- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up


4 bedroom, 7 bath

- Advertisement -

Comment history

Government should not intrude on gay couples


Where do you see anything about religion in my comment or question? There is nothing about religion there. You indicate that you have religious feelings or beliefs, I do not.

I do have a secular belief that a one-man-one-woman long term monogamous relationship forms the basic optimum family unit for creating and raising children into our society, and that society benefits from the stability provided by this relationship. I also believe that, because we benefit from it, we should continue to support this special relationship, and should continue to recognize this relationship with special status and benefits (not rights).

I do not think that other relationships provide the same level of benefit to society, and therefore do not warrant the special recognition as “marriage”. Obviously anyone has the right to have any relationship they want (and this is protected by our Constitution as indicated in my prior comment), but society is not obligated to recognize other relationships with special status and benefits. Obviously, I also know that other people disagree with me on this.

My concern is that changing the legal definition of marriage will ultimately lead to dissolving the definition completely, and the elimination of marriage as a legal construct; which will be a loss for our society. Thus my question to Darrel Johnson……”What is the rationale for limiting a marriage to two people?”

If you discard the rationale of a man and a woman (two genders) forming a family unit, there is no logical reason to limit the definition of marriage to two people. Two is an indefensible arbitrary number; and marriage can and will become any relationship between any number of people. If you recognize same gender couples as married, obviously marriage has nothing to do with procreation; therefore any limitations regarding genetic issues and close blood relatives make no sense either. All logical limitations on the definition vanish, and any human relationship can be a legal marriage, as defined by the participants. Legal marriage becomes everything and nothing all at the same time, meaning it will be undefinable and meaningless.

February 27, 2015 at 7:40 p.m. suggest removal

Homeland Security funding should have been no-brainer

Enforcing immigration laws should have been a "no brainer" also. Instead, Obama deliberately poisoned the water with the new Congress, knowing full well what he was doing.

Congress has exercised its Constitutional authority (responsibility) to establish what shall and shall not be spent.

It is now entirely up to the minority of Democrats in the Senate. Do they want to support illegal aliens more than they want to provide funding for Homeland Security? The funding bill for DHS is right in front of them; it is the Democrats blocking it.

February 25, 2015 at 7:35 p.m. suggest removal

Government should not intrude on gay couples

Darrel Johnson,

Gay people in this country are free to form relationships with whomever they choose, love whomever they choose, and live with whomever they choose. They are also free to conduct wedding ceremonies and consecrate their relationships in any way they choose (with willing clergy from willing churches). This has nothing to do with the LEGAL definition of marriage; and virtually no one arguing against changing the LEGAL definition of marriage to include same sex couples advocates infringing on these freedoms. Therefore, your statement and argument that the people who oppose changing the legal definition of marriage are trying to “tell people who they can be in love with, and who they can spend the rest of their lives with” is a straw man argument, intended to distract the discussion.

More importantly, however, I have a simple question: If you are advocating modifying the legally recognized definition of a marriage to include same sex COUPLES, what is your rationale for advocating an arbitrary restriction limiting the legal definition of a marriage relationship to two people?

February 25, 2015 at 7:26 p.m. suggest removal

US seeks stay of ruling on Obama immigration action

The US did not seek the stay........Obama and Holder are seeking the stay.

February 23, 2015 at 5:31 p.m. suggest removal

Will Congress pass an immigration law this year?

The immigration laws of the United States can be best reformed by finding the political will to predicate changes on four completely reasonable principles addressing application for entry, disposition of immigration law violators (illegal aliens), granting of publicly funded benefits, and birthright citizenship. By addressing these four areas, US immigration law can take away the incentive for making illegal entry into the United States, and greatly simplify enforcement…………….

1. No illegal alien gets to stay. No amnesty of any kind.
2. Any illegal alien caught is deported and forever barred from returning.
3. No publicly funded benefits or services of any kind.
4. No birthright citizenship (contrary to popular belief this is NOT necessarily a settled Constitutional matter at all)

The Presidents unilateral action & the “comprehensive immigration reform” plans I have heard are entirely unacceptable, because they are all predicated upon amnesty. I am very willing to accept immigration reform that facilitates legal and controlled entry into this country for anyone from anywhere; and once these four principles are accepted, other reforms that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry will be facilitated. We will be free to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world.

What we cannot have is any law or policy which provides incentive of any kind to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.

February 21, 2015 at 9:35 a.m. suggest removal

Liberal Democrats ask Boehner to postpone Netanyahu address

How about right after Obama postpones his illegal illegal alien amnesty??

February 19, 2015 at 9:13 p.m. suggest removal

Immigrants disappointed but not deterred by judge's ruling

So......Keyla is an illegal alien and doesn't have steady work or income; but that didn't stop her from cranking out three babies, did it??

Now it is her feeling that her "big dream is to study", and apparently that I should have to pay for her big dream.

Excuse me if I decline.

If we know her name and where she is; why has she not been deported?????

February 17, 2015 at 9:17 p.m. suggest removal

Obamacare supporters make frenzied last-minute push for registrants

I wonder why something so miraculous and wonderful as government mandated health care coverage requires a "frenzied last minute push for registrants", advertising, a phone campaign to remind people, and deadline extensions (again)????

February 16, 2015 at 12:44 p.m. suggest removal

Republicans’ love affair with warfare costs our nation a lot

Really! You have the audacity to lampoon other opinions? REALLY??? After you twist and contort history and reality to support your narrative that all wars engaged by the great and holy Democrat presidents were "just", and only the wars engaged by those evil Republican presidents were "unjust".
WW1 was an utter travesty started by European aristocrats battling for political power, wealth, and land. Woodrow Wilson should have never engaged the U.S. in this, and did so for purely political reasons, using WMD.......oops I mean using the Lusitania as a pretense. It was an unmitigated disaster, resulting in the slaughter of millions for no reason whatever.

No one argues the need to engage in WW2 to put down Hitler and Hiro Hito; but also remember that WW2 was a direct result of the bungled end of WW1.

Then, as a result of bungling the end of WW2, FDR and Truman thrust us into the political cold war, which lead into Korea and Vietnam. Both these wars had highly questionable and stretched justification that was hotly opposed at the time, and to this day.

You dismiss 9-11 as "a bunch of Saudies attacked the World Trade Centers, without consideration that more US citizens died in that attack on major U.S. cities than died on the Lusitania and at Pearl Harbor combined.

You obviously have a bias and want to believe that presidents with a D are good, and presidents with an R are evil.

To paraphrase: "Duh da da....I think Dems are good and Repubs are bad. Uumh huh."

February 14, 2015 at 12:30 p.m. suggest removal

Republicans’ love affair with warfare costs our nation a lot

Are you trying to say WW1, Korea and Vietnam were "just" wars???? I'd like to hear your reasoning on that.

February 13, 2015 at 9:54 p.m. suggest removal



HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes