Letter to the Editor: Letter condemning gay marriage 'unintelligent'
Issue date: 4/30/09 Section: Perspective
As I read the Eastern Progress, Letter to the editor section, I was surprised to see an article titled Argument for legalizing gay marriage could also justify polygamy, inter-species marriages.
I continued to read the article and wondered who could have actually thought this would be an argument against gay marriage? The voice of opposition is not a voice of intelligence in this case.
Had this person bothered to think before typing he would not have sounded so homophobic and ignorant. To say that gay marriage would be a basis for arguing the legalization of inter-species marriages is the worst argument I have heard from any intellectual college student.
Perhaps that statement speaks for itself. Homosexuality is not a psychological condition according to the American Psychological Association (APA), as is the topic of inter-species relationships.
Furthermore, two adults who wish to marry each other and are of sound mind, be it same sex or opposite sex, are fully aware and capable of entering into such an agreement. That being said, animals are not intellectually capable of consenting to marriage.
Which brings me to the next topic of the article, man and boy marriage. Again, a child is not capable of consenting to an adult relationship which is why we have laws in place to protect them.
Besides, homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia. This is the kind of non-researched, biased statements that lead to homosexual couples not being able to adopt. Research has shown that children raised in homosexual coupled homes exhibit no more problems than those raised in heterosexual homes.
Children of homosexual couples do not "become" homosexuals themselves anymore than those of heterosexual couples "become" homosexual. Homosexuality and polygamy are two separate issues. To say that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy is ridiculous.
Polygamy has already, and continually, been argued. Furthermore, I have yet to see a polygamist arguing to marry the same sex. Every polygamist group I have seen on the news or read about in the paper, thus far, are heterosexual.
Being indiscriminate in the definition of marriage does not mean allowing men to marry boys, women to marry girls, or humans to marry dogs! Being indiscriminate means realizing the concept of marriage is outdated for the times, as the article itself argues when the writer points out "many people, although the number may be dwindling, still feel something is wrong about gay marriage".
Indiscriminate means realizing homosexuals as human beings with the same intellectual capacity as heterosexuals, and as such should have the same rights and liberties accorded to every other human being on the planet.
Jennifer Carl
Eastern Student
I continued to read the article and wondered who could have actually thought this would be an argument against gay marriage? The voice of opposition is not a voice of intelligence in this case.
Had this person bothered to think before typing he would not have sounded so homophobic and ignorant. To say that gay marriage would be a basis for arguing the legalization of inter-species marriages is the worst argument I have heard from any intellectual college student.
Perhaps that statement speaks for itself. Homosexuality is not a psychological condition according to the American Psychological Association (APA), as is the topic of inter-species relationships.
Furthermore, two adults who wish to marry each other and are of sound mind, be it same sex or opposite sex, are fully aware and capable of entering into such an agreement. That being said, animals are not intellectually capable of consenting to marriage.
Which brings me to the next topic of the article, man and boy marriage. Again, a child is not capable of consenting to an adult relationship which is why we have laws in place to protect them.
Besides, homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia. This is the kind of non-researched, biased statements that lead to homosexual couples not being able to adopt. Research has shown that children raised in homosexual coupled homes exhibit no more problems than those raised in heterosexual homes.
Children of homosexual couples do not "become" homosexuals themselves anymore than those of heterosexual couples "become" homosexual. Homosexuality and polygamy are two separate issues. To say that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing polygamy is ridiculous.
Polygamy has already, and continually, been argued. Furthermore, I have yet to see a polygamist arguing to marry the same sex. Every polygamist group I have seen on the news or read about in the paper, thus far, are heterosexual.
Being indiscriminate in the definition of marriage does not mean allowing men to marry boys, women to marry girls, or humans to marry dogs! Being indiscriminate means realizing the concept of marriage is outdated for the times, as the article itself argues when the writer points out "many people, although the number may be dwindling, still feel something is wrong about gay marriage".
Indiscriminate means realizing homosexuals as human beings with the same intellectual capacity as heterosexuals, and as such should have the same rights and liberties accorded to every other human being on the planet.
Jennifer Carl
Eastern Student
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 9
Adrianna Behn
posted 4/30/09 @ 8:41 AM EST
Calling people names because they don't agree with same-sex marriage is completely ignorant and immature. It is hate speech pure and simple. We, everyone, should be able to co-exist with different opinions and ideas without being skewered in this newspaper. (Continued…)
Colin Reusch
posted 4/30/09 @ 11:43 AM EST
I'm pretty sure that's not hate speech.
Ivy Brashear
posted 4/30/09 @ 1:26 PM EST
Jennifer: Thank you for your intelligent letter. Great response to Mr. Clayton. I'm sure I speak for many when thank you for taking a stand.
FYI: hate speach is equating gays and lesbians with pedophiles, polygamists, and those that practice bestiality. (Continued…)
Mason Brock
posted 4/30/09 @ 2:16 PM EST
As far as I know, it is not yet illegal to hate something in this country. Good thing too: in the Bible it says clearly that God hates sin.
Why are homosexuals so hellbent on discriminating against pedophiles, polygamists, and those promoting bestiality? Are they so narrow minded to assume that all "educated" people are going to draw the line in the same place they are?
Mason Brock
posted 4/30/09 @ 8:52 PM EST
I have never supported hated of homosexuals. It is out of LOVE that I wish they would follow God's teachings.
I do not find the polygamy and pedophilia argument illogical. (Continued…)
Bryan Murphy
posted 5/01/09 @ 4:59 PM EST
As for the child one. You have to be of sound mind to marry. A child is too easily taken advantage of and manipulated. As for the 1 man 2 women, there are financial and legal ramifications to that. (Continued…)
Mason Brock
posted 5/01/09 @ 6:09 PM EST
Why do you have to be of sound mind to marry? Who decided that is a requirement? In some cultures people are married at birth.
I know that there are current financial and legal difficulties for polygamists. (Continued…)
Mason Brock
posted 5/01/09 @ 6:47 PM EST
My argument is that by replacing one form of discrimination (requiring the couple to be heterosexual) with another form of discrimination (requiring only 2, and only over 18) makes no sense. (Continued…)
Post a Comment