Civilized? Hate; Greed: And
By Steven McLaren
November 08, 2006
The responses to my and other editorials opposed to same-sex
marriage have been entertaining, to say the least. I knew there
would be no shortage of those in favor of same-sex unions in
this forum. After all, it is popular to voice that side of the
issue in our day and age. At any rate, I can't help but wonder
what the response to some of these editorials in favor of same-sex
unions would have been in 1950. I bet those responses would
have been similar to your responses to me for having brought
up beastiality. (Sorry, I won't bring it up again.) Maybe you
are right about this, I hope you are right, and I don't want
to even think about the possible discussions - in the name of
progress - we might be forced to have in 2050!?
O.K. I won't push my religious beliefs down your throat, and
I now know that it is not acceptable to mention God. However,
remember the side that began cramming their philosophy down our
throats? I'll give you a hint, it was not the side opposed to
same-sex unions. The people against same-sex unions were the
people who got the first dose of same-sex philosophy crammed
down our throats through the editorials. Furthermore, no one
mentioned God, until one in favor of same-sex unions used God
in his argument. Remember we against same-sex unions lack love
for others, we are not as tolerant of others (as God would be
or has taught), and it makes us bad people because we do not
condone the actions of homosexuals, because we do not accept
a redefinition of marriage. Interesting enough, God and God's
tolerance for all has been at the base of most all the arguments
of those in favor of same-sex unions. I guess it is o.k. that
many will cram their beliefs about how we should accept homosexuals
and their actions down our throats while basing their comments
on their own religious beliefs in God, or beliefs in what their
God might represent. However, to counter this/their argument
with any base on God or the Bible is strictly unacceptable.
Someone really should clarify the rules.
At any rate, help me understand something. Plural marriages
should not be made legal civil unions right? (Yes, we agree
on something.) I realize that I am slow and need therapy, but
I do not understand why same-sex unions should be legal while
plural marriages remain illegal. Nearly every single argument
or justification made in favor of same-sex unions within these
editorials could be used to support the legalization of plural
marriages. No, I don't want either to become legal unions.
I would just like a clarification as to why the same philosophy
is good for one and not the other.
Even though we are arguing for opposing view points, those that
have argued for same-sex unions probably may not ever see any
comparison between their fanaticism and mine. It just would
not be fair to say that some of these people (those in favor
of same-sex unions) have "religious" or even "fanatical"
beliefs in TOLERANCE and the SO BELIEVED legal proof of that
tolerance for all people.
Don't judge me because I don't like, accept, or approve of the
ACT of homosexuality. Try to find it in yourselves to be tolerant
of my beliefs also. Do not misunderstand, confuse, or misconstrue
what I've said all along.
I do not feel it is possible that we can accept a legal change
to the definition of marriage WITHOUT ALSO inherently and out
right as a society giving acceptance to the ACT of homosexuality.
If I need to wake up to the "real world" and the reality
of our current situation and the real facts, as we can read through
the various opposing editorials, I am not the only one!
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
About: "Glad to be an Alaskan."
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
Send A Letter -------Read
E-mail the Editor at
Stories In The News