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.
carcraft
28432
Points
carcraft 02/26/13 - 04:33 pm
4
3
The usual liberal logic

Marriage exists in most cultures to protect the couple so they can raise children with stability to transfer the knowledge and culture to the children to provide stability within the society. Marriage establishes parentage and delineates parental responsibility. Now we have had massive social engineering and spending to reduce poverty and we now have more poverty and more massive spending. To stay out of poverty get an education and get married. That about does it America. Having messed up people with the war on poverty the left now turns it's attention to screwing up marriage. So far they are creating an inequitable system in the military in which gays shacked up get benefits but heterosexuals shacked up don't and all the red tape for heterosexuals to get benefits is cut for gays. OH JOY!! A gay couple got a guy on Craig’s list to donate sperm so (OH BOY) they could be parents. What a joyous loving couple. Well they divorced and the biological mother got the kid. Guess who is on the hook for Child support? Yep the SPERM DONER...boy isn't this BS fun? Now let’s see how much more screwed up it can get so that the 3-4% that make up the gay population can have "equal rights" to participate in an institution that was designed to provide for children which they can't produce..,.stunning logic but I do not expect much else from the left!

WritingsOnTheWall
118
Points
WritingsOnTheWall 02/26/13 - 02:30 pm
0
0
POP QUIZ! Multiple Choice
Unpublished

POP QUIZ!

Multiple Choice Question:

Question: What does more harm to the definition of marriage?

A- a gay couple together 40+year

B- a heterosexual couple married 72-day for publicity

C- a drugged up drunk heterosexual couple married and divorced within 55-hours of each other.

By they way choices B and C, are Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears.

WritingsOnTheWall
118
Points
WritingsOnTheWall 02/26/13 - 02:31 pm
0
0
"Because they can't back up
Unpublished

"Because they can't back up their own rhetoric"

I shouldn't have to back up that two(or more...nothing wrong with polygamy as long as all parties are consenting) consenting adults in a loving relationship are quite different from a person victimizing a child or animal.

Fiat_Lux
16419
Points
Fiat_Lux 02/26/13 - 02:34 pm
3
3
SS, DD

Haters gonna hate. It's what they do, especially when you disagree about morality.

At some point, after having repeatedly re-stated the wisdom of, say, about 6000 years, it's best to stop, having done all that appears can be done, and leave them to their darkness. Getting sucked into debating stupid nonsense actually is forbidden to us (looking for the citation on that). Pray for 'em, put them in God's hands and let Him deal with them. He loves them and, ultimately, they're His responsibility anyway.

myfather15
56423
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 02:34 pm
3
3
Also, no reasonable person

Also, no reasonable person would bring RACE into a debate about gay marriage. The two are NOT related, at all. But, liberals will bring absolutely ANYTHING into the argument to further their agenda. Let's not forget that 70% of Blacks disapprove of gay marriage; lets just throw RACE into the issue. Trying to say they are being treated like blacks were, because of their sexual orientation. If I were black, I think I would be appalled at them comparing their treatment to slavery. Wow, is all I can say.

HenryWalker3rd
2393
Points
HenryWalker3rd 02/26/13 - 02:39 pm
5
2
Myfather I agree with
Unpublished

Myfather
I agree with everything you have said...

EXCEPT...

"liberals" this, and "liberals" that.....its kinda broad, don't you think. You seem to be one with a higher intellect. How can you paint them all with the same brush?

myfather15
56423
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 02:40 pm
2
3
@Carcraft

I seen that article about gay couples (unwed) in the military receiving marital benefits, that are NOT afforded to hetrosexual couples who are living together. Thank you Mr. Obama (Liar, Liar pants on fire). Just 5 short years ago, this man supported traditional marriage, but now that he can't be reelected, a miracle has occured to change his stance on it. This disgusting human being NEVER support traditional marriage, it was all just a lie, plain and simple. But that is what they do best, disguise themselves brilliantly, until the right time.

WalterBradfordCannon
1492
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/26/13 - 02:43 pm
4
3
Humble Angela, when people

Humble Angela, when people get married, they get certain sets of rights. If one of the two married people gets in health trouble and is placed in the hospital, only the heterosexual spouse and close family may visit. Hospitals don't allow homosexual spousal visits. If one of the two married people dies, the other inherits their belongings by default. Unless they are homosexual. Then, the next of kin gets it. If one of the two married people gets medical insurance through work, the other also gets access to medical insurance. Unless they are homosexual. In most cases being married gives you tax breaks - unless you are gay. If you are married for some time and financially dependent on your spouse, you will get alimony. Unless you are gay. These are the most cited examples of actual rights that hinder gay people in day to day life.

Then people ask "Why can't they just get a legal partnership?" Well, it would require each state to pass a law establishing a legal partnership with equivalent rights to marriage. And even then, states would further need to pass reciprocal recognition of legal partnerships across state lines. It is simply a lot more trouble to go about it that way. I am heterosexual, married 14 years, and am not troubled in the least about any notion that gay marriage could or could not impact my marriage. My marriage will not change in the slightest.

WritingsOnTheWall
118
Points
WritingsOnTheWall 02/26/13 - 02:43 pm
0
0
"At some point, after having
Unpublished

"At some point, after having repeatedly re-stated the wisdom of, say, about 6000 years"

You truly want the world to be as it was 6000 years ago? Time moves and things progress for a reason...

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 02:43 pm
4
3
True HenryWalker.....I agree
Unpublished

True HenryWalker.....I agree with you about 50% of the time (on average), so I realize that not all liberals or not all conservatives can be grouped together.

myfather15
56423
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 02:43 pm
4
2
@Henry

You're probably correct, I should probably narrow that down to secular leftists or extreme leftists. I know some liberals who actually do possess common sense and aren't so radical.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 02:45 pm
4
3
" If one of the two married
Unpublished

" If one of the two married people gets in health trouble and is placed in the hospital, only the heterosexual spouse and close family may visit. Hospitals don't allow homosexual spousal visits. "

That is not because of law...it is because of Hospital policy. They are free to let ANYONE THEY WANT visit.

As far as alimony goes, there is also "palimony" neither of which I'm a fan of. Just because someone has become accustomed to something, does NOT mean they are entitled to it.

WalterBradfordCannon
1492
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/26/13 - 02:46 pm
4
1
Myfather, the analogy with

Myfather, the analogy with race is that scientifically speaking, you cannot do anything about either race or sexual orientation after you are born. I was taught, from when I was a young child, that one should not discriminate against someone for some irrelevant feature, like the color of his skin. As science has firmly established the strong bias in sexual orientation by birth, the same should be true of one's sexual orientation. You can, of course, choose not to believe the science. But it is now a strong consensus of the most knowledgable scientists, and the great thing about science is that its findings will not change one whit dependent on your beliefs.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 02:48 pm
2
3
"Myfather, the analogy with
Unpublished

"Myfather, the analogy with race is that scientifically speaking, you cannot do anything about either race or sexual orientation after you are born."

The same argument can be made about pedophilia, but watch them scream when you bring that up.

WalterBradfordCannon
1492
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/26/13 - 02:48 pm
6
0
Humble Angela, my apologies,

Humble Angela, my apologies, domestic partners have been granted visitation rights by federal law for 25 months now.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 02:49 pm
3
3
No worries!
Unpublished

No worries!

WalterBradfordCannon
1492
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/26/13 - 02:49 pm
3
0
"The same argument can be

"The same argument can be made about pedophilia, but watch them scream when you bring that up."

Well, now you done gone and compared a clear crime with a clear victim to something that is not a crime and has no victim, but don't let that stop you. Obviously pedophilia is illegal BECAUSE it has victims and damages.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 02:53 pm
2
4
I'm just pointing out that
Unpublished

I'm just pointing out that justifying something because you are "born that way and can't change it" is not a justification at all. Being born that way may in fact be true, but that in itself can NOT be used to justify something. That's all I'm trying to say.

myfather15
56423
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 02:52 pm
2
2
I have no idea what he is

I have no idea what he is talking about with TAX BREAKS for being married. Yes, you get earn income credit for children, and my wife gets a tax break for being a student, but we got absolutely NOTHING for simply getting married. Am I wrong? If I am, I need to talk to my accountant.

Oh wait, I think we did get a miniscule discount on our car insurance for getting married; forgot about that because it's been years.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 02:55 pm
3
3
There is no tax break for
Unpublished

There is no tax break for being married. It's a myth.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091018105023AA2zw74

myfather15
56423
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 02:57 pm
2
2
Mr. Cannon

And people have done gone and compared something that is CLEARLY PROVEN for a person to have been born this way (Race) to something which can NOT be proven (homosexuality).

Also, would you like to provide this "Scientific Research" or should we just believe it because you said it? It's actually very simple to copy a link and paste it on here, but don't go through too much trouble.

RMSHEFF
18720
Points
RMSHEFF 02/26/13 - 03:01 pm
2
2
WBC

Each state controls marriage law now. The same world be true for domestic partnership or some other legal institution. The reason most Christians oppose gay marriage is because marriage is an institution ordained by God and subject to His definition. There would be no issue if gay referred to their union by another name. It seems to me the issue is not about rights but about acceptance.

myfather15
56423
Points
myfather15 02/26/13 - 03:01 pm
2
2
@Mr. Cannon

I discriminate against NO ONE, unless YOU consider standing against gay marriage, discrimination. Thats the ONLY aspect of homosexuality I stand against. Other than that, what they do is NOT my business and is FREE WILL which I, nor anyone else should attempt to restrain.

ultrarnr
944
Points
ultrarnr 02/26/13 - 03:04 pm
0
0
FYI
Unpublished

WASHINGTON — Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 03:05 pm
3
3
myfather15....unfortunatly
Unpublished

myfather15....unfortunatly for some, your stance will be labeled as "homophobic" and you as a "hater." It makes it easier to demonize you for not giving full acceptance. It would see that tolerance only goes one way.

burninater
9921
Points
burninater 02/26/13 - 03:23 pm
3
2
If this issue is truly

If this issue is truly about preserving a Christian sacrament rather than antigay bigotry, why do Christians not protest non-Christian marriages? When two Buddhists marry, it is a secular affair. It is a non-religious civil union, called "marriage" out of convenience, yet there is zero visible outrage from the Christian far right. This is true, in fact, of the "marriage" of ANY heterosexual couple not observing the Scriptural sacrament. Every "marriage" of this type CHANGES the definition of marriage in the Christian sense, since NONE of them are sacramental. Yet, there is zero visible outrage at this obvious use of the word "marriage" to describe events that are strictly civil unions. People may believe their outrage stems from a belief in the sacrament of marriage, but their lack of outrage at heterosexual civil unions masquerading as "marriages" exposes the falseness of this belief.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/26/13 - 03:28 pm
2
2
Did someone say marriage was
Unpublished

Did someone say marriage was Christian? I certainly didn't. Pretty sure marriage was around LONG before Christ.

WalterBradfordCannon
1492
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 02/26/13 - 03:28 pm
3
0
I like this

I like this source
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsycho...

It is written by someone I've met prior to his work in this area, and someone who had established enormous scientific credibility (his work was some of the work that led to his colleagues getting the 1982 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine). It nicely ties together existing evidence with a suitably skeptical overtone. I recommend it. If you want more sources, try The Royal Society of Psychiatrists

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20Engla...

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 03:43 pm
5
2
burninater, when two

burninater, when two Buddhists marry it is still a joining of a husband (male) with his wife (female) and the two shall become one flesh. Whether the two worship the God who created the religious sacrament is another matter but they are still following the religious sacrament ordained by God.

InChristLove
22485
Points
InChristLove 02/26/13 - 03:42 pm
1
2
" It would appear that sexual

" It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

BUT IS NOT A PROVEN FACT.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k78405&pageid=icb.page414413

Interesting article. Like everything else you can find multiple of articles on the internet that waver to one side or the other. Fact still remains....it is unknown whether homosexual orientation is built in our DNA or if it is a choice.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs