November 08, 2006
Wednesday PM

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!

Steven McLaren
Ketchikan, AK


About: "Glad to be an Alaskan."

 

Send A Letter -------Read Letters

E-mail the Editor at editor@sitnews.us

Sitnews
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska