Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Curious

March 29, 2013

As I contemplate the Supreme Court hearing the case against the people of California who voted against same-sex marriage, first I ask, "Why is this case even being heard here?" I would think that th......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(77)

Fredzz

Mar-30-13 11:50 AM

CMReeder,

"" the one insisting on a difference therefore it is different. [ How about you take civil unions and they can have marriage. Seeing how they are equal.] ""

Wow..?

I'll keep it quick and simple.

If Ford named their new car the "" Mustang 7X, "" and later KIA decided they would name their new car the "" Mustang 7X "". Do you think Ford might have a problem with sharing the name with KIA ??

With that thought in mind... Do you think America might have a problem with sharing the name Marriage ??

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Mar-30-13 9:47 AM

CMReader-"You know Mike for people who say they are moral they really can not get their heads out of the gutter. So Mike if marriage is for sex and procreation, why let those beyond their fertile years get married let alone stay married?"

Talk about a straw man argument. When did I say anything about procreation in my post to you?

And my head's in the gutter? How so?

You're the one that said none of this is about sex. If that's the case, then anyone who wants to share a residence should have those 'equal rights' that everyone is squawking about.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-30-13 7:36 AM

"Cool, it's not about sex. So you are advocating these rights for any two people who live together? Like parent/child, siblings, friends, etc.? "

You know Mike for people who say they are moral they really can not get their heads out of the gutter.

So Mike if marriage is for sex and procreation, why let those beyond their fertile years get married let alone stay married? If marriage is only for child rearing why recognize marriage when no child is produced or the children have left?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-29-13 8:08 PM

Hi Mike.. ' purposefully excluded all the others'.. the purpose of the case before the court is one of gay rights.. not all the others. And, you are entitled to your opinion regarding intolerance and hypocrisy, but it seems to me that such an opinion would best be directed toward someone who accused you of such a thing..unlike myself, no?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Mar-29-13 7:21 PM

CMReeder-"It is not about sex, marriage is not natural law it is a human societal law."

Cool, it's not about sex. So you are advocating these rights for any two people who live together? Like parent/child, siblings, friends, etc.?

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Mar-29-13 7:19 PM

Bufftrev1-"Hi mike.. no, I'm afraid you are incorrect. The use of the term acceptable is required in order to codify the topic."

So, 'acceptable' is the code word. Gotcha.

So Sotomayer purposely excluded all the others to make it seem that the only people being 'denied their rights' are the same sex couples. Interesting. And I see that the APA definition of what sexual behavior is acceptable is the one we are supposed to use in this case. Equally interesting.

I appears to me that everything is being geared to favor one group. Again I say, how inclusive and tolerant of you all who say that those who oppose same sex marriage are so intolerant. What's the word I'm looking for? Ahh, yes. Hypocritical. That's the word, hypocritical.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-29-13 6:38 PM

Hi Texas.. yes, I too think you should go do something different.. Judge Sotomayors question was pretty straightforward and an expert on the topic was unable to identify a precedent, likely because there isn't one..

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-29-13 6:33 PM

Hi mike.. no, I'm afraid you are incorrect. The use of the term acceptable is required in order to codify the topic. Like Texas, I had to do a search in order to better understand the question posed by Judge Sotomayor. The term acceptable codifies the terminology and definitions of sexual orientation determined acceptable by the American Psychology Association. Nothing intolerant about it.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-29-13 5:28 PM

Well Mike I could ask you same thing, are you for equality or principle? You are the one insisting on a difference therefore it is different. How about you take civil unions and they can have marriage. Seeing how they are equal.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-29-13 5:24 PM

Mike posted; CMReeder-"Marriage is not natural."

But having sex with someone of the same sex is? Your thinking is a bit skewed Chuck.

It is not about sex, marriage is not natural law it is a human societal law.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 5:24 PM

>>> topic today. I think it is time to get out of the gutter and go do something different.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 5:23 PM

"Or, to put it another way, the lawyer who was asked the question by Sotomayor, who is likely well versed on the topic, was unable to provide an example."--buff

++

I can't help it that it that he isn't knowledgeable enough about these orientations to be able to think on his feet fast enough to fire back an answer. I must admit that it took a while for me to come up with a reply. In fact, I had to look up the term se xual orientation several places and in the broader sense, it does cover these activities. Even Madonna calls her handheld her friend.

If you say sexual orientation only covers heterosexual, female and male homosexual activity, then Sotomayer rigged the question to begin with. This term is relatively modern and wasn't around when Social Security, company pension plans, healthcare plans, etc were conceived and set up. You didn't hear FDR advocating benefits for the surviving member of a gay relationship.

You know Buff, I think I have said enough on this to

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Mar-29-13 4:55 PM

Bufftrev1-"Hi Texas.. I'm not certain you understood the question. None of the examples you provided fall with the confines of the accepted definition of sexual orientation."

So, you are saying that it IS OK to define what is 'acceptable'. Isn't that a double standard? How intolerant of you.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-29-13 4:46 PM

Hi Texas.. I'm not certain you understood the question. None of the examples you provided fall with the confines of the accepted definition of sexual orientation. Or, to put it another way, the lawyer who was asked the question by Sotomayor, who is likely well versed on the topic, was unable to provide an example.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-29-13 4:32 PM

Homosexuals have given us some of the most incredible works of art, theater, performances, etc. There is little argument that homosexuals have contributed greatly to the creativity of this nation.

Given their creative nature, why must they redefine the term "marriage"?

Why can't these incredibly inventive people create their own term for their unions?

In fact, with the divorce rate and current state of the American family, why would people, who are so proud of their uniqueness, want to be associated with marriage?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 4:20 PM

On the 4:03 post I forgot, hand-helds are also denied benefits.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 4:13 PM

if someone was single all their life, governments don't allow them to pass on the government benefits to a friend.

However, you can have an insurance or death benefit or property directed to someone else if you were to die because it is a contract between a company and an individual or a will/bequeath. This ought to be the route that gays follow.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 4:04 PM

*********** is b e a s t i a l i t y.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 4:03 PM

"Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying benefits?"--Buff and Sotomayor

+++

***********, pedophilia, underage rape, bisexuality, polygamy.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Mar-29-13 4:00 PM

CMReeder-"Civil union is not the same as marriage."

And how would it be different if all the same advantages and rights apply?

Are you, and for that matter the LGBT community interested 'equality' or is it a matter of principle?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Mar-29-13 3:56 PM

CMReeder-"Marriage is not natural."

But having sex with someone of the same sex is? Your thinking is a bit skewed Chuck.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 3:45 PM

"You know Texas that in the Bible people sold their children into slavery."--CMReeder

+++

Just because you or Mr. Shaman or others use the word "slavery" in your writings does not mean that you promote the rape of women nor beating another man for any unjust cause. Same way with the Bible; God does not promote the rape of women nor beating another man for any unjust cause.

Some of the Bible is historical writing and records what people did. Just as Lot offered his daughters to the Sodomites and later had se exual relations with them when he was drunk does not mean that God promoted that.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-29-13 3:31 PM

Civil union is not the same as marriage.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 3:25 PM

>>>>morally good and right.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Mar-29-13 3:24 PM

"The government has no business making laws that disallow people from getting married to each other, whether it's a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman." Wwhickok

++

Then you are okay with a man marrying his dad or his son! That would be fair.

Why discriminate when a man wants to marry his dog or bull or goat or pig? That would be fair.

Why stop there; isn't it fair that an underaged teenage daughter sleep with her father (or the "prophet" David Koresh) if she loves him!

Why should we have to wear clothes in public? Or let people "do it" wherever they want because they have the urge. They aren't hurting anyone else! Why should public lewdness be illegal?

The reason is because God has implanted in us at creation (whether Christian or J ew or Gentile or moon worshipper) a morality that society generally knows as right or wrong. This so-called "fairness" doctrine is a man-made philosophy to warp and twist what is mo

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 77 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web