Letters to the Editor

Equal rights

August 18, 2010


To the editor:

I find it depressing that homophobia is viewed as a valid moral stance, that it is seen as the “other side” of any debate. No other form of bigotry is so encouraged in our society and media today. We would be outraged today if media pundits harped about the immorality of black people, of the danger posed by black people raising children, the horrors of children learning about black people throughout history.

Why? Because we know statements like that are bigoted and just plain stupid. Substitute the word “gay” for “black” and suddenly it is all right to say such things. Why? Because, apparently, we’re bigoted and just plain stupid.

A recent letter by an Isaac McPheeters (Aug. 16) ominously warns of “serious moral ramifications” of gay marriage. What ramifications are those? Accepting people for who they are? Encouraging stability in long-term relationships? Strengthening families? Making sure that there are no second-class citizens in our nation? Serious ramifications indeed, those pesky equal rights.

Lisa Rasor,



geoismeo 7 years, 6 months ago

More name calling by those preaching tolerence.

GardenMomma 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't see where she name called anyone.

christy kennedy 7 years, 6 months ago

She says "bigoted and just plain stupid" but she's just being accurate. Using terms like ignorant, fearful, hateful, narrow-minded and stupid are unavoidable when discussing intolerance.

geoismeo 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, I read the words" homophobic," "bigoted", and" just plain stupid". Who is she refering to?.

BrianR 7 years, 6 months ago

"Who is she refering to?

Probably to stupid, bigoted homophobes. If the shoe fits...

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 6 months ago

Right On Ms.Rasor! It hasn't been that long since "black"was the group to be feared. Why is it that giving ALL citizens Equal Rights scares the bejeezus out of some?

christy kennedy 7 years, 6 months ago

" . . . make up and use" which word? Homophobic? As in "racism" is a word made up by the left?

Jimo 7 years, 6 months ago

The left? This was a lawsuit loudly pushed and supported by the right.

It's always a strange discrepancy to hear conservatives declaim on the importance of family when discussing various social pathologies (usually among racial minorities) and yet turn matters upside down and seek ways - via the government nonetheless, so much for small government - of disrupting homosexuals from establishing families, integrating themselves into their community and the resulting social benefits for all.

Indeed, the are only two groups who are anti-family: the far left and the far right.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

More proof for Arianne, the first LTE writer angry with Thomas' letter. Can you see now? Thomas' column didn't "effectively shut down the conversation", it had the reverse effect, just as we should hope it would. Four days running and a new piece every day, for and against, and the 'for's just keep strengthening their position. Remember, "turn their ankles so we know them by their limping." B>)

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

For and against? That is the point jay, this is an argument that shouldn't have a for and against. One of the "sides" is just an attack against another. Just because I choose to call another immoral, am I justified simply because I said it? Does that mean my voice needs to be heard and if they don't publish my column condemning all left-handed people, then they are stopping my free speech?

What if Thomas's column had been calling left-handed people immoral for being left handed? Is that a rational "side" of an argument, or just an attack against a group?

Good for people who are speaking out against such blatant hatred and for letting their newspaper know this isn't the type of column that they wish to read in their daily paper. This isn't claiming they don't have the right to say it (free speech), just that if they do say it they won't get published (editorial decision).

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Round and round we go.

Thomas believes that homosexuality is immoral.

You and the LTE writer believe that Thomas is bigoted and stupid.

Because you believe him to be bigoted and stupid, you don't want the paper to publish his column.

But more than that, you feel that your belief is somehow factual, and that his belief is wrong.

I don't see how that works - belief is belief, it is not fact or knowledge. I disagree with his belief, but don't claim any sort of factual basis for it. It's just an opinion.

Does anybody know for a fact what happens after we die? If he thinks that gay people (or any other group) is going to hell, do you know for a fact that they're not? I don't have any access to that kind of knowledge.

I can argue that it doesn't make sense in some way, or isn't consistent with my experiences so far, etc. but that's about it.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

So a belief is now equal to fact? Wrong. Further, it is not on me to prove that heaven and hell don't exist, it is on those inflicting this belief on others to prove it does. Despite this obvious point, we allow someone's belief to have equal weight with facts. That is simply remarkable.

No wonder we have politicians arguing with scientists about the science of global warming. One side has science, the other has their belief, so the two must be equal and given an equal voice, right? Wrong. That would be like getting a diagnosis from your doctor, and a second opinion from your plumber who thinks he knows how the body works. Both must be equal, right?

Sorry, but facts and opinions or beliefs are not one and the same.

People want to believe that (name a group) is going to hell and that we should base our legislature on this belief. Well, um, no. Besides, the fact that there are so many religious beliefs is proof that Thomas's isn't the right one either.

Amazingly, for having a belief in a god so great and a god so strong, I just wonder, why is Thomas's heaven so small?

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

You somehow got my argument backwards.

I'm the one who said belief is not fact.

I never said you need to prove anything - I just said that I have no certain knowledge that Christians are wrong. Most religious beliefs are not capable of testing.

Also, I continually argue against using religious belief for legislation, especially if it's discriminatory.

But, I also argue that religious folks have a right to believe whatever they want - that's their right to religious freedom.

Why are you so intent on controlling others' beliefs? Wouldn't it be enough to make sure that we all have equal rights under the law?

What's your scientific evidence that Christians are wrong?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

First, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. I'm sure you know this. It isn't on me to prove that Christian beliefs are factual, as that is their responsiblity. I only point out that they aren't proven, thus they remain beliefs, not facts.

Second, I have no care at all in controlling others' beliefs. You pulled that out of thin air. What I object to is the beliefs of others being used to dictate how others should or shouldn't live.

jafs, I get the distinct feeling you are just arguing and making statements about what you think I have written just to make an argument.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

We completely agree - religious beliefs are beliefs, not facts.

As is your belief that they are wrong.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't "believe" they are wrong. I acknowledge that they haven't provided evidence to support their claims. There is a difference.

I can say I can leap over a tall building and you can say I can't. That doesn't mean you "believe" I can't and I "believe" I can. In this instance, you would know I can't and I would be delisional in believing I could -- that is, unless I leap over a building and prove you wrong. I might believe I'm Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile, but if you say I can't be, does that make what you are saying a belief, or is it fact?

