Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Equal rights

August 18, 2010

Advertisement

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,

Lawrence

Comments

Isaac McPheeters 3 years, 8 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.

0

independant1 3 years, 8 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)

0

independant1 3 years, 8 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.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 8 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.

0

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 8 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.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 8 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.

0

edjayhawk 3 years, 8 months ago

Every post from Jaywalker has been negative and insulting. Maybe we all should ban together and not respond to any of his posts.

0

kansanbygrace 3 years, 8 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.

0

jaywalker 3 years, 8 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.

0

edjayhawk 3 years, 8 months ago

Two words: "who cares"! We have children starving, brave men and women getting killed in the middle east, drug trafficking is at a all time high, families that can't afford the mortgage so they become homeless or have to cram in an apartment. I mean if we think that gay marriage is the most important issue here then I feel sorry for all of you.

0

jaywalker 3 years, 8 months ago

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

0

gogoplata 3 years, 8 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.

0

scopi_guy 3 years, 8 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.

0

ivalueamerica 3 years, 8 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.

0

booyalab 3 years, 8 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.

0

jaywalker 3 years, 8 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.

0

christy kennedy 3 years, 8 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.

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 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?

0

gogoplata 3 years, 8 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.

0

Chris Golledge 3 years, 8 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?

0

beatrice 3 years, 8 months ago

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

Equating people with animals. Nice.

0

rockchalk1977 3 years, 8 months ago

My brother (attends KSU) wants to marry his life partner who just happens to be a sheep. In Kansas it is illegal to marry a sheep. I feel his rights have been violated! Why won't the state of Kansas let my brother marry whoever he wants? I find it depressing that sheepophobia is viewed as a valid moral stance, that it is seen as the “other side” of any debate. Why? Because, apparently, we’re bigoted and just plain stupid.

0

Ralph Reed 3 years, 8 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.

0

Irenaku 3 years, 8 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.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 8 months ago

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

0

jaywalker 3 years, 8 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>)

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 8 months ago

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.

May God Bless.

0

grammaddy 3 years, 8 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?

0

TrooGrit 3 years, 8 months ago

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

She's talking about Issac McPheeter's letter the other day, about a Cal Thomas column. While it was far from my favorite Cal Thomas column, she is now putting words in Issac's mouth and making him out to be a homophobe. Mindless name calling and tit for tat exchanges like this don't help anyone, Lisa! Grow up!

0

BrianR 3 years, 8 months ago

"Who is she refering to?

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

0

geoismeo 3 years, 8 months ago

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

0

GardenMomma 3 years, 8 months ago

I don't see where she name called anyone.

0

geoismeo 3 years, 8 months ago

More name calling by those preaching tolerence.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.