Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice

Letter by Julie Marshall, University Place on May 22, 2012 at 2:28 pm with 29 Comments »
May 22, 2012 4:12 pm

Regarding same-sex marriage, the first question that comes to my mind is why does anyone care who marries whom?

Some say it is against God’s will. If they believe that God created man, then they must also believe that God created woman, gays and lesbians.

No, it is not a lifestyle choice. Who would choose to live a lifestyle where one can be humiliated and perhaps even beaten or killed? It is like being born with blue or brown eyes, over which we have no choice.

Those who believe it is a sin and believe in God should mind their own business and let him take care of it.

Leave a comment Comments → 29
  1. menopaws says:

    Amen!!!!!!! Last I knew, those who believe should worship at the altar of someone who is wiser and smarter. Good letter.

  2. Jupiter25 says:

    Yes it is a choice as to whom they want to “bed” with.

  3. aislander says:

    There is “man” and there is “woman.” Those are not choices.

    “Gay” is an adjective. The Constitution doesn’t recognize adjectives.

    Adjectives don’t have rights beyond those given to men and women. The whole civil rights movement was about not treating people differently because of the adjectives attached to them.

    To say that a man can “marry” a man, but that he has to be homosexual in order to do so cannot be enforced, which means that ANY man may marry any man, regardless of orientation, perhaps out of convenience as with gaining some monetary benefit, for example.

    To say that a person HAS to be gay in order to be able to marry someone of the same sex IS treating him differently because of the adjective attached to him.

    That changes the definitions of marriage AND of equal rights…

  4. aislander – when did you make your choice and what were you before you chose?

    “The Constitution doesn’t recognize adjectives”

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

    14th word of the first paragraph.

  5. Jupiter, it’s an attraction that doesn’t necessarily have to include “bedding”. Rather small minded of you.

  6. buddyandelliott says:

    aislander,

    You are right, the word ‘gay’ is an adjective. Homosexual is a noun, and gay is slang for that, therefore the usage of ‘gay’ to indicate homosexual makes it a noun.

    Another point to the post, any marriage can be out of convenience! Sheesh, that’s been going on in heterosexual marriage since the inception of marriage. Make a valid point instead of spouting your personal feelings on the subject and trying to pass them off as fact.

  7. The issue of whether it is a choice or not is generally moot. My personal OPINION is that for some it is a choice, for some it isn’t.

    HOWEVER, Who am I to say that someone can’t choose whom they love and whom they want to bed?

    Choice. Nature. Couldn’t care less as it aint none of my business.

    Legalize it and move on to the next issue.

  8. “To say that a person HAS to be gay in order to be able to marry someone of the same sex IS treating him differently because of the adjective attached to him.”

    Good lord….

  9. charliebucket says:

    good concise letter.

    now, about aislander’s reply….what the heck kind of nonsensical gobbledegook is THAT? I thought I had heard every possible rationale for why gays can’t marry until now. now they can’t marry or have rights because of an adjective???? yikes. whew….no sense trying to even discuss.

  10. Choice.

  11. monmornQB says:

    So I supposed everyone that is against gay marriage is also against pro football being played on Sundays. After all it is working on the Sabbath, and Exodus 35:2 states they should be put to death, and handling dead pig Leviticus 11:6-8 is an abomination. I’m sure none of you would cut the hair around your temples Lev. 19:27, or approach the altar of God if you have a defect in your sight Lev 21:20. I’m sure none of you “good Christians” would have moe than one crop planted in your gardens Lev. 19:19.
    I’m quite sure all of you “good Christians” that pass judgement on others also follow these other old testament directions. You wouldn’t just pick and choose what rules you follow based on some political agenda by the GOP to distract you from their big government ideology. Your not turning a blind eye to the tax dollars being stolen out of the defense budget that should be going to our troops but instead ends up in the accounts of corrupt contractors that bank roll elections.
    No, I’m sure you probably don’t do any of these things.

  12. averageJoseph says:

    So far the only facts brought forth regarding the letter topic are…

    There is “man” and there is “woman.” Those are not choices.

    &

    “Gay” is an adjective. The Constitution doesn’t recognize adjectives.

    I left wondering tho, what are the switch hitters born as?

  13. Frankenchrist says:

    For some inexplicable reason conservatives and Republicans are manically obsessed with what occurs in the bedrooms of people they have never met nor ever will meet. This salacious pornographic voyeurism is without a doubt a mental disorder.

  14. notimetobleed says:

    adjective…nouns…verbs…

    Conjunction Junction what’s your function????

    I have yet to make sense out of anything aislander writes.

  15. Bandito says:

    Although same sex marriage is being promoted as “gay” marriage, it has less to do with sexual orientation and more to do with being able to enter into a legal relationship with someone of the same gender as yourself; a relationship that mixed gender couples are allowed.

    Defending or condemning a gay lifestyle completely misses the point of same sex marriage. It would be more accurate to refer to it as same gender marriage.

  16. “I have yet to make sense out of anything aislander writes.”

    Thats becasue she just makes it up as she goes along.

  17. Well, what ever you call this and whether it’s okay with God is beside the point.

    The question is whether an established understanding and design of our society should be changed to satisfy the whims of a minuscule number of advocates? Even more accurate is whether such change should be done via coercion using the force of the constitution to imply a right to do so.

    I say that this is all about “look at me” and it has zero to do with civil rights or deprivation. If anyone cares to examine those areas where this notion has been made legal, the actual use of the changed law is infinitesimally small. So the only logical conclusion is that the purpose of changing the law is not what its proponents claim it is.

    Translation: proponents are lying (or getting useful idiots to spout propaganda) in order to gain some other power. That is a sufficient reason to oppose it.

    But there’s also the inherent contradictions in the arguments used to justify the “gimme” attitude. First, it’s about supposedly being victims of legal oppression and then it’s about having a right to legal approval. Which is it? Has a right to have same-sex marriage existed under the constitution all along or is it to create a new right?

    I, for one, am beyond being fed up with phony claims of abuse, oppression, and other whining about entitlements. If somebody cannot describe how same sex marriage provides a benefit to society, then it should not be done. Yes, there’s the moral issue and the medical issue but mainly it is a complete lack of benefit to society which compels opposition to this issue.

    You promoters have social tolerance – you are not entitled to social approval. Get over yourselves and work to fix the country’s problems. And by the way, all surveys show that those who live an alternative lifestyle are economically superior to the middle class. Live the way you want but leave us regular grunts alone.

  18. Gay guys, send all the ladies that you reject to me!

  19. “There is “man” and there is “woman.” Those are not choices.

    “Gay” is an adjective. The Constitution doesn’t recognize adjectives.”

    News flash: the words “man” and “woman” don’t appear in the constitution. Fail. Try again.

  20. Dating is tough, BORG?

  21. Lol! Yeah, finding the lady that Mom would approve is rough our there!

  22. “The question is whether an established understanding and design of our society should be changed to satisfy the whims of a minuscule number of advocates?”

    Hyperbole much?

    The ‘design’ of our society??? You were doing better with the ‘change the definition’ whine.

  23. I, for one, am beyond being fed up with phony claims of damage, danger, and other whining about changing society. If somebody cannot describe how same sex marriage damages hetro marriage or society, then it should be done. Yes, there’s the moral issue and the churchs need to be reminded that they have no roll in policy. Mainly it is a civil rights issue and those that are against are in fact agaisnt the US Constitution.

  24. kluwer – put Dick Cheney at the podium as President of the United States and have him voice his support for gay marriage and I’d bet the conservatives would claim the pregressives have been cheating gay voters out of the right to be married by instituting civil unions.

    There is NO logic, nor damage to society that will take place. This is one more thing to complain about Obama.

  25. aislander says:

    buddyandelliot: “Homosexual” IS an adjective, but that’s not my point. The Constitution is about the rights of “man,” which, in the usage of the time, meant “people.”

    My real point was about the effect of the civil-rights movement on the Constitution. The amendments and interpretations that sprang from that movement were all about giving equal rights to ALL people, regardless of the adjectives attached to them. To penalize or privilege people as the result of the adjectives describing them is equally in error.

    The bottom line is that gay men and women are asking to have privileges that other men and women don’t have. They are asking to be treated differently because of the adjectives attached to them, exactly the opposite of the goals of the civil-rights movement.

    This is not merely the “slippery slope” that people warn of. It is a trap door since ALL variations of human relationships would have to be granted those same privileges.

    The very idea of treating people differently under the law due to individual and group differences flies in the face of the founding ideals of America.

  26. “My real point was about the effect of the civil-rights movement on the Constitution.”

    Freedom??

  27. “The bottom line is that gay men and women are asking to have privileges that other men and women don’t have. They are asking to be treated differently because of the adjectives attached to them, exactly the opposite of the goals of the civil-rights movement.”

    Explain to me how you manage to twist things so much?
    DO you do it on purpose or are you just that twisted in the head?

  28. “Homosexual” IS an adjective, but that’s not my point.”

    Homosexual is a noun as well. My point and everyone else’s point that is pointing maintains you have no point.

    http://www.towerofenglish.com/English-Course-in-Tacoma-Washington-Dolly-S..html

  29. aislander says:

    So…can you treat a person differently under law because of the adjectives “black” and “African-American” modifying the word “man” or “woman?”

*
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