognized by both of those states.  The trip to Massachussetts struck me as simply discouraging people from attending the ceremony due to its inconvenience to most of the invitees.

 

It is interesting to see how much heat this issue generates, particularly because marriage is essentially considered an economic and legal arrangement not simply by the state but also by the vast majority of cultural and religious traditions.  Only the Catholic/Orthodox tradition views marriage as a sacrament, meaning that it is a rite that conveys divine grace, blessing, or holiness to the believer who participates in it (although other traditions, LDS and Bahai for example, speak of marriage as a 'sacred covenant' which I suspect is just their term for a sacrament).  Anyway, the vast majority of marriage traditions in the world seem to view it primarily as an alliance between families, and only recently (since the 18th century) has it been considered that romantic love should exist alongside, and then, as a spur and reason for the marriage.

I've always wondered, what legal rights that they currently don't possess, do gay couples expect to get from gay marriage being allowed? Easier adoptions? Survivor benefits? I know a lesbian couple who went to Massachussetts to get married and have their wedding, despite the fact they live in Indiana and will be moving to New York, and their marriage will be unrecognized by both of those states. The trip to Massachussetts struck me as simply discouraging people from attending the ceremony due to its inconvenience to most of the invitees.

 

My girlfriends's cousin and his girlfriend got married while dating soley so she could go on his health insurance - she had cancer.  She was still student, without health insurance, and he was employed full time.  She could only be covered by his health insurance if they were legally married, despite the fact that they had live together for more than 6 months which in the state of NY makes property equal under common law.

 

So that would be one reason.  If they were a gay couple, the one with cancer would have no health insurance and who knows what would have happened.

 

The problem is the argument against gay "marriage" is a spiritual one whereas "marriage" from a legal standpoint provides benefits beyond that of being a spiritual union.

 

I think if people would just cut out the word "marriage" and provide a system where gay couples could apply for legal benefits given to married people, the religious groups against gay marriage (and no, not all religious people are against gay marriage, but I don't know any non-religious people against gay marriage) would have nothing to stand on.

The problem is that it would still be another "separate but equal" thing. I think a lot of straight people think gay marriage would de-value straight marriages.

The problem is that it would still be another "separate but equal" thing. I think a lot of straight people think gay marriage would de-value straight marriages.

 

Yeah, I didn't consider that.  Then make straight people apply for the same "legal benefits of being a couple" and have the benefits previsouly associated with "marriage" go away.

 

If people want to make "marriage" a religious issue, then fine.  Don't provide any legal benefits for being married.  Create a seperate legal status, equal for any two people, that provide these benefits.

The problem is that it would still be another "separate but equal" thing. I think a lot of straight people think gay marriage would de-value straight marriages.

 

However, this legislation makes it difficult for non married same sex couples as well.

 

OK...is it me or what, but there is a "gay marriage" poll advertisement from www.pollingpoint.com on the page as I type this.

This seems to me to be a pretty weak statement.  You say, "Whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or would want to do it ourselves is not the issue."  Your next sentence is, "It is up to each person to make decisions based on what they believe."  Don't these two statements sort of cancel each other out?

 

No, because by my second statement I am saying that it is not the government's job to say who can and can't marry.  It is each individual's choice.  Thus, what each of us thinks is right or wrong shouldn't even be the issue here.  Even those who think it is wrong should still be able to accept others that do not see a problem with it since it does not affect their rights.

 

Also, sorry CWMccann18, I meant to quote YTown, and I must have hit the wrong quote button.  My reply had nothing to do with your posts.

"I've always wondered, what legal rights that they currently don't possess, do gay couples expect to get from gay marriage being allowed?"

 

As things stand, if god forbid something ever happened to my partner - I could be denied access to visit him in the hospital. He could be dying, and because I'm not considered a spouse or "family", I could be barred from visiting him.

 

As shs96 mentioned, not all workplaces offer domestic partner benefits/medical benefits, etc. My workplace does, my partner's does not - so if I were to lose coverage, I wouldn't be able to go on his policy.

 

Depending on how long my partner and I are together, we'll likely develop a sizable amount of shared assets. This is where survivor benefits play in, as well as the fact that I'd have to pay an estate tax on whatever is left to me. Heterosexual widows/widowers do NOT have to pay said tax.

 

Those are just a few of the ways bigots "protect" marriage ways my rights are deprived.

Question?  Does the State of Ohio, City of Cleveland or any northeast Ohio counties provide domestic partner benefits, etc.?

Also, sorry CWMccann18, I meant to quote YTown, and I must have hit the wrong quote button.  My reply had nothing to do with your posts.

 

No big deal. Thanks for letting me know.

No, because by my second statement I am saying that it is not the government's job to say who can and can't marry.  It is each individual's choice.  Thus, what each of us thinks is right or wrong shouldn't even be the issue here.  Even those who think it is wrong should still be able to accept others that do not see a problem with it since it does not affect their rights.

 

So you are saying that the government shouldn't intervene when an adult tries to marry a 12 year old?  I'm not trying to harp on you but clearly it is the government's prerogitive to create and enforce the law, and (the reason I brought up all that stuff about sacraments and marriage and religious traditions) marriage is primarily a contractual arrangement, and it is certainly the prerogitive of the government to enforce contracts.  Also, you seem to be confusing rights and liberties.

 

"I've always wondered, what legal rights that they currently don't possess, do gay couples expect to get from gay marriage being allowed?"

 

As things stand, if god forbid something ever happened to my partner - I could be denied access to visit him in the hospital. He could be dying, and because I'm not considered a spouse or "family", I could be barred from visiting him.

 

As shs96 mentioned, not all workplaces offer domestic partner benefits/medical benefits, etc. My workplace does, my partner's does not - so if I were to lose coverage, I wouldn't be able to go on his policy.

 

Depending on how long my partner and I are together, we'll likely develop a sizable amount of shared assets. This is where survivor benefits play in, as well as the fact that I'd have to pay an estate tax on whatever is left to me. Heterosexual widows/widowers do NOT have to pay said tax.

 

Those are just a few of the ways bigots "protect" marriage ways my rights are deprived.

 

Thanks for explaining that for me.

So you are saying that the government shouldn't intervene when an adult tries to marry a 12 year old?

 

There someone goes again with the sick comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia.  Do I really have to explain this again?  Someone that young is deemed not old enough to be able to make a mature decision on those matters, but two men certainly are.  BIG difference.

 

Also, you seem to be confusing rights and liberties.

 

Correct, liberties is the word I was looking for.  Thanks.

There someone goes again with the sick comparison of gay marriage to pedophilia. Do I really have to explain this again? Someone that young is deemed not old enough to be able to make a mature decision on those matters, but two men certainly are. BIG difference.

 

I wasn't comparing gay marriage to pedophilia.  I was making a point that the state decides which marriages are legal and which are not, and what sort of sexual relations are legal and which are not.  Whether you are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage, it doesn't matter: the state has the sovereign right to regulate contracts, and marriage is a contract.  That's not going to change whether gay marriage is legalized or not.

I was making a point that the state decides which marriages are legal and which are not, and what sort of sexual relations are legal and which are not.  Whether you are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage, it doesn't matter: the state has the sovereign right to regulate contracts, and marriage is a contract.  That's not going to change whether gay marriage is legalized or not.

 

I agree with this completely.  But - and I think this was the primary point of a previous poster (I forget their name - the one with the Canadain flag) - the state cannot base any laws on any sort of religious belief.  I feel the ban on gay marriage is a law strictly based on religious beliefs, which is wrong.

Whether you are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage, it doesn't matter: the state has the sovereign right to regulate contracts, and marriage is a contract.

 

EXACTLY what I was saying when I said "whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or would want to do it ourselves is not the issue."

 

However, I was then arguing that I see no reason for the government to ban gay marriages, because the sole argument seems to be based on religious beliefs, which is where the individual choice comes in (freedom of religion, and the individual choice does not harm others).  If you (or anybody else against it) have a better reason for banning it, then let us know.

Whether you are pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage, it doesn't matter: the state has the sovereign right to regulate contracts, and marriage is a contract.

EXACTLY what I was saying when I said "whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or would want to do it ourselves is not the issue."

 

However, I was then arguing that I see no reason for the government to ban gay marriages, because the sole argument seems to be based on religious beliefs, which is where the individual choice comes in (freedom of religion, and the individual choice does not harm others).  If you (or anybody else against it) have a better reason for banning it, then let us know.

 

As mentioned earlier, this is a "right" that the state enforced based on the religious beliefs of some of its constituents. This was fundamentally the finding of the recent CA Supreme Court ruling, which is why the voter-approved ban was held to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the otherwise good people of Ohio found it necessary to write a shameful piece of discrimination into the state constitution. I hope they will have the good sense to change their minds before long.

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?  Seriously.  I've wondered that for years now.

One thing people here fail to realize is an economic standpoint.

 

You don’t want gay marriage etc., which also says to gays currently living here that Ohio is not gay friendly, so why should be start businesses, patronize business or market to the GLBT community.  Gay tourist spend lots of money usually in the core of the city, other company’s that are gay friendly don’t want to come here so that makes tourism of GLBT community low on the scale.

 

In a state that is trying it’s best to get back on its feet, why should gays and lesbians be treated like second class citizens – or better yet – invisible?

Even if Ohio were ever gay friendly - and it most certainly is not presently - I don't see it attracting gay tourists.  Popular gay destinations like San Fransisco, New York, Dallas and Philedelphia have a lot going for them for tourists of any gender preference to do.  Maybe Lakewood could use its large gay population as a draw in some way someday.

 

Bottom line: we're a state full of the kind of scumbags who were anti interracial marriage 40 years ago, anti women's voting rights 90 years ago, pro slavery 140 years ago, and so on.  Hell, I'm guessing a lot of country is.  How else did Bush win in 2004 if not for (FAKE) family values.

 

If you truly believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because (1) "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," (2) you think it's gross, (3) you just want to scapegoat someone, (4) you think it'll lead to bestiality and incest, (5) or other religious justifications, you are at best a misguided idiot and at worst a disgusting bigot dirtbag!!!! 

 

Even if Ohio were ever gay friendly - and it most certainly is not presently - I don't see it attracting gay tourists.  Popular gay destinations like San Fransisco, New York, Dallas and Philedelphia have a lot going for them for tourists of any gender preference to do.  Maybe Lakewood could use its large gay population as a draw in some way someday.

 

If you truly believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because (1) "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," (2) you think it's gross, (3) you just want to scapegoat someone, (4) you think it'll lead to bestiality and incest, (5) or other religious justifications, you are at best a misguided idiot and at worst a disgusting bigot dirtbag!!!! 

 

:clap: 

 

I dunno though - MayDay's cruise sounded like a lot of fun.....  Maybe that can attract some tourism?

Even if Ohio were ever gay friendly - and it most certainly is not presently - I don't see it attracting gay tourists.  Popular gay destinations like San Fransisco, New York, Dallas and Philedelphia have a lot going for them for tourists of any gender preference to do.  Maybe Lakewood could use its large gay population as a draw in some way someday.

 

Bottom line: we're a state full of the kind of scumbags who were anti interracial marriage 40 years ago, anti women's voting rights 90 years ago, pro slavery 140 years ago, and so on.  Hell, I'm guessing a lot of country is.  How else did Bush win in 2004 if not for (FAKE) family values.

 

If you truly believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because (1) "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," (2) you think it's gross, (3) you just want to scapegoat someone, (4) you think it'll lead to bestiality and incest, (5) or other religious justifications, you are at best a misguided idiot and at worst a disgusting bigot dirtbag!!!! 

 

Philadelphia instituted its "gayborhood" and marketted HEAVILY to LGBT comminity with the "get your history straight and nightlife gay" campaign. in 2000.

 

In addition, the equality forum (based in philadelphia) helped to open up dialogue and improve gay life in Philly.  Dallas is hardly a gay haven.  NYC, SanFran, and LA should not even be used as comparisions.

 

However, areas that are generally "hot spots" with young people have generally better gay reputations than cities in Ohio.  DC, Atlanta, P-Town and St. Lauderdale/Miami come to mind.  Hell even tacky ass NoLa has better options than Ohio.

Gay marriage is really one of those topics I get fired up.  I guess it's because it's so black and white to me: gay marriage = interracial marriage = forbidding spousal rape = voting rights = forbidding slavery.  These are the kind of black and white issues that nutjob conservatives have ALWAYS opposed, when it's so damn clear (even without hindsight) that they are inalienable rights.

"Dallas is hardly a gay haven?"

 

I thought I read a pd article about it some time ago, saying that it is a very gay friendly city

Philadelphia instituted its "gayborhood" and marketted HEAVILY to LGBT comminity with the "get your history straight and nightlife gay" campaign. in 2000.

 

In addition, the equality forum (based in philadelphia) helped to open up dialogue and improve gay life in Philly.  Dallas is hardly a gay haven.  NYC, SanFran, and LA should not even be used as comparisions.

 

That's really cool - I've never been to Philly, so I didn't know about that.

Philadelphia instituted its "gayborhood" and marketted HEAVILY to LGBT comminity with the "get your history straight and nightlife gay" campaign. in 2000.

 

In addition, the equality forum (based in philadelphia) helped to open up dialogue and improve gay life in Philly.  Dallas is hardly a gay haven.  NYC, SanFran, and LA should not even be used as comparisions.

 

That's really cool - I've never been to Philly, so I didn't know about that.

 

Here's the older version of the commercial

Thanks!  Good for them :).

Gay marriage is really one of those topics I get fired up. I guess it's because it's so black and white to me: gay marriage = interracial marriage = forbidding spousal rape = voting rights = forbidding slavery.

 

I think equations like this tend to turn people off who would normally be in favor of gay marriage or benignly indifferent.  While their may be some similarities, they certainly arent' the same issue, which is what is implied by the equals sign.  Lincoln, in his debates with Douglas, made a clear distinction between natural rights (which was the basis of his argument against slavery) and civil rights.  These sorts of distinctions are important, particularly when you are trying to convince someone by argument.

The equals signs are not meant to denote that these are the exact same issue (though there are clear, substantial parallels) but instead that I see the issues in black and white terms.

 

I'm also not trying to alter anyone's mind, just expressing my own.

^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign

 

When you use the equal sign you mean equality. Each symbol/article/number/phrase linking the equal sign are the same thing. There's no dancing around it, unless we want to rewrite all our math books. There are other symbols available for "almost equal".

 

Sorry, nerdy math/science guy here. You can send this off-topic hell. :)

Popular gay destinations like Dallas

 

Did you seriously call Dallas a gay destination?  LOL

St. Lauderdale

 

Hmm, did you mean Ft. Lauderdale?

 

 

 

I heard something about an Ohio bill that someone sponsored today to make gay marriage legal in Ohio, does someone have an article on this?

"Did you seriously call Dallas a gay destination?  LOL"

 

I've read about gay tourism, and Dallas was mentinoned in some of the articles.  Plus the PD/cleveland.com had an article referencing it a while back.

 

So yeah, I'm calling it a gay destination

I heard something about an Ohio bill that someone sponsored today to make gay marriage legal in Ohio, does someone have an article on this?

 

Sounds like wishful thinking given the the constitutional amendment from 2004.

"Did you seriously call Dallas a gay destination?  LOL"

 

I've read about gay tourism, and Dallas was mentinoned in some of the articles.  Plus the PD/cleveland.com had an article referencing it a while back.

 

So yeah, I'm calling it a gay destination

 

The articles that I've read said that Dallas is trying to market itself as a gay destination.  Whether or not it actually is one is debatable. 

Dallas can market itself as a gay destination all it wants but many of the Texans that I interact with when I go down there on business make Ohio look very gay friendly.  This isn't a couple of trips, I have been to Dallas 18 times over the last five years.

Dallas can market itself as a gay destination all it wants but many of the Texans that I interact with when I go down there on business make Ohio look very gay friendly.  This isn't a couple of trips, I have been to Dallas 18 times over the last five years.

 

I couldn't agree more!  Houston and Dallas' gayborhoods are worse than Cleveland's.  I was like whoa!

I would also agree. My brother lived in Dallas for almost three years and he said the gayborhoods there are nothing special. Also I went to Dallas last year on my birthday to see my boyfriend and I would have to agree! But at the same time, I wouldn't exactly say Cleveland's is the greatest either.

 

Cleveland's has fallen.  the 80's & 90's were so fun.  Now it's just so-so.  But those cowboys in Dallas, were not hot.