With regard to religion, lets just say I'm waiting to see the leap over the tall building -- which I know isn't coming.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

The belief, as many religious beliefs are, is not capable of being tested, as would be your claim.

That's why it's a belief, rather than a claim.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

The condensed version of this letter: "free speech should only be used by people I agree with".

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

free speech =/= guarantee of publication

christy kennedy 7 years, 6 months ago

Actual condensed version of this letter: Intolerance was and is still wrong.

Irenaku 7 years, 6 months ago

I agree that calling someone stupid is not an effective avenue for change. However, it can be very upsetting at times to see such blatant prejudice and discrimination. I read a news story on CNN.com last week about a (presumably) heterosexual man who beat his two year old son to death and left the child dying on a bed for an hour before he called 911. The child died, the father is headed to prison. In another more recent story a woman locked her two young children in a car, pushed the car into a river and let the kids drown to death. And the religious right is worried about the LGBT community being a threat to "family values"? Give me a break.

Ralph Reed 7 years, 6 months ago

@Tom, You know which side I fall on. Upon which side do you fall? No attributions, just curious; would you support same-sex marriages or not? Why, or why not? (Well thought-out, logical reasons please, not religious doctrine-based quotes / paraphrases.)

re: your 0704. You said, "I find it depressing that the left has to constantly make up or use a word and beat anyone who disagrees with them over the head with it like it's a 2x4, regardless of what the issue is."

Quite frankly, the only one I see here beating people with a virtual 2x4 is you.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

"should enjoy the same benefits as a marriage"?

Interesting wording. Should it be called marriage then, or something else as long as they have the same benefits?

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Is that a meaningful distinction?

Most of the gay and lesbian folks I know would probably be very happy to have their unions recognized legally and with the same benefits as marriage, even if they're called civil unions.

A minority seem to feel that the word must be the same.

Lisa Rasor 7 years, 6 months ago

Separate but equal? We've tried that before in this country, and it doesn't work.

Don't speak for a minority group, unless you are actually part of that group.

A great number of us, actually, would like to get married, period. We would like it to be called what it is, a marriage, and we would like to have our marriages recognized by the state.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

That's fine with me.

However, if this is your choice, politically and realistically in modern day America:

  1. Create civil unions that convey all of the same rights and privileges as marriage does, right now, that are valid and recognized in all states.


  1. Continue to fight for the use of the word marriage, which drags on and on, during which time gay and lesbian partnerships are not recognized in many states. And, when the issue finally gets to the Supreme Court (which might not even hear it), the court, being somewhat conservative, may rule against it anyway.

Which would you choose?

The problem is that marriage is simultaneously a secular and religious term.

And, I meant no offense - I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends, several of my extended family are lesbians in committed relationships, and have some gay men that are close family friends.

Do you know for a fact that your desire to be married is, in fact, the majority opinion of the group?

Olympics 7 years, 6 months ago

Christian conservatives won't even allow separate but equal style marriage rights for LGBT people.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Maybe, maybe not.

But I'm sure that the word itself, given the religious connotations, makes it much harder to convince them.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Seperate but equal has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don't really care what a religious group thinks. Chances are, to them a gay union won't be a legit union no matter what. So why should one group cater to another on what they call their own union? That makes no sense.

Marriage. That is what it is, and that is what it will be and must be called. Anything less is, well, less. Why should anyone accept less? Because Cal Thomas and his ilk said so? Please.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 6 months ago

Agreed Bea! Separate never was or will be equal.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

The problem is that marriage is simultaneously a secular and religious term. If we had one word for secular marriage, and another for religious marriage, it would be a lot easier.

If you want to engage in an ongoing fight to use the word marriage, go ahead.

If I were gay, I think I'd be more interested in getting equal concrete benefits in the form of civil unions, if that were much easier to accomplish.

Liberty275 7 years, 6 months ago

who say's he can't marry his sheep-partner and live a long happy life with him/her? I'm not sure the state will issue a license, but you don't need a license to have a church wedding.


jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Obvious distinction between a "consenting adult human" and an animal is lost on you?

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

Conservatives still see wives as property so they don't get the distinction of consenting adults vs. livestock.

kevinf24 7 years, 6 months ago

I understand your joke, KSU=sheep humpers.

But joking aside the analogy of talking about marrying a sheep in comparison to gay marriage makes no sense.

Sheep are not people. So they do not have the same rights as people.

If you wanted to use the same analogy toward other groups of people your statement would be quite racist and sexist.

So let's try out your analogy on other groups of people and the rights that those people have.

African Americans as slaves shouldn't be granted citizenship, what's next allowing sheep to become citizens? After all both were treated as property in the past.

Oh now you're going to allow women the right to vote, what's next letting sheep vote?

You see how that works.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

If the law is unconstitutional, then it should be changed.

Regardless of approval or lack thereof.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

Just because a majority believes a thing doesn't make it right or true.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I know you don't really believe that rockchalk.

landon_alger 7 years, 6 months ago

Too bad your opinion is irrelevant to the constitutionality of gay marriage.

landon_alger 7 years, 6 months ago

It's not what the majority believes that matters. It is what the constitution requires. And if anyone reads Perry v Swarzeneggener, they will realize that there is a big problem with anti-gay marriage laws (or constitutional provisions) passing federal constitutional muster - specifically, under the due process and equal protection clauses.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 6 months ago

YEAH! Right ON! Why shouldn't your brother have the same rights that your father obviously had?~) Baaaa... Humbug.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Is it a heterosexual sheep? Is your brother Gene Wilder?

Equating people with animals. Nice.

Mike Hatch 7 years, 6 months ago

Everything you always wanted to know about Daisy (but were afraid to ask)

Chris Golledge 7 years, 6 months ago

Once again, we are reminded that humans are feeling creatures that think, not thinking creatures that feel. There is no logical reason for the state to deny same-sex couples the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex couples. And, if it is the same as far as the state is concerned, why not call it a marriage as far as the state is concerned?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Calling homosexuality sinful or immoral is valid. People are born with whatever race they are. People choose who they have sex with. Homosexuality is a behavior and so it is a choice. So I defend peoples right to call homosexuality sinful or immoral. But it is none of my business and should be none of the governments business if two gay adults decide they want to get married. Government should get out of marriage. Christians should stop trying to use government force to interfere in the lives of people they disagree with when the behavior they disagree with is not hurting anyone.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Wow. Homosexuality is a behavior so it is a choice?! Re-he-he-he-eallly? Fine. Please regale us all with the time and date you "chose" to be heterosexual, gogo. Fill us in on the thought process that went on as you considered having sexual relations with your same sex, but then "decided" to "behave" differently. Was it a tough call? How old were you when you came to this enlightenment?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I've been attracted to women as far back as I can remember. I waited to have a heterosexual relationship until I was married. It was my choice to have sex with my wife. There had been many women before and has been many women since that time that I have been attracted to but have made the choice to be faithful to my wife before and after marriage.

What you are talking about is the fact that I did not choose to be attracted to women. I was just born that way right? Like I said there have been many women that I have been attracted to and even some that I could have had sex with if I wanted to. I made the choice not to. I was born wanting to have sex with as many women as I could but I chose to just have sex with the woman I am married to. So a person who is born with an attraction to the same sex and acts on it has no more excuse before God than I do if I act on my attraction to other women. That is why I said that it is valid for a Christian to condemn homosexuality as sinful or immoral.

You don't have to believe in God or his values. He has created you with the freedom to choose. If you want to declare homosexuality and adultry good you can. I disagree with you but I will not try and use government force to change your behavior. I may try to talk to you and reason with you but I believe in your freedom to reject what I say.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Your argument is flawed.

Homosexuality is not adultery.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Homosexuality is not adultry.

The argument is not flawed.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 6 months ago

You are condemning yourself...with a man-made fiction designed to control you. Enjoy!

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I do condemn myself a sinner. Praise God he has provided a Savior. For me it is better to be a slave to Christ than a slave to sin. You don't have to make the same choices I do and you are free to condemn my choices as I am free to condemn yours.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

The argument is flawed.

Being able to choose among a variety of women to either have sex with them or not is a different choice than you're asking gay people to make.

You're simply lucky that your natural attractions fit in with your moral beliefs, so you get to have sex and feel righteous at the same time.

In your view, gay people can:

  1. Not have sex at all
  2. Have sex with people they're not attracted to
  3. Try to change what is unchangeable

Imagine if you were faced with those choices.

What would you do?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

It is not flawed. I didn't make the rules. I do agree with you that being attracted to the same sex is not a great place to be from a moral perspective. At least I as a man attracted to women can choose one woman to be my wife and have sex. A man attracted to other men does not have the same choice. If he chooses any man he is guilty. But it is still his choice to make.
I diagree that my natural attractions fit in with my moral beliefs. My natural attractions are to have sex with many other women than my wife. That does not jive with my moral beliefs. So I do get to have sex with one woman that I am naturally attracted to but not all women I am naturally attracted to. If I choose other women, I am guilty. So I must make the choice to stay faithful to my wife. For some of us it is easier than others (I don't have beautiful women throwing themselves at me everyday).

I my view gay people are going to sin just like straight people are going to sin. They are no worse and no better. The only hope for any man or woman is Jesus Christ. We all stand guilty before God and he is more than willing to save those who seek his forgiveness.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

You have the possibility of having sex with a woman you love and still feeling morally justified.

You deny the possibility of gay people having sex with someone they love without being morally condemned.

Your last paragraph is inconsistent with the rest of your argument. If being gay is sinful in and of itself, then that's quite different from being straight.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

That's the main point here.

Straight people, according to your beliefs, can live a full and happy life by making choices which are moral. And, they get to have sex!

Gay people, by virtue of something they cannot change, are unable to do the same. They can either try to live a full and happy life, or they can try to make your "moral" choices.

It's a no-win situation for them.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Or they can allow Christ to change them. That is a win win situation.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago


So that's your suggestion.

How would you feel if somebody told you that in order to live a morally acceptable life, all you had to do was to let Christ turn you into a homosexual?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

It doesn't matter. That is like asking how I'd feel if 2+2 equaled 6.

I can tell you that I can see how it would be difficult for a person who is attracted to the same sex to know they can never act on that desire.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

"Or they can allow Christ to change them. That is a win win situation."

Allow Christ to change them from what He himself made them???? Can you smell the shinola you're peddling? And it's only a win-win situation for you.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

God did not make people sinful. God did not make gay people gay.

I can't for the life of me see how it is a win win situation for me. It has no effect on me.

CHANDLER007 7 years, 6 months ago

Christ is a fictional character. Might as well have Super Man change them.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I didn't say being straight was sinful I just said that straight people still sin.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

I know.

That's the point.

"Gay people are going to sin just like straight people are".

Except they're not - by the very fact of being gay, they are sinful and have no morally acceptable way to live a happy and fulfilled life.

While straight people can simply choose the right partner and the right time to have sex.

That's quite a different situation.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Gay people cannot continue in homosexual relationships and live a morally acceptable life before God. Straight people can continue in heterosexual relationships and live a morally acceptable life. I totally acknowledge the difference. That difference does not change the fact that a gay person must choose to engage in a homosexual relationship. So while he or she may not have chosen which sex they are attracted to they do choose who they have sex with.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

I would simply preface your remarks with "I believe"

Yes, and none of the choices that would follow from your reasoning are at all reasonable.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

That's unfortunate that you condemn yourself.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

"I've been attracted to women as far back as I can remember"

I'm happy for you. But who cares? You're pigeon-holing homosexuality as a "behavior" and a matter of "choice." Therefore, heterosexuality must also be a behavior and a choice, as you see it, and I wanna know when you 'chose' to be hetero. Keep in mind, 'choice' means an either/or situation so under those auspices you must have contemplated an alternative to heterosexuality, so what was the alternative or alternatives that you chose between in order to 'behave' in such a way?
The rest of that nonsense is about abstinence and is a personal choice inasmuch as you're choosing your behavior and actions. But jafs is 100% correct, your rebuttal is flawed on its face and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
And where the hell did adultery come from? Nor do I give a fig about reason, personal freedoms, or your supposed maganmity in not getting behind government control of the bedroom. Your declaration that homosexuality is a behavior, a choice, and NOW synonymous w/ adultery already shows your hand. You see it as a perversion and against the will of God, so pretending you're tolerant enough to not condone government intervention is feeble, at the least.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Homosexuality is a behavior and a matter of choice. I've been very clear. A person can be attracted to the same sex and choose not to have sex. A person can be attracted to the opposite sex and choose not to have sex. You may not be able to choose who you are attracted to but it is your choice how you respond to those feelings of attraction. Homosexuality is a perversion against the will of God just like Adultry is a perversion against the will of God.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago


So, if you had happened to be born gay, what would you do?

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Very clear? You can't even get your own argument out in a coherent manner. Your first sentence and your ensuing "support" don't match up, gogo, how is it you can't see that? You veer off point and message and then proceed to contradict yourself. IF....... as YOU admit........... that one "may not be able to choose who (they) are attracted to" ....... THEN.... you must concede that they were born with such predilections, correct? THUS..... if they were BORN with such predilections........HOW can it be against the "will of God"???????????? How can it be a perversion if The Lord made them this way, in HIS image????????

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I do concede that they may have been born with the attraction toward the same sex. But people are born with all sorts of sinful notions. In Romans Chapter 1 Paul writes about God giving them over to their reprobate mind where he lists all kinds of sins that people are born with. I was born with an affinity towards violence and fornication. I can't go out and commit acts of violence and fornication and then justify my actions because God made me that way. Sin is our heritage it came through Adam and has been passed down throught the generations to us. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. These sins are clearly against the will of God because they condemn us. The condemnation was so severe that God had to send is only son Jesus into this world to bear our sin in his body on the cross. He had to shed his divine blood to destroy the wall of separation that sin created between us and God. Now that wall of separation has been destroyed. Jesus paid our debt and proved himself to be God by rising from the dead. He is alive today and will save anyone who wants to turn from their sin and follow him.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Right. Unwilling or too close minded to admit your own hypocrisy and the enormous hole in your belief system. Gotcha.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Who is closed minded? You have to remember here that I am in favor of letting gay people live as they choose. So I support the right for gays to marry even if I think it is morally wrong for them to do so. I do believe homosexuality is sinful but not something the government needs to get involved with.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

gogo, while I appreciate your stand that government should not be involved in who people marry, but I would like to ask -- do people choose whether or not they are left or right handed? Writing is certainly a behavior, so people must choose one or the other, correct? I don't recall choosing to be "normal" (the predominate right handed group), and I don't recall others making claims of choosing to be "abnormal" (the minority left handed group). Do you recall making that decision on your own behavior?

Everything indicates that people are born that way, either left or right handed.

Why would one behavior be innate (left or right handed) while the other (sexuality) is a choice?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I can see why you would say that a person does not choose to be attracted to one sex or another. I tend to agree with you that a person is born with it. But a person does choose who they have sex with.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Ah. So you believe people are born that way, yet they're not allowed nor supposed to act on it? They're supposed to reject that which God instilled in them? And yet above you insinuate that it's a perversion and against the will of God? Muddled, fuzzy, backwards-mulish logic, that.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

People are born in sin. When I get angry and want to hurt someone I don't act on it. When I see a beautiful woman and want to have sex with her I don't act on it. Our sinful nature has not been instilled by God but passed down from Adam. I am not insunuating I am plainly telling you that sex between anyone but a husband and wife is sin.

As long as I don't want to force my views on you why does it matter so much to you that I call homosexuality sin?

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

You can call it whatever you want.

I find your arguments to be logically flawed.

And, do you really not have a stake in whether gay marriage is legal or not?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Thats fair.

The reason I have a stake is because as a fellow citizen of this nation I must speak up and try to stop the federal government from trampling the rights of individuals. We the people cannot allow government to dictate what a gay man or woman can or cannot do when it hurts no one. I can disagree with the behavior and at the same time defend ones right to engage in it.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Yes you can.

But again, if homosexuality is a sin, then presumably they're hurting themselves and their partners.

Again, not logical.

I agree, of course, that the government should not be discriminating against homosexuals.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I believe in a persons right to hurt themselves. I support your right to smoke crack, skydive, jump motorcycles, have gay sex, commit adultry, etc. I may try and talk you out of it but I will never use force.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Right to smoke crack? What color is the sky in your world, gogo?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Today it is blue. Do you think everyone who holds different beliefs than you is crazy?

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

To your 'question', ignorance and hypocrisy are pet peeves of mine. I like to call it out when I see it.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

"People are born in sin. When I get angry and want to hurt someone I don't act on it. When I see a beautiful woman and want to have sex with her I don't act on it."

Unbelievable. Were you born angry or lustful, gogo? Was that a character trait inherent in your genetic make-up that The Lord instilled in you? The moronic analogies you're conjuring involve free-will, that which The Lord granted us domain over. He did not decide to make homosexuals in his image just for kicks to see if they could fight their natural human instinct, for cryin' out loud! That would be cruel, don'tcha think? Is that the God you worship? 'Cuz that doesn't involve free-will. Should make you wonder where you're gettin' your belief system from, at the very least. Somewhere a little ......south, I reckon?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

We were born sinful. That sin nature was passed down to us all from Adam. God did not instill that in us. The God I worship loves people so much that he sent is only Son Jesus to die so that we could live.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

But he hates gays so he made 'em that way just to watch 'em squirm when they felt the intense desire to fall in love with someone but were never supposed to act on it. Gotcha.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

You don't get it. God did not create mankind sinful. Adam chose to sin and that sin has passed down to us from Adam. God provided a remedy for sin and offers it freely to homosexuals because he loves them.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

So again, if you were told that your innate heterosexuality was a sin, that there was no way you could live and act on it without being morally condemned, and that Jesus could cure you of it by turning you into a homosexual, how would you feel?

And what would you do?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

Again it does not matter. I don't know what I'd do. I don't have to answer that question.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Of course you don't.

I'm trying to get you to have a bit of empathy and understanding for gay people who are told what you tell them.

But you have no obligation to do that.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I do have at least a bit of empathy.

I am in favor of the government leaving them alone, I care enough to bring up the fact that the behavior is sinful, and I can see the difficulty of their situation.

christy kennedy 7 years, 6 months ago

I applaud your stance that government and anti-gay-marriage Christians should stop interfering in the lives of people who'd just like to marry the person they love, but I would like to point out that we're just barely starting to understand gender identity and sexual preference from a biological standpoint. And that you think preference is purely a decision means you understand it even less.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't know about preference, but I do know that who you have sex with is a decision.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 6 months ago

Of course you know about preference. You've already stated your own. Of course we decide who we have sex with. What does this have to do with anything? The answer is "NOTHING!", until you start messing with other peoples lives because of your religious beliefs. Right?

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

What I meant was I am not sure about how a person comes to be attracted to men or women. It does seem to me that I was born being attracted to women because I don't recall making that choice. I don't want to mess with peoples lives as it relates to who they have a relationship with so what does it matter if I state that homosexual relationships are a choice? Do you think homosexuals need my approval?

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

"Do you think homosexuals need my approval? " No, but they could do without your moralizing bigotry.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

If you define anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a sin as a bigot I am guilty. At least they can take or leave my moralizing bigotry. I will not try to force them to change their behavior.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm sorry to be heavy handed. What I would really like to make clear is that YOU don't need your moralizing bigotry. If you could get away from your fear and fully accept the humanity of homosexuals (I'm sure there are a few among your friends and family, think of them) you would probably find yourself to be a happier, more well-adjusted person.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm sure I could afford to be a happier, more well adjusted person, I just don't think I'll be taking the route you are suggesting. You call it moralizing bigotry, I call it knowing right from wrong. I do accept the humanity of homosexuals. I support and defend their right to pursue a sinful lifestyle.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Because by stating such you logically must believe that hetero's must also make that choice, and it must be a conscious decision so you must remember it. Pretty important one, ya know.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

" this is an argument that shouldn't have a for and against."

Excellent!! Spoken like a Totalitarian Arbiter (that's an oxymoron, just to save ya some brain cells).
Okay, now for some remedial education: there is no 'argument' WITHOUT a 'for' and against............BOTH! And for the love, stop with the analogys, you're dreadful at them. Thomas' didn't just call gays 'immoral' 'cuz he doesn't like them, he's based his opposition on religious doctrine. And he's NOT alone, somewhere near half the country agrees with his take. Same with the horrible left-handed people "analogy"; he's not picking a character trait out of thin air, like people that part their hair on the right rather than down the middle.
I know what side of this fence you're on, bea, and I'm there to. But what you continue to rail about is just plain 'elitist', to borrow one of your favorite smears. Your opinion is the only one that matters (there shouldn't be a 'for' and 'against') and newspapers should take it unto themselves to be the arbiters of what's actually just and right and therefore select the appropriate side of the issue and refuse to run the other. It should be 'editorial decision' that refuses select opinions to be heard.........???? Swell. So you'd like your news censored by someone else's personal feelings on a matter (in this case, Mr. Simons)?? And if that 'feeling' , heaven forbid, doesn't jibe with your own....what then? News Flash: it's STILL an issue for a LOT of people, and just because you or I belleve one thing that doesn't mean the matter is closed. Therefore, dialogue will continue, arguments (ya know, the kind of thing that is defined by 'pro' and 'con'?) will be .....haaayuk.....argued, and for there to be any kind of change differing opinions will be heard. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. There's a little thing called 'debate.' There was a time when a black person wasn't considered a citizen, much less a human. There was a time when "coming out of the closet" only had a literal denotation. Then we had arguments, education, evolution, things progressed.....but not by "totalitarian arbitration."
You talk as if this legislation is a complete non-issue, like there is no fight going on about this, the decision has been made, and if you're anti then you're all about hate and too stupid to be listened to 'cuz you're on the side of the angels. Case closed. Like I said, totalitarian arbiter....not an open-minded position to be advocating.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

People are born left handed. They are a minority. People are born gay. They are a minority. This is why I use the analogy. I don't care if you don't care for it, I happen to like it very much and will continue to use it.

Now, to the crux of your statement (the little bit of it that I read), if I believe you are going to hell because I say so and believe so, does that mean it is really and truly a valid point just because I said so? Of course not. That is my point. It isn't a for and against argument, it is just an attack against a group, which in this case are gay people. It is not an argument. It is an attack, and a defense against an attack. I'm a little surprised you don't recognize this.

On a more serious not, if you really want to pass a stone just by reading my comments, then don't. I only read about a quarter of yours here before I moved on with my response. I realize you were just venting, so why should I bother?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Oh, and I like the left handed analogy because it crosses race and gender and takes the sting out of just talking about a single group. It is an abstract concept, I'll admit, but it allows people the opportunity to talk about what is natural and "normal" and what isn't without needing to bring religion into it.

Nothing in Christianity that I recall addresses left and right handedness. If there was something there, however, then people would be arguing that left handed "abnormal" people (not the majority) are going to hell. I guess at that point you would be saying their opinion of lefties headed to hell is valid and worth arguing since we really don't know for sure and can't prove otherwise. (sigh)

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps you should read the entire post if you think dedicating 3 out of 5 paragraphs to furthering the moronic left handed analogy makes it any better or rebutts any of the points I made. 'Cuz all it really does is make you look more foolish. .
" if I believe you are going to hell because I say so and believe so, does that mean it is really and truly a valid point just because I said so? "

Boy, you really stink at this analogy thing. Thomas' column wasn't based on JUST what HE says or believes to be so, it's based in centuries old religious doctrine. He's representing the opinion of MILLIONS of people based on an accepted belief system that 95% of the country hold in some form or other. It's not some yahoo in the desert making an empty claim like the one you posit. His opinion is THE against argument, and the saddest part about this whole pointless exercise with you is that you're either irretrievably ignorant to that FACT, or you're too petty to admit when you're wrong. You can take your pick, but I refuse to continue to argue with someone who is willing to ignore all rationality merely to further a personal vendetta and/or get the 'last word in', regardless how inane. Get a life, bea, I beg ya.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

It is an attack against a group, not an argument. How are you so ignorant of this obvious fact I must wonder? Just because it is the trend to beat people up who are different, does that make it an argument? (oops, I made another anology)

However, of everything you have written, I must thank you for the "get a life" line. That is just classic.

I just wonder, what type of person would make such a serious statement to another person they don't know and will never meet based only on differing views, particularly on something as "important" as what does and what does not make for a worth while argument? What is so amazingly wonderful in one person's life to tell another person to get a life? I might be insulted if it weren't so really, really funny.

Did you honestly believe you were saying something about anyone but yourself with that line?

Too funny.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Get a life, bea. Mean it from the heart.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

You have a heart?

Fair enough. I always thought of you more the scarecrow type anyway.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

It is neither an argument nor an attack - it is a belief.

A religious one.

As you can see from my exchanges with gogoplata, religious belief is not necessary logical, nor are believers able to defend their beliefs - they simply believe them.

If pushed too hard, they simply revert to a statement of the belief, based on their understanding of the Bible.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

So people believe in things -- so what? Are the rest of us suppose to live our lives based on their beliefs? I'm surprised you appear to be giving in to this notion so readily.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Now you're just making things up.

When did I ever argue that anyone should live their lives based on others' beliefs??

I have argued, over and over again, that Thomas can believe what he likes, but that doesn't make the attempt to deny equality under the law correct.

Is that the problem here? Does his belief affect you strongly enough that it makes you want to change how you live?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

"Now you're just making things up."

In a discussion on religion, I just find that humorous.

notorious_agenda 7 years, 6 months ago

I am left-handed. In the past left-handed people were indeed "adjusted" because society thought it was wrong to be left-handed and many were forced to become right-handed. Amazingly after they were then right-handed they continued to live their lives without problem. They would write with their right hand and do everything they would've done left-handed right-handed instead.

I have lived my whole life left-handed and believe me its not fun when you cant find a pair of scissors you can use, its not fun or fair to live in a right handed world. But I didn't cry to the government to make the world left-handed for me; It wasn't long ago that I would've been forced to be right-handed. I'm thankful that I can live as I do now.

I take offense to you calling me one of the "lefties". You can call me left-handed, but do not call me a lefty. I find it bigoted and a petty chance to label me because I'm not part of your majority. I find it revealing how fast you use prejudice in your attempt to discuss this issue.

I have had to pay more money for products and had less selection of products that suit me my entire life. How does it feel to be right handed? Do you take it for granted???

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I have no idea if you are being serious or if you were sincerely offended. I certainly hope not, but just in case, no offense was intended. Also, I appreciate that left-handed people used to be forced to use their right hands. That is part of my point in making the analogy, forcing people to change who they are to make a majority comfortable with themselves.

Yes, I admit that I do take being a righty for granted.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

It's not an argument, it's a religious belief.

And, if they believed left-handed people were going to hell, that's their right - the constitution protects the right of religious freedom.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

But the power of your beliefs end at infringing on the rights of others. Gay marriage does nothing to impact on the marriages of anyone else unless they are closeted and unwilling to admit their own sexual preference. Then I could see them being afraid of gay equality.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

I agree 100% with you, and have made that argument many times on these comments.

The right who believe that they have a right to believe what they want are correct, but incorrect when they think that gives them the right to deny others equality under the law.

The left is wrong in the other direction - they have the right to provide equality under the law, but think that gives them the right to deny conservatives the right to their beliefs.

booyalab 7 years, 6 months ago

I find it depressing that the term "homophobia" is used to support the gay marriage position. It isn't even intended to mean what it says. If there was actually a psychological fear of homosexuals, like some people have of, say, paper or spiders, it would be pretty inconsiderate and intolerant to blame someone for having that fear. But no one who uses the term has actually thought about what it means. It's just an emotional reaction. Ok, fine, your feelings have been hurt for whatever reason, but that's not relevant in a debate.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

Laws granting Bigots the right to put LGBT into lower class citizenry is simply a law granting special rights for bigots.

It is high time that bigots are not given preferential treatment nor governmental blessings to be bigoted.

That means, no more denying gays the right to serve in the army because bigots can not control their bigotry.

That means no more prohibiting gays to get married or adopt because it upsets the bigots.

That means no more prohabition of peaceful Muslims worshiping in peace because it upsets the bigots.

America is supposed to be the land of the free, but in a very Orwelian move, some are now more equal than others.

Bigots have more special rights than gays or those who peacefully follow Islam, even though we/they do serve our country.

There are gays in the military, fighting and offering their lives, yet their lovers do not receive the same respect their spouses do.

There are Muslims putting their life on the line in the military every day, yet they are not allowed to worship freely at home.

on 9-11, Al-Quada won, because as we can see today, America has lost our values of freedom and equality. However, it was not Al-Quada that defeated our country, it was ourselves...and that is very sad.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

Actually, I'd say ivalueamerica pretty much hit the nail on the head and the ball out of the park (to mix a few metaphors).

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

considering your comments a few weeks back on the quality of Black Americans and Latino Americans, I would find your comments on bigotry to be............I can not think of anything to say that would not get me censored.

Just leave it at this, on this issue, you have given up your credibility.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

no, I feel you are similar to a Christian Talaban,

I never said anything that suggested Al Quada was connected to gay right, that is just another lie you made up because you can not actually refute anything I said.

It makes you a liar, it does not make you right.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

I am sorry, I forget your are slow and dimwitted, I was referring to the Mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero. I forgive your disabilities, you can not help it.

Mike Hatch 7 years, 6 months ago

What's all this I keep hearing about eagle rights? It's just not right, why, the next thing you know, they'll be sitting on park benches feeding US little pieces of toast.

Oh. Really? Oh, well, that's much different.

Never mind.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't feel like we solved the worlds problems today but it made my day go by faster so thanks and have a good night.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, gogo, running away and evading take a lot out of a person.

gogoplata 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm not sure I could have talked about this more straight on. I'm OK with you not sharing my belief. Why is it so hard for you to accept me not sharing yours?

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Once again edjay bursts in with a rant against............? Who here said "gay marriage is the most important issue"?????? And I love the people that apparently have just had a crappy day and desperately need to rail so they decide to list a number of other dilemmas that "prove" we shouldn't talk about anything whatsoever 'cuz there's A, B, and C goin' on. Yes, the world should stop and no one should opine on anything not approved by edjay. Take heed, people.

Brilliant rationale.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

So everyone is welcome to their opinion but edjay? Well, that seems a tad contradictory.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Excellent, bea. Defending someone who doesn't think anyone should have an opinion on this issue really puts me in my place, since, after all, I want all opinions to be heard. Intelligent move. That's not contrary for contrary's sake at all. Uh uh.

Huge eye roll.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

It was an observation, not a defense.

And don't do that, or they might get stick that way.

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

An observation? Get your eyes checked. I never said nor inferred that edjay shouldn't speak his mind, just that his rant was ridiculous. Reading....comprehension......just not your cup o' tea. Pity.

mr_right_wing 7 years, 6 months ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if their opinion is disrespectful to barry-barry ohbarnma.

(I hadn't done that yet today...I didn't want you to get worried beatrice!)

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Is that what you got out of that post? That I said gay marriage was more important than bupkiss? Oooo, you've got your finger on the pulse. And for someone who logged on just to write 'who cares', why'd ya come back? Shouldn't you be dedicating your time to the "issues" you brought up?

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Aaah! Nice slurred innuendo. So the true colors come out. Classy!

kansanbygrace 7 years, 6 months ago

"To each his own" and "Live and let live" go a long way toward getting along. I know the laws against homosexual behavior are finally relaxed, and believe that's an improvement.
In fact, marriage is a legal construct, in the terms used here. It may have some basis in religious history, but common law, and statute law are those legally establishing what marriage is. The word "homophobia" invents a mental illness, a fear of the same. If it were actually a word and actually a disorder, it would have to be homosexophobia. That a person doesn't believe that homosexuality is a natural trait of equal status is an opinion, and in no way is a mental dysfunction (phobia) implied except in pejorative use. I would think the next step toward freedom from bigotry is when the people who have been homosexual change, and spend the rest of their life heterosexual are accepted for the reality of their lives, as well. This is the state in which some of my friends live. They are blatantly hated and rejected by some of their heterosexual and most of their homosexual acquaintances, so, in self defense, they just hide their reality.
The argument will remain without resolution as long as it remains in dualistic form.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Yes, he gets that way from time to time.

Because of the lack of actual face to face, the internet tends to give some people a false sense of importance and self worth. For some unknown reason, some folks start to believe that they really are the most intelligent person in the room and that only their opinions matter or count. It is usually good for a laugh, especially when they get all hot and heavy with the insults. Too funny indeed.

By the way, try using analogies in your responses to jay. He "loves" those!

mr_right_wing 7 years, 6 months ago

"Homophobes" and "homophobic" are very overused words. If you are afraid of homosexuals, yes you are a 'homophobes' People who aren't afraid of homosexuals, but disagree with gay marriage are not 'homophobic."

I disagree with the entire homosexual agenda/philosophy, but I'm not 'scared' of them, I don't hate them either...I live by that saying that annoys some "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Some (not all) would lump everyone that has a difference with homosexuals as a Fred Phelps type. Personally I have more of a problem with Fred than I do any homosexual.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I disagree with your rational for calling something a sin. You base your beliefs on a fictional text that you can't ever prove is correct, yet you have the gal to speak of someone else's agenda / philosophy? I know saying such a thing annoys some people.

If you have a greater problem with Fred than any homosexual, why would you bother to make statements that make it easy for people to lump you in with him? He really hates the sin as well, you know.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Are you really trying to eradicate religious belief because it's based on the Bible??

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

No. I'm clearly saying people don't have the right to inflict their beliefs on others.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 6 months ago

For the first time that I can remember, Tom and Beatrice agree on an issue.

Imagine your child facing the world as it is when God created him to be this way. Or a loved one.

I won't accept a religion or a God that hates a gay person. It just isn't right.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Tom and I agree?

Well forget it then -- let them eat cake I say, just as long as it isn't wedding cake!

mr_right_wing 7 years, 6 months ago

That's not quite accurate, I'm guessing even Fred would say he hates the sinner and the sin. Further Fred and his nutcases are Calvinists; so homosexuals have no hope. You beatrice may have no hope (according to Fred, not God.). That's not what the Bible says; everyone has hope if they are willing to repent (turn away). No point in arguing with you about the Bible, you refuse to believe, I've seen so many truths in my life through the Bible I can't possibly not believe it. To me personally it has proven itself over and over again. God gave everyone free will; even if it is free will NOT to believe.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Correct, no point in arguing over the truth of the Bible. I believe a book with a virgin birth, a talking snake, two of every animal on earth getting on one boat, a 969 year old man and a parting sea is fiction, and you don't. Fair enough.

Unfortunately, your beliefs (and the beliefs of many others) dictate how others must live, including those who don't believe.

mr_right_wing 7 years, 6 months ago

I'll give you this...you know your Bible better than the majority of "Christians" out there.

No point in my arguing though, it's set in your head that the Bible at best is just a piece of fiction. To me though it's proven itself to be true and accurate so many times that I cannot ignore that.

Pretty generous God, you have complete freedom to disbelieve. I've been there myself...it very well may change for you one day as well.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

The problem there is the dictating how others live, not the belief.

If we believe in religious freedom, then people have the right to their religious beliefs.

kansanbygrace 7 years, 6 months ago

True, there's not much point in arguing. You may benefit from my pointing out that the cultural tradition of the Bible, that of Jewish literature, integrate history and art in a very literary, and not literal, form. In English tradition, remember that Shakespeare integrated history with other less concrete popular thought. I know few people who would declare that Moby Dick is of no value because they think it didn't really happened.

There is more historical evidence of Jesus bar Joseph than there is of the Plinys, for example, or even Socrates. Few doubt the existence of those historical figures. The cult of Christianity has influenced the evolution of civilization in the form we experience it today more than that of any other historical figure.

For those who've not read it, and some who have, I'll point out that the term "abomination" used to describe homosexual behavior is applied also to divorce. Fred's folks may have not read that thoroughly. History is chock full of very flawed humans misreading the Bible and using it to bash other people.

Jesus, whether fact or character from an extremely popular and durable library, was the one who established "Love your neighbor as yourself," and " Treat others as you would be treated." Nothing wrong with any of that.

kansanbygrace 7 years, 6 months ago

Since all melodic elements have always existed, do you think that Beethoven or Mahler or Brahms were just a cover act?
Jesus became the way and the example of personal responsibility to live within and to act out those principles as embodied in the culture which is our own evolutionary branch.
The Magna Carta wasn't a direct effect of Confucius or Buddha, but of Constantine's modification of the Roman Empire, as a direct result of his own conversion to Christian belief and practice. The Magna Carta is the direct grandparent of our own Constitution. It is the post-Dark Ages reassertion of Christian values. That doesn't imply that others don't have some or all of the same values, just a simple, factual accounting of our own history.

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

It's a great country!!! We're argueing (can argue) over a cultural gnit on a gnat (gay mariage) and a portion of the world still punishes even executes anyone coming out. Except Iran, they have no gay folk, so it's a non starter there.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, if you were gay, you might not think this is such a small issue.

And, there are other countries which furnish gay and lesbian couples the same rights and privileges as straight ones, as well.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

You also wouldn't accept less than equal rights, even if calling it something other than marriage made others feel ever so slightly more comfortable with the idea.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

It's your prerogative to continue the fight over a word.

Do you think that all gay people want to fight about that - or that some would be quite happy to achieve concrete equality of secular benefits with a different word?

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

What if we called all secular couplings civil unions, and reserved the word "marriage" for religious use?

Would that be acceptable, providing that gay and lesbian couples were provided the right to civil unions?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

First off, to your 2:56 comment, no, I don't think all gay people ... anything. All people of a very large group will not think alike on any subject. I mean, even heard of Log Cabin Republicans? I can only speak of my friends on this issue, and they all call their unions "marriage."

To the 3:06 comment, you are setting up two separate problems here. First off, we don't call all secular couplings civil unions. When a hetero couple go to Vegas and get hitched by an Elvis impersonator it is still called a marriage. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, who ever said gay people can't have religion or be married in a church? It may not be a Southern Baptist ceremony, but there are plenty of religions that perform services for gay couples and far more gay people who have religion. It is extremely insulting to indicate otherwise.

We are talking about marriage. No need to call it something other than what it is.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

I said "if" - it was a hypothetical question.

And, I'm quite aware that there are various churches that accept gay people - my wife and I were married in one.

In my hypothetical question, gay people would be entitled to civil unions and marriages, whichever they wanted. As would straight people - you know, not all straight people are religious!

The problem I'm trying to solve is that marriage as a secular institution should be absolutely non-discriminatory, in my view.

However, if various religious denominations have their own beliefs about who can get married and how, that seems to fall into the category of religious freedom.

So they should be able to decide who they are willing to marry.

That's why the problem is the combined secular/religious nature of the term.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

The term works to describe the union, not the basis of that union. It is the term we use, and it should be used for all. I absolutely agree that religious organizations should be able to marry who they wish to marry. Not being an accepted member of that organization is a good reason to not perform a ceremony, in my opinion. I don't expect Mormons to be forced to provide marriage ceremonies for Catholics, or Baptists for Spaghetti Monster-ists. They should be able to decide.

But it should be called marriage, in which ever pattern it takes.

Otherwise, I think we are on the same page.

jafs 7 years, 6 months ago

Glad to hear it!

So, if a particular church or denomination doesn't believe in marrying gay men or lesbians, should they be able to not do that?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Correct, and that fits with current practices. Catholics can't get married in a Mormon temple today no matter how much they want to. Just because you want to get married doesn't guarantee you get to pick where the ceremony will take place, or by whom (unless you pick a justice of the peace, and then it is their job). I don't see that changing.

Mike Hatch 7 years, 6 months ago

I've given this a lot of thought over the last few years and pretty much came up with pretty much the same thing as far as what I believe. I was raised Catholic, and some things are just hard to shake. Anyhoo, one guy's opinion is that anyone who goes thru the legal process to join AND has a ceremony in a church or other house of worship should be able to call themselves married. 2 guys, 2 women, or man and woman. The whole thing is, though, will your church allow that? That's up to that church's regulations. I'm stuck with the thought that a marriage involves a religious ceremony of some kind. Same goes for any couple that gets hitched by the Justice O Peace or at City Hall with no religion involved---that's a legal union, not a marraige in my mind.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

But such unions have never just been called "legal unions," they are call marriages. Do you really expect someone to say "I'm in a legal union," rather than say "I'm married"? A legal union is better reserved for business partnerships. Marriage is about making a life together (if done well), and it doesn't have to do with religion, in my mind. How many people do you know who weren't married in a church? Do you really think of them as having a different kind of relationship than those who were? Once you get past the ceremony, it is all about the life lived together. Married couples are married couples, and who performed the ceremony should make no difference.

Mike Hatch 7 years, 6 months ago

No, I wouldn't think many, if any, people would say they're in a legal union, but to me, that's what it could be legally/technically called. The personal relationship, after the ceremony/signing of the papers, etc, would be up to the 2 people involved in that relationship. This issue kind of affects me personally, and that's what could work in my world.

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

I still say it's a gnit on gnat arguement if one looks at the wider brute world out there. Too much energy, wasted energy, spent on a finer point of a progressive agenda when the brute world problems run amok. There are many, millions, whom have not even the most base rights. Or any hope it will change in this generation.

But that's the beauty of america (USA part of N. America)! No mountain too high..........

Nobody wants his cause near as bad as he wants to talk about his cause. (Will Rogers)

Isaac McPheeters 7 years, 6 months ago

The point of my letter was about good discourse. I didn't see a letter to the editor from a conservative arguing that the LJWorld should refuse to publish Leonard Pitts because his arguments in favor of gay marriage are offensive. If so, I could have just as easily written a similar letter defending him. Again, good discussion is not necessarily comfortable.

Lisa asks me to answer her questions on "What ramifications are those? Accepting people for who they are? Encouraging stability in long-term relationships? Strengthening families? Making sure that there are no second-class citizens in our nation?"

So here she wants me to write a letter to the editor discussing the moral ramifications for gay marriage, to what degree we "accept" certain sexual behavior, the dynamics of long-term relationships and homosexual unions, what strengthening families looks like, and also what qualifies a "second-class" citizen in our nation.

That would be a tall order to accomplish in 250 words or less.

Isaac McPheeters 7 years, 6 months ago

You misunderstood. My point was that Cal Thomas and Leonard Pitts fall on both sides of the gay marriage debate (though one could also say there are more than three). I contend that you need to listen to arguments from both sides even if one finds one or the other (or both) offensive. My letter was about profitable discussion and intellectual honesty, not an argument one way or the other on whether gay marriage is a good idea.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.