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

Pedophilia

February 26, 2013

Dear editor: To offer a point of clarification between pedophilia and homosexuality: Pedophilia describes sexual behavior by an adult - whether heterosexual or homosexual - towards a child of either......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(40)

BrookP

Mar-02-13 1:15 PM

I guess I would disagree. I believe the term "marriage" represents the union of two people who love each other and want to make a legal commitment to that love, with all the responsibilities and benefits to which that entails. I guess it's one of those things that some people will always view differently.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-01-13 2:02 PM

I guess that I'm not explaining myself very well.....book me some time with Dr. Phil, I guess. What I am proposing is that the government do the civil union part and leave the "marriage" up to the religious end of things. I realize that a marriage is a civil union, but not all civil unions necessarily need to be called marriages.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BrookP

Mar-01-13 10:01 AM

MTOMTO, to me it seems like you are the one playing the semantics. In the eyes of our government, marriage IS a civil union. It's a licensed, contractual arrangement.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

justobserving

Mar-01-13 9:15 AM

I have to agree with BrookP. I was married in front of a JP. If you don't believe your married, try to get divorced!! Marriage in a church is only for it to be recognized in front of God, if you believe in same. It's up to individual religions to decide if same sex marriage is allowed in their church, not up to the government, but it should be legal anywhere else.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Mar-01-13 8:43 AM

I knew semantics would get played.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BrookP

Feb-28-13 6:22 PM

MTOMTO, you said "...stay the heck away from anything to do with the word "marraige"." I could not disagree more. In this country, marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one, even though religious ceremonies are given the privilege of contract law. You do not need religion to be married. Marriage is a civil, legal contract between the government and two people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses. The principles of our Constitution promote equal rights in regard to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Based on these Civil principles, there is no valid reason to deny same-sex couples from marriage in this country.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 5:28 PM

If you are being married in a church, you stll have to file the paperwork with big brother to qualify for the benefits, right?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 5:11 PM

Sorry, Gary, I'll try to keep a tighter rein on my bigotry in the future.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 5:08 PM

Some in here may write it off as just semantics, but, to me there is a clear distinction.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 5:06 PM

"in the eyes of the law, civil unions do not have the same benefits that a marriage has."

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. If the government by voting representatives in decides that these benefits should apply to same sex "unions", they should pass laws to allow it under civil unions and stay the heck away from anything to do with the word "marraige".

Personally, I would be alright with this under a civil union status that would allow the benefits. I also believe that "marriage" should be between a man and a woman and as determined by each religious denomination. Doesn't that just go to "FREEDOM"?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Feb-28-13 4:54 PM

I have a very low tolerance for bigotry. When I see it, I call it out. Perhaps you are not a bigot, but your post does seem to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Please accept my apologies.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-28-13 4:18 PM

MTO, in the eyes of the law, civil unions do not have the same benefits that a marriage has.

These include social security survivors’ and spousal benefits, federal veterans’ spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner’s health benefits, the federal exemption from inheritance tax, and many other federal protections which are denied same-sex couples whether legally joined in a civil union or a civil marriage.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

justobserving

Feb-28-13 2:55 PM

Tuff crowd. Wrong again Gary.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 2:46 PM

Stupid fat fingers.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 2:14 PM

"and there are religions that allow marriages between same sex couples... it should not be legislated by the government; federal, state, or local."

I believe that we are saying the similar things, just in different words. No, government should not decide what marraige is, that is a religious determination, as you have stated. Civil unions however should be under the pervue of government for reason of benefits (social security, insurance, etc.) that should not be determined by a riligious organization.

I fail to see how that consitutes separate but equal?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Feb-28-13 2:10 PM

I think you meant exactly what you said.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-28-13 1:37 PM

MTO, this was the same logic behind separate but equal and does not work in practice.

Because Christianity is not the only religion to allow marriage (nor the first) and there are religions that allow marriages between same sex couples... it should not be legislated by the government; federal, state, or local.

This does not mean that a given pastor/priest would be forced to perform the ceremony. That is still at the discretion of the officiator, just as it always has been.

JustOb, I apologize for the accusations, the way your comment sounded was that homosexuality and pedophilia were equally "sickness".

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

justobserving

Feb-28-13 1:05 PM

Slow down people, I mean that pedophilia is a sickness no matter what label you put in front of it!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Feb-28-13 1:00 PM

I would vote to allow civil unions that would extend rights to benefits to same sex partners, but not marraige, based exactly on your arguement of separation of church and state.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-28-13 11:36 AM

The question is, when it comes down to a vote... how will you vote?

Vote to allow the marriages, standing by your statement that it is not your place to judge.

Or vote to deny them? Determining that what your god says to be wrong should not be legal?

If it is the first one, I applaud you and hope there are more christians like you.

If the second then I urge you to reconsider the notion of separation of church and state, and the reasons it is important.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-28-13 5:54 AM

Again, individual's FREE choice. They will answer to their maker, not to me. Have at it.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-27-13 7:22 PM

Clearly eating shellfish is an abomination to god also, as such people who do so are a disease upon this country as well.

However, since it would be immoral to judge them and prevent them from eating shellfish, should we not extend the same courtesy to two consenting adults and allow them the same rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-27-13 6:51 PM

make that "sin" not "ain".

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-27-13 6:50 PM

Rancor, the morales of the US society are so unclean, I think that touching a pig would be the very last of its worries. As far as stoning your neighbor goes, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I'm inclined to adhere to New Testament doctrine. Clearly h0m05exual1ty is wrong in God's eyes. One day HE will judge, not me. You decide for yourself how you will live your life. Note: God still love the sinner, but not the ain.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Feb-27-13 5:12 PM

Not at all! Won't it be a great day when we no longer have to say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that..." Because there's NOT!!!

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 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