Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Should same-sex marriage be legal?

As the country awaits a pair of landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the News-Sentinel sought perspective from readers, contributors and columnists.

articles

It's beyond time for same-sex marriage

Living in America in 2013, one would think discrimination would be illegal, but it is not. I am talking about marriage.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

30 comments:

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:53 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2254

    And we're back to the master/slave in the United States again. Should I pull out my birth certificate once more?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:46 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1339

    To not have a child is not always a choice some people marry and then find the are infertile. In this case how do you fell about a third party stepping in and helping this heterosexual couple to have a child.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 4:30 pm on Fri, Apr 19, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1804

    mrd and mrv: To not have children is a choice...no contracts are involved...to have a child by other means does involve a contract and is subject to the laws (straight couples the choice is implied). Thus the difference between g/l and straight couples. Grow up.

     
  • David Diskin posted at 1:11 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    David Diskin Posts: 175

    I'm not sure what Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Diana Ross, and Betty McGlown have to do with this. [tongue]

     
  • David Diskin posted at 1:10 pm on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    David Diskin Posts: 175

    Unfortunately, that will not grant the legal privileges that government-approved marriage affords, such as tax breaks and health benefits.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 9:51 am on Thu, Apr 18, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    I didn't expect a discussion over the difference between a condition and a behavior nor a discussion on whether or not behavior could or should be controlled. And, as I said in my 70+ lines, I don't think the civil rights of gay people are or were being threatened. To quote: "Gays were never discriminated against and could always marry and enjoy all the benefits thereof without any stigma attached or any change in the law. Homosexual men have married straight women, homosexual women have married straight men, and even homosexual men and homosexual women have married each other. Thus, we see that the laws about marriage have never denied homosexuals from getting married in the first place and therefore the laws have not been prejudicial." I thought I would get a lot of heat over that.
    I accept your declaration that you are prudish and concerned about the civil liberties of others which consequentially causes you concern for your own liberties. I do not find fault with that. I apologize for thinking that you might be trying to justify your own behavior. I will now sit down and shut up for awhile.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:40 pm on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1335

    The only person who should be asking for permission is the groom of the bride's father. (I forgot to do that. After the fact, I wished that I had done it.)

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:39 pm on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1335

    When "government" creates power to grant a marriage license, they are saying that they are the landlord, and the two people who wish to marry are slaves who must ask for permission before they can perform a holy sacrament under God.

    Just go do the marriage. Don't ask the state for permission.

    The homosexuals think they are being treated unfairly because they are not granted permission to perform "marriage" as slaves the same as the heterosexuals.

    Again. I say just go get married, and don't ask the state for permission.

     
  • daniel hutchins posted at 8:36 pm on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    daniel hutchins Posts: 1335

    "Marriage" in the eyes of government is not the same as marriage under God. If someone wants to get married under God, they can do so. I don't care what sex they are.

    "Marriage" in government is a statutory term. Has nothing to do with God, whatsoever.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:04 pm on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1339

    Why don't you believe you are having this discusion you started out with 70 lines giving us your opinion as if it was fact did you not expect a response.
    Your surmise is incorrect I am fairly prudish but I do realize that when any persons civil rights are being threatened mine are in jeopardy as well.
    As far as bad behavior goes you might take a look at your own comments before judging me.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:51 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 529

    "I am surmising you are trying to justify your own behavior and you are out of control. " perhaps you should sit down and shut up for a while.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:50 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 529

    homosexuality is not fornicating. the idea of a person loving a person of the same sex is not a behavior. yes, a couple, be they gay or straight, having sex in public is a behavior that can and should be controlled. we have laws against that. but being a homosexual is not the same as committing a sex act or any other manifestation of behavior.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 10:18 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    Some would argue that a legal right is a moral right. Abortion is legal, for instance, and people consider it morally acceptable because it is legal. So, yes, many would consider gay marriage morally acceptable in those states that have passed laws allowing such. I still consider it immoral, but the argument is ethical. But that is part of the problem for me. Once a law permits a behavior it condones that behavior. Once the law condones a behavior it endorses that behavior. I don't think we should go there.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 9:49 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    I can't believe I am having this discussion. You don't believe adults should control their behavior? What? Do you copulate in public?? Even heterosexuals have to control their behavior. I am surmising you are trying to justify your own behavior and you are out of control.
    And to Jeff, you are right. being homosexual is not a behavior just as being an alcoholic is not a behavior. But, drinking and fornicating are behaviors.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:46 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 529

    being homosexual is not a behavior, nor is it a crime. homosexual exist, and always have. this "class" of people does certainly exist. and comparing them to rapists? how silly.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:00 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1339

    Evidently

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 6:59 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1339

    Why should consenting aldults need to control their behavior I think the supreme court ruled in 2003 that homosexual sex is legal in all states.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 6:53 am on Wed, Apr 17, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1339

    In states where same sex marriage is legal, I believe that people have voted to allow it ( correct me if I'm wrong) does this make it moral in those states? I ask because you stated that "The people determine by law what is morally acceptable and what is not."

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 8:53 pm on Tue, Apr 16, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 351

    Evidently Domestic Partners was not good enough, so bring on the Supremes.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 6:03 pm on Tue, Apr 16, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    Absolutely! You don't think homosexuals can control their behavior? If so then heterosexuals can't control their behavior either. Laws are written to specifically with the understanding that people can control their behavior or else they wouldn't be accountable. Should we excuse rapists by saying they can't control their behavior? How silly.

     
  • Arthur Vandelay posted at 9:06 am on Tue, Apr 16, 2013.

    Arthur Vandelay Posts: 29

    The wonderful commenting system we have here stripped out my <./.sarcasm.> tag.

     
  • Arthur Vandelay posted at 9:05 am on Tue, Apr 16, 2013.

    Arthur Vandelay Posts: 29

    Nope, you're out of luck, David. Sorry! Oh, and people who are infertile should be forbidden from marriage, too.

     
  • David Diskin posted at 10:08 pm on Mon, Apr 15, 2013.

    David Diskin Posts: 175

    I've made a lifestyle choice to not have children. Should I be forbidden from marriage, Patrick?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 1:35 pm on Mon, Apr 15, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 529

    "Sexual preferences are behaviors which can be controlled or modified. "

    are you sure about that? if you are wrong, as studies have suggested, then the rest of your argument is moot.

     
  • Peter Bellville posted at 10:18 am on Mon, Apr 15, 2013.

    gopher Posts: 26

    To the editor re gay marriage:

    Laws, all laws, are designed to discriminate. They discriminate against bank robbers, kidnappers, scam artists, muggers, burglars, rapist etc. These people do not fall under protection of the law and are specifically discriminated against. Please note that the laws discriminate against behaviors. For example, being female is a condition, not a behavior, so it should not be discriminated against. Being black is a condition, not a behavior, and should not be discriminated against. Sexual preferences are behaviors which can be controlled or modified. Gay marriage is a behavior and not a condition. Homosexuality may be considered a condition, but the practice of it is a behavior.
    All laws are based on morals. The people determine by law what is morally acceptable and what is not. Therefore, the people, by vote, such as was done in California, have the right to define marriage laws. Laws represent moral boundaries defined by the people. This right to define moral boundaries was determined by the anti-polygamy laws, just as an example. To me, passing a law that defines moral boundaries, what is or is not acceptable behavior, is within the rights of the people. Marriage laws, such as polygamy laws, are not unconstitutional because they define moral boundaries and behavior. The laws do not discriminate against conditions, but against behaviors.
    Do not confuse gay marriage and same-sex marriage. Gays were never discriminated against and could always marry and enjoy all the benefits thereof without any stigma attached or any change in the law. Homosexual men have married straight women, homosexual women have married straight men, and even homosexual men and homosexual women have married each other. Thus, we see that the laws about marriage have never denied homosexuals from getting married in the first place and therefore the laws have not been prejudicial. The issue at hand is for same-sex marriage.
    Laws written to specifically address the concerns of a particular group create that group as protected under the law. Just as a simple example, if laws were created to specifically acknowledge redheads, for whatever reason, then the laws have created a protected group, namely people with red hair. All future laws will have to take them into account. California court found our marriage laws to have excluded homosexuals as a class. Please tell me when did homosexuals become a separate class of people? Are we not, by changing marriage laws, creating a class of people that did not exist as a class before? This makes the legal problem circular. The laws discriminate against a class of people that does not exist, so we have to change the law and create that class of people. Our democratic philosophy is that we are a classless society, and yet the legal system is creating a separate class. Laws that discriminated against blacks were eliminated so that blacks would not be a separate class under the law. Yet here we are today creating a separate class. Laws are already in effect in California that teachers must not express negative opinions about homosexuality and by being silent or neutral will be in violation of the laws. It is not just that they cannot express a different opinion, but that they must condone homosexuality. (To me, this violates free speech.) California curriculum in schools is being altered to include gay history and to identify any historical figures who were gay. Have not these laws created a protected group? I say they have. What other protected groups will be created under the guise of discrimination? Pedophiles? That is not much of a leap.
    Once laws are written to accommodate the homosexual community by making same-sex marriage a specific case, then societal behaviors that somehow affect the homosexual community will have to be reconsidered as being illegal or not. Think about teaching children values in school, for instance, or even in the home. Think about the Boy Scouts, or about churches performing marriages. The ramifications will be far-reaching and destructive, in my opinion. This is already happening in various locations around the world. Parents have been arrested for teaching their children that homosexuality was immoral, clergy have been arrested for preaching, businesses closed or sued, and church services closed and abandoned.
    Once laws are in place that permit homosexuality then that becomes an endorsement of homosexuality. Children already have confused values from our morally schizoid society. As a country we are becoming a moral shipwreck and we are going to pay a very big price.

    Peter K Bellville

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 9:50 am on Mon, Apr 15, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1804

    The definition of marriage will not be changed...it will be a gay marriage...not a marriage. The gay/lesbian define themselves as gay or lesbian...why would their relationship be any different? It will be a gay/lesbian union.

    Marriage is a unit of two people who are capable of re-producing between themselves...in some circumstances this may fail or not happen but it is not a wholesale life style or reproductive choice...gays and lesbians make the choice to involve another person before they do so...their reproductive abilities do not come naturally...therefore it becomes a choice.

     
  • Gerald Krein posted at 9:19 am on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    Gerald Krein Posts: 19

    Since you are talking about changing the meaning of marriage are we going to answer other questions that will come up. How many people can I be married to. Should it be legal to be married to more than one person. Can I marry my son. Since the reasons for not be able to marry within the family have to do with child bearing and two men can't conceive a child their would be no law to restrict. The woman who is suing the federal government about laws concerning death benefits has to do with money and has nothing to do with love. If I could marry my son he could have my survivor benefits from work when I die he would have income for life. Of course this would cost everyone a lot of money since he is much younger than I and would collect for years after I die. There are a lot of things that have to be thought of when you think about changing the definition of marriage. Their needs to be a more complete discussion before one can make an intelligent choice.

     
  • Elise Middlecamp posted at 11:07 am on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    Elise Middlecamp Posts: 20

    Paulette,

    Do you honestly believe that because something is illegal means it cannot happen? It already happens, are you suggesting we prosecute these people? Are you even thinking of how off base that comment is when you look at where those lines of actions take you?

    If you tote the line of "this will redefine marriage" maybe your own marriage (or whoever's you think is in threat by this) needs more thought put into it. My marriage will not be redefined by two people of the same sex carrying around the same paper that is stuffed away in a desk.

     
  • David Diskin posted at 9:10 am on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    David Diskin Posts: 175

    Paulette, according to your own argument, polygamy is in alignment with your view of marriage.

    Or are polygamists incapable of reproduction?

     
  • paulette arana posted at 8:26 am on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    paulie Posts: 3

    This will redefine marriage. It will legalize sodomy. Then polygamy should be legal.Look at your anatomy this is why we are here for a purpose.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 46 minutes ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: The capitalism of our forefathe…

As usual, you pretend to know the facts. [sleeping]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_POwMqiFKk#t=454

More...

Posted 1 hour ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Little signs show our economy i…

Bobbin, how does it feel to fleece the taxpayers that are funding your insurance at 100% ? You supported the liberal stooges that kept Fann…

More...

Posted 1 hour ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Little signs show our economy i…

Eric, by the way, I am not hoping all of my fellow Americans feel an economic squeeze, most already are feeling the effects of OFailures di…

More...

Posted 3 hours ago by jeffreyrinek.

article: San Joaquin County supervisors approve …

It is noted that last week Mr. Vogel comes out to endorse Sheriff Moore, and this week Mr. Vogel seems to have been instrumental in getting…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists