Letters to the Editor

Full story: Baltimore Sun 35
Slicing up rights no path to equality So it has come down to this? One person gets to determine what is on or "off the table" for our civil rights ? My children may get no legal parity because of a guy who ... Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

JBF

Since: Mar 07

Pennington, NJ

#1 Mar 13, 2008
Joseph Melchor wrote:
<quoted text>

So believed our Founding Fathers ... that our rights derive from God, not from government.

Letter-to-the-editor http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/lett...

--------
Was America founded as a Christian Nation? No.

The founding faith was NOT Christianity; and it was not secularism. It was religious liberty including the right to be an atheist.

Listen to Terry Gross interview Steven Waldman. About 39 minutes.

--------

Examining the Origins of America's "Founding Faith"
(Audio -- about 39 minutes)
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlay...

JBF

Since: Mar 07

Pennington, NJ

#2 Mar 13, 2008
Joseph Melchor wrote:
<quoted text>

Nature and nature's God have ordained that marriage, which is the basis of the family, is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.

Letter-to-the-editor http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/lett...

--------
You appear to be mistaken.

Polygamy, divorce and concubines are all part of the Old Testament tradition.

The most commonly approved form of marriage in the past (and the one mentioned most often in the first five books of the Old Testament) was polygamy - one man, many women.

“My favorite key is H sharp”

Since: Jan 08

Glen Burnie, Maryland

#3 Mar 13, 2008
People are very quick to claim the "right" of marriage of two same-sex people, and to its incumbent rights and protections for them.

I wonder if these people are so quick to defend others' right to object to these peoples' lifestyles - or is this going to turn out to be another "my rights are more important than your rights" situation?

“My favorite key is H sharp”

Since: Jan 08

Glen Burnie, Maryland

#4 Mar 13, 2008
JBF - you seem to delight in citing the Bible to suit your needs. I hope you never read the New Testament - you'll have a heart attack when you realize how badly mistaken YOU are.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#5 Mar 13, 2008
Mike Calo wrote:
People are very quick to claim the "right" of marriage of two same-sex people, and to its incumbent rights and protections for them.
And?
Mike Calