Pro-gay letter fell flat

  • Follow Letters

The letter “Gays merely want rights” by John Cashin (Feb. 22) was the lamest attempt to be cool and progressive that I have ever seen.

When did unnatural sex become a civil right? Funk & Wagnalls defines unnatural as “contrary to the laws of nature.” Homosexuality rarely occurs in the natural world because snakes know better, monkeys know better, and birds, fish, lizards and even insects know better.

Mr. Cashin states that gays have no agenda. That is the second-most preposterous statement in his letter. His most ridiculous statement is that no laws have been broken. A Georgia law criminalizes sodomy. Sheriffs’ deputies have a legal obligation to arrest any person they witness engaged in any act of sodomy.

He asks why we don’t write letters protesting rape, murder or incest. The answer? We don’t have to. Society has the good sense to arrest and jail those people.

He says “They just want their rights.” I guess he means civil rights, which are described by Funk & Wagnalls as private and nonpolitical. Do us all a favor and keep your sexual preferences private and nonpolitical.

By one reliable estimate, more than 97 percent of U.S. citizens are heterosexual. Why do we have to cater to the 3 percent? After years of research and billions of dollars spent, geneticists are unable to find a gene that causes people to be homosexual. Until we know that a person can be genetically predisposed to be homosexual, it remains a matter of choice.

Today’s gay rights movement may be the first time in history that such a small group of people have been so vocal, so adamant and so public to promote a sexual activity. The 97 percent have much more important things to attend to, such as God, family, jobs, food, clothes and shelter.

Comments (195) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 02/26/13 - 09:47 am
6
4
please do not equate

please do not equate behaviour in the animla world [like removing ticks from each other as chimps do} with homosexual behaviour in the human species..as pointed out which species procreate with out a male/female interaction and i will show you a species that lasts only 1 generation.and there will be only one of that kind...you all can have your relationships that are gay or whatever ..just dont call it marriage or normal and flaunt it...otherwise go for it..

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 09:51 am
4
3
RMSHEFF

I have no desire to debate religion with anyone. I'm no longer Christian and I believe the Bible is a lovely collection of stories designed to help an early culture explain their origins and regulate the moral code of a certain group of people. However, there are many parts of the Moral Law that are no longer followed. Why do Christians cling to some and discard others, with no direction from Jesus in the New Testament? Shouldn't it be an all or nothing kind of thing?

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 09:55 am
5
2
Can someone please explain to

Can someone please explain to me, if the purpose of so called "gay marriage" is so that partners can have all the legal rights (medical, taxes, etc) that hetersexual couples have.....then why isn't a civil union or civil partnership good enough....why the insistance on calling it "marriage". With a civil union or partnership you have all the legal rights that hetersexual couples have.

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 09:57 am
6
2
Nofanofobama

We are animals so it is a fair comparison. No one is saying that everyone should be gay. What I'm saying is the homosexuals are citizens of the United States that we are denying rights to based on a disagreement with their sexual orientation. There is no legal reason why marriage shouldn't be defined as a union between consenting adults. There are plenty of "unnatural" things in this world that we don't go about trying to ban. Hair dye, breast implants, medical interventions, all of these things are "unnatural". Why fixate on this one?

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 09:59 am
5
4
Why not call it marriage?

The fighting over a word is silly but I understand the point. Not calling it marriage is still saying you believe it is a lesser thing. Therefore they are still not equal. Either get rid of "marriage" all together and lets all have civil unions, or just allow everyone to be "married". It's about fairness and equality.

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 10:11 am
2
3
@Valkyrie

I've treated NOONE as a "Sub-class" of citizen, UNLESS by that you mean because I don't support legalized gay MARRIAGE, I'm treating them this way. Please notice I said MARRIAGE and didn't say homosexuality. I do not support, nor would deny a person being allowed to be homosexual, period. Thats between THEM, Gd and their FREE WILL. But I do NOT support legalized gay MARRIAGE. As a society, YES we have the right to establish what is acceptable in LAW. Something that is unnatural, in my opinion; shouldn't be legalized.

Also, Homosexuality is NOT illegal, so there is no automatic equation to illegalality. I do not know of a single State which has passed a law making homosexuality illegal, in of itself. Most States have also done away with sodomy laws, which many claim were aimed at homoseuxality.

In my faith of Christianity, I know the most important aspect of Christianity if FREE WILL. We MUST make the choices of following Him of our own FREE WILL. True love for the Father CAN NOT be forced upon anyone, therefore no one should be forced to obey Him or follow Him. I believe that is HIS WILL as HE was the one gave us FREE WILL when He created us. He didn't create a bunch of robots, He created FREE THINKING, FREE WILLED human beings. So, in that aspect, I do NOT want to make it illegal and punishable for two consenting adults to have sex with each other, regardless of gender. Make that CHOICE of your own FREE WILL and answer to Him and Him alone for that choice, when that time comes. When we criminalize such acts, we are trying to take away peoples FREE WILL, and that should NEVER be done unless people are being HARMED.

But and again; as a whole, each civilized society has the right to establish guidelines based upon different beliefs, not neccessarily religious beliefs, but beliefs in general. THIS is why I choose NOT to support gay MARRIAGE, because it just isn't NATURAL. If it were NATURAL (The way nature intended) they would be able to procreate and help to replentish the world, which is most important. BUT, this is only my personal reason for not supporting it. I'm quite sure this ISN'T necessarily the reason States won't allow it. I'm just giving MY reasoning, and allowing that to be heard. People will agree and disagree with this point, thats just life.

Also, hetrosexuals didn't destroy the sanctity of marriage, INDIVIDUALS have destroyed the sanctity of THEIR MARRIAGE. By saying hetrosexuals have destroyed it, you're doing the same thing you claim we are doing. You're lumping eveyone together in one category. Many hetrosexual couples have been together for decades and NEVER destroyed the sanctity of their marriage. I haven't destoryed the sanctity of mine; I've been married for 8 years next month. My mother and father didn't destory theirs.

I'm quite positive there are MANY gay couples who wouldn't destory theirs either, if they were allowed to marry. But again, most States don't allow gay marriage for whatever reason.

Bottom line on my opinion is this; there is a higher purpose for men and women's relationships than JUST love and emotion. Men and Women have the ability, if PERFECTLY HEALTHY, to achieve that higher purpose, which is the miracle of LIFE. Gay couples, if PERFECTLY HEALTHY, do NOT have the same ability, period; It's impossible. So, in MY OPINION, if there is to be certain guidelines before a relationship can be considered "Legal", the question should be answered "Is there a higher purpose?" If the answer is No, then it should NOT be legalized.

They can still LOVE and live with whomever they choose, end of story. LOVE can NOT be taken away from someone with all the legislation in the world. Let them love and be happy, but if that requires them to have a marriage certificate, I can't support it.

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:22 am
2
3
Again, I'm not understanding your logic.

Why does the higher purpose have to be procreation? Again, if an infertile couple wants to marry then they have to have a higher purpose. You define that as procreation therefore you invalidate your earlier "medical issues" argument. Either marriage is for procreation as a higher purpose therefore if you cannot procreate with your partner you cannot marry them, which would mean submitting a couple to quite the expensive battery of tests. OR marriage is for love and the intent of creating a life together with or without children. The argument doesn't swing both ways.

I absolutely believe marriage is destroyed by individuals. However, I've often heard the other argument and was asking for it to be addressed. Congratulations on 8 years of marriage sadly that is quite an accomplishment nowadays. My husband and I will be celebrating 9 years of marriage this year.
While I can understand your opinion on it not being natural and you have every right to that opinion, I don't understand that justifying not allowing homosexuals to marry. I also don't understand how procreation became your baseline for natural. We have asexual creatures, there are creatures that engage in homosexuality, though not exclusively as a species, all of things occur in nature without human intervention. Marriage doesn't happen in nature. Marriage is a legal institution. So how do the two go together?

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 10:22 am
3
4
First Valkyrie1, we have to

First Valkyrie1, we have to correct a possible misconception. You stated you are no longer Christian. I would say possibly you no longer follow the doctrines of Christianity but if you were ever a Christian, which means a child of God, a follower of Christ, then you have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ and have been adopted into the family of God. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." You are a new creation and can not go back to the old creation. Scripture tells us that once you are His child, nothing can snatch you out of His hand, not our thoughts, attitudes, or conduct, which means you can not go from being a Christian to being not a Christian. You can act unchristian like, which many of us do all the time. That is like saying I’m female but now I’m not female or my son is my child but now he’s not. You can alter your appearance, you can change your disposition and conduct, but you can not alter your species.

Now, can you please explain which moral law, we no longer abide by? As a side note, the only thing that has been discarded is the need for sacrifice for sin and the penalty for those sins. This has been taken care of (or replaced if you like that word better) by the blood of Jesus Christ through His death on the cross and through His forgiveness of sin.

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:24 am
6
0
Please also understand that I

Please also understand that I am genuinely trying to understand where you, and others, are coming from.

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 10:28 am
4
3
"Not calling it marriage is

"Not calling it marriage is still saying you believe it is a lesser thing. Therefore they are still not equal. "

I disagree. You have two females, one is German and one is American. Just because you call one a German female does not mean she is less or more than the one you call American female. Same with hetersexual and homosexual unions. You call one marriage, you call the other civil union or partnership. If the two unions provide the same benefits, then so what if they are called by different names? Unless, the purpose is to degrade the religious santity of the word "marriage".

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:31 am
4
2
There is no religious

There is no religious sanctity to the word marriage. Marriage has been used as a political tool for centuries. Any sanctity to that was destroyed long ago. Your own explanation shows the inequality intended. You believe homosexuality will "degrade marriage" therefore they don't deserve to have something called a marriage. Thus the inequality of calling the same thing two different names because you don't want it associated with you.

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 10:32 am
4
4
@ICL

Because you and I both know, with the secular left of this Country, it is NOT about legal rights or fairness and equality; its about forcing God out of every aspect of society, through legislation, NOT the Will of the People.

Why do they force the Ten Commandments out of public buildings? Is that about fairness and equality?

How is displaying ten commandments in a public building "Establishing a religion?" Doesn't appear to be mandating EVERYONE to worship a particular religion. No, it's because an individual or two "was offended".

Why do they use lawsuits to remove Crosses from the roadway where loved ones die? No, it hasn't happened in Georgia (That I know of) but in several States in the west and northwest it has.

People have actually been cited for holding Bible study in their OWN HOME, because of "Local regulations" about capacity. This happened in Arizona and Chicago.

Lets not even mention how companies are being intimidated from saying Merry Christmas. Governments like Rhode Island forbiding their employees from saying Merry Christmas.

It's about getting rid of the traditonal values of the American people and replacing them with secular liberal values, period.

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 02/26/13 - 10:36 am
4
2
valkytie1--i appreciate your

valkytie1--i appreciate your honest questions...1st--i do not believe i am an animal---2nd---i do not think homosexual behaviour is appropriaate or normal ..in humans or animals..3rd..the traditional male/female marriage has been the cornerstone of all civilization. 4th**as humble would say...your rights are exactly the same as mine...

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:39 am
3
2
Let me explain No longer Christian

I am going to attempt to do this in the least offensive way possible. I was baptized in an Episcopal Church when I was 3. I was raised in the Anglican Church my entire child hood. I was the granddaughter of two Anglican Priests. As an adult I do not believe in Jesus Christ as a savior, I do not believe Jesus Christ existed as the man the bible claims he is. I believe the Bible is a work of fiction cobbled together at the Council of Nicaea to create a body to control the masses . I do not believe in God the way Christians, or many major religions for that matter, do. I am not Christian because I do not believe your God or your savior exist. Please note, I have no issues with people who chose to believe in Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, or whomever. We will all be accountable to whomever actual is there in the end. Understand that to me you saying I can never "not be Christian" is like you telling me I can never "not be a unicorn", they fall into the same category as far as I am concerned.

As far as not following the Moral Law one just has to take a gander at the insanity that is Leviticus.

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 02/26/13 - 10:43 am
4
2
valkyeie****marriage is an

valkyeie****marriage is an institution desgenate by GOD in the christian religion..whether you take the genisis account literally or anyother way ..it was ordained by GOD B/4 the fall {sin} of man...it was in chritian eyes created in a perfect world without sin...yes marriage has been abused throughout the ages buts its origin was always the perfect union between male and female..

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:43 am
4
2
No fan of obama

Thank you for your response. However I feel I must clear something up. I am not homosexual. I am a heterosexual female who has been married to a man for the last 9 years and I have to healthy biological children. So absolutely my rights are the same as yours. However if I were in love with a woman they would not be.
Secondly, humans belong to the animal kingdom. We are mammals. That isn't something we can disbelieve away.
Third, a lot of the traditional marriage you speak of has not existed in all civilization. There is a long history of incestual marriages and plural marriages that are not allowed by today's laws.

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:45 am
5
3
Marriage existed long before

Marriage existed long before the Christian religion did. Christianity is essentially the infant of organized religion. Your argument invalidates and marriage not done in a christian church which opens up a whole new can of worms.

faithson
5531
Points
faithson 02/26/13 - 10:47 am
4
3
it just isn't NATURAL

now here is a justification for a belief that has self-righteousness written all over it. All most ask for is tolerance, not acceptance. This whole discussion reminds me so much of the 'segregation' debate of the 20th century, the source for intolerance being the same, everything but what should be used, the four gospels.

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:47 am
4
2
Myfather

While I agree some liberals want to drive religion out of everything my issue lies more with the hypocrisy. If someone posted a copy of the Quran in a courthouse there would be Christians out there having a near seizure. I don't believe religion has any place in our government because there are too many different religions in our country. We are an equal people and deserve to be legislated equally. That means we can't legislate from the pulpit.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 02/26/13 - 10:51 am
2
3
Steve Swimmer's Bible Lesson

Please, people, this person is only picking scriptures that will suit his arguments! He doesn't know that some are Hebrewisms, (sayings), and he doesn't know the true meanings of certain words. Steve, to eat shellfish, pork, is to do harm to your body, it will make you SICK*, eventually, will KILL you? These two "abominations" are Scavengers! They eat garbage, poop,,, get it? They(with other unclean critters) are to keep the earth and the seas clean. As far as "two women" and the "in-law " things you mentioned.......hey! You need to read with understanding, they are spoken about, and they are WRONG!! *My sister cannot eat shrimp, because of the iodine!

OJP
7777
Points
OJP 02/26/13 - 10:54 am
5
1
@Valkyrie1:

The "natural" argument is often misunderstood by opponents of marriage equality. Proponents do not use it as an affirmative argument (such as: homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is right).

It is used in RESPONSE to an affirmative argument which states that homosexuality is unnatural and is therefore not right.

Valkyrie1
315
Points
Valkyrie1 02/26/13 - 10:58 am
4
2
OJP

I get that. I'm just trying to understand the other side. I am no more going to make them agree with me than they will get me to agree with them. However, I desperately want to understand where they are coming from and I feel like often when I ask these things the opposing side takes it as an attack when I am genuinely trying to understand where they come from. The sticking point for me is and always has been this:

I can understand one having issues with homosexuality from a moral and religious standpoint. I don't agree with it but I understand. What I don't understand is why they feel this has to turn into legislation. If it doesn't harm you why fight so very very hard to keep it from happening?

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 11:00 am
3
3
Incorrect Valkryie1. I did

Incorrect Valkryie1.

I did not say I believe homosexuality will "degrade marriage"....I said it appears that the only reason homosexuals push for their union to be called marriage and are not satisfied with "civil union or civil partnership" even though they receive the same benefits, would be to degrade the religious sanctity of the word "marriage".

And I disagree with you about there being no religious sanctity to the word marriage. I believe it was God himself who said that a husband (male) should leave his parents and cling to his wife (female) and the two shall become one flesh....which was the first religious institution of marriage. Just because you do not agree with it, doesn't make it not so. Heterosexual marriage was ordained by God and will always be ordained by God, no matter how twisted our society defines it. Preferring to call a union which in my belief is contrary to the guidelines ordained by God by another name does not mean I view them as unequal, just not the same.

OJP
7777
Points
OJP 02/26/13 - 11:04 am
5
0
@Valkyrie1:

I didn't mean to imply you didn't - I was just responding to the back and forth. Often what happens is this:

Pro: "We want equal rights for homosexuals."
Anti: "No! Homosexuality is unnatural!"
Pro: "No it isn't, it occurs in nature a lot."
Anti: "Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right!"

This not-so-subtle but very common shift needs to be pointed out for the poor argumentation that it is.

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 11:19 am
3
3
"Understand that to me you

"Understand that to me you saying I can never "not be Christian" is like you telling me I can never "not be a unicorn", they fall into the same category as far as I am concerned."

I stated "I would say possibly you no longer follow the doctrines of Christianity but if you were ever a Christian, which means a child of God, a follower of Christ, then you have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ and have been adopted into the family of God. "

I don't believe I ever said you can never "not be a Christian". If you read my statement I said if you truly became a Christian and accepted Christ as the Lord of your life, then you will always be a child of God. Evidently, this personal process or transformation never took place in your life so you were never a Christian in the first place so logically it is incorrect to say you are no longer a Christian. It is logical to say you no longer follow the doctrine of Christianity.

You stated "As far as not following the Moral Law one just has to take a gander at the insanity that is Leviticus."

Nice way to avoid answering the question. Again, which moral laws have been done away with? Moral righteousness according to Christ will always be moral righteousness and nothing will change that. Some of the ceremonial and civil laws fiven to the Israelites may no longer be vaild because the utlimate sacrifice has been paid for the sin debt but morality only changes with the whim of mankind, not Almighty God.

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 11:22 am
1
2
Yes, we are all mammals,

Yes, we are all mammals, creatures, etc. But are you going to sit there and attempt to say there is NOTHING different about us than common mammals? We aren't a higher being than those? So, we should just act like them and accept WHATEVER, anyone wants to do? If this is what you're saying, I'm done with this debate because that is so ridiculous, it wouldn't deserve a response. Whether you believe God created us (which you don't) or we evolved, or big ban theory; something happened and human beings are a higher intelligent human being that animals and WE SHOULD ACT LIKE IT.

Now Valkyrie, I've actually enjoyed writing with you. You're VERY respectful and just simple of a different opinion, which is fine. I wasn't trying to get onto you harshly, just saying that if you can't clear see the difference in human beings and other animals, there wouldn't be much more to say.

RMSHEFF
18880
Points
RMSHEFF 02/26/13 - 11:25 am
2
4
Valkyrie1

You have just stated the difference in you last post to me. You are no longer a Christian and you don't believe the Bible. They go together. I am a Christian and I believe the Bible is the Word of God. He spoke clearly to us through His word and He did not mumble. As the Creator of everything He is surly able to tell us about Himself and He choose to do that through the inspired writings. You are free to choose what you believe and your belief system is wide open to accept or reject anything that comes into your mind. Jesus said that “every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand” I think you are build on sand, however my explanation of why God's moral law continues and why the ceremonial and dietary laws ended was intended for those that believe the Bible, not for those such as yourself who do not.

myfather15
57307
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 11:43 am
2
3
@Valkyrie

Let me try this again; A man and woman who are perfectly healthy, have the ABILITY to procreate. A gay couple will NEVER have that ability, unless a lesbian has sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex, through ARTIFICIAL insemination or in vitro fertilizaton, period. ALL which require a person of the opposite sex.

Now, since they never possessed the ABILITY to procreate with each other, I would say thats self explanatory, that it isn't NATURAL.

Now, procreation being a REQUIREMENT for marriage, I never said that. I'm discussing the difference in NATURAL and UNNATURAL. Homosexuality, in MY OPINION, is not natural; because NATURE, no matter how it came about, established a SYSTEM where men and women NATURALLY replentish this world. THAT, being the higher purpose, seems to me, self evident that there is a higher purpose for MEN AND WOMEN being together.

Now, should a man and woman have to procreate to be married? No, but they do have that ABILITY by NATURE, which in of itself PROVES the relationship to be more NATURAL.

How can you refute this? Nature has established these laws and I believe as a society, in reference to marriage, we should listen to natures laws, in reference to human beings.

karradur
2878
Points
karradur 02/26/13 - 11:53 am
6
3
...

"cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
/ˈkägnətiv ˈdisənəns/
Noun
The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."

The statements "God forbids homosexuality in the Bible" and "homosexual people naturally exist" are contradictory but true statements. The resolution to the paradox in the eyes of fundamentalist Christians is to reject the latter statement as false, similar to Aesop's parable of the fox and the grapes and his decision that the grapes must be sour, even though neither the Christian nor the fox is logically correct in their decision. The rejection of homosexuality as a biological phenomenon is much easier, emotionally, than the rejection of the infallibility of the Bible. In the same way, the fox, instead of accepting that the grapes are out of his reach, declares them to be sour, which makes him feel better about himself.

God is not stupid. He did not grant us logic and reason and then want us to reject them. He would not create an unalterable, unchangeable biological phenomenon and then condemn it as evil. You can deny the ever-increasing empirical evidence of the biological origins of homosexuality. You can deny the veracity of people who tell you that they did not choose their orientation. You can put your fingers in your ears and yell as loud as you want to that The Gay Conspiracy is coming to kidnap your children and justify their status as second-class citizens. But you are, and always will be, morally, empirically, factually, theologically wrong.

Enjoy your sour grapes.

karradur
2878
Points
karradur 02/26/13 - 11:53 am
2
3
...

A quick addendum.

Homosexuals can't have children? Maybe they don't desire the physical act that produces children, but they are certainly physically able to have children. I won't be graphic here, but I can imagine several scenarios where a homosexual could conceive and not require outside mechanical or medical assistance.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs