Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Pick up a history book

Letter by Sandra L. Hohn, Tacoma on Feb. 29, 2012 at 11:49 am with 20 Comments »
February 29, 2012 11:49 am

Re: “Don’t trample religious rights” (letter, 2-28).

Could someone please direct the writer and the rest of his confused ilk to the history section of the local library? Marriage existed long before Christianity did, long before any organized religion still in existence did.

Claiming that ‘the Church’ invented it is nothing but a flaming example of ignorance and bigotry. Religious institutions already have the right to refuse to allow anyone to marry in their domains, so quit with the propaganda already.

Allowing all people to marry in no way invalidates the rights of bigots to continue to be bigots, and the only thing that can violate the sanctity of their marriages is their insistence on making a mockery of marriage with their un-Christian hatred and lies. It’s as false and pointless as it was when they used the same disgusting rationale to try to stop interracial marriage. And we all know how successful that bit of evil was.

Leave a comment Comments → 20
  1. Theefrinker says:

    I enjoyed this letter, thanks. I don’t usually like rants as “Letters to the Editor”, but this was worth my time. Churches have always inherited existing societal customs to claim as their own, like Winter celebrations and Spring celebrations.

  2. BlaineCGarver says:

    One does not have to be religious to find Gay marriage, distastful.

  3. Spiderweb says:

    Then don’t have one Blaine….see how easy that is? Social conservatives are such control freaks. It’s not ALL about YOU!!!!

  4. Fibonacci says:

    You are free to be in love with anyone you want, whether it is of the same sex or the opposite sex. Just because YOU find it distasteful does not really matter. No one is asking YOU to engage in a homosexual relationship are they? Many lesbians find men “distasteful” and gay men find “women” distasteful when it comes to sex. The idea of sex with someone of my own sex is not appealing to me, but if it is to others it is none of my business and hey, it is none of yours either.

  5. Pacman33 says:

    Churches have inherited many existing societal customs. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.

    Same-sex “marriage”, by contrast, is not seen as such by most people; forcing individuals to recognize it is not the legal codification of an existing social reality, but instead a radical social change forced by a few on the many.

    This letter does an excellent job of establishing just how long the institution of marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, opposed to definition being forced upon us.

  6. sandblower says:

    I still don’t understand the idea that someone is “forcing” a new definition. A definition is a gathering of words that explain the various uses of a certain word. There is no force involved. It’s ink on a piece of paper. Remembering the uses is intelligence.
    Pac33 and the rest of its friends are always trying to read more into things they don’t like, because their basic argument has no teeth. Let’s make something up they say and we get the “forcing of a new definition” nonsense.

  7. Pacman33 says:

    If a group of radicals (mostly straight, intolerant progressives) pushing this definition; hiding behind the skirt of a government that has been coerced by fear of being labeled the same vile and revealing terms used by this author ……… isn’t ‘forcing’?

    I would hate to see what the description of ‘forcing’ is by these extremists.

  8. old_benjamin says:

    Sandra, surely you noticed that interracial marriage doesn’t necessarily involve people of the same sex. You have made what is known as a category mistake in the realm of logic. You have equated race with sex, and they are decidedly not the same. If they were, separate restrooms for men and women would have been deemed unconstitutional long ago. Some silly people have even gone so far as to oppose separate restrooms, and we know how successful that bit of inanity was. Don’t confuse race with sex. That demeans the just struggle against racism while it provides a pseudo rationale for adopting gay marriage.

    The church didn’t invent marriage. It simply sanctions the union of one man and one women that has been the essence of marriage for millenia. You need to learn the difference between bigotry and tradition. The latter is what connects us with the wisdom of our forebearers. The former feeds on ignorance. I’m afraid you are more ignorant than wise.

  9. sandblower says:

    Pac33 is afraid of a word. That might be seen as extreme in some circles. It certainly is extreme intolerance.

  10. Spiderweb – don’t you know that social conservatives pronounce ‘justice’ as ‘just us’?

    Pac33 – the Mormon Church once practiced plural marriage but was forced to give it up as a condition to joining the Union.

    Old-ben – The letter writer never said interracial marriage equated to same-sex marriage. She said the ARGUMENTS being used to oppose same-sex marriage are the same ARGUMENTS once used to oppose interracial marriage.

    FYI – According to the Book of Deuteronomy plural marriage was an accepted practice among the Jews (Deuteronomy, 21:15 begins “If a man has two wives . . .).

  11. I have to laugh when I watch this discussion and remember that “good Christians” wouldn’t allow black slaves to marry in the United States so they had a secret ceremony and jumped a broom as a sign of their love and committment to each other.

  12. bobcat1a says:

    I’m still waiting to hear from anybody how someone else’s marriage, be it among the extremely fat or tattooed or interracial or same sex, negatively impacts theirs. Is your marriage somehow less satisfying to you if someone you disapprove of marries? Because you don’t get turned on by someone does that mean no one should? If so, you must have a very superficial union.

  13. buddyandelliott says:

    Dead on, bobcat!

  14. The argument is not about homosexuals marrying each other. The argument is whether the State should sanction marriage outside a “traditional” norm. The burning question is: will changing millina old traditions improve or degrade society?
    Polyagomy was outlawed because it was deemed damaging to society. If a group of people love each other don’t they have the “right” to marry?

  15. Good letter! The writer of the “Don’t trample religious rights” letter seems to think that the religious have some God given right to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

  16. nanook – I see no reason for poligamy to be against the law. The law was passed to discriminate against a religious sect by the same people who claim to take their marching orders from “God”.

  17. aislander says:

    Theefrinker writes: “Churches have always inherited existing societal customs to claim as their own…”

    So what’s with all the anti-religious bigotry if we’re not even talking about religion?

  18. all the anti-religious bigotry

    Please identify more all the specific cases you identify as anti-religious bigotry…

  19. Pac33,
    Unlike denying historical truths, stating historical truths demeans nothing.

  20. My wife and I are very happily married. Allowing people of the same sex to also be married will have no impact on our marriage at all.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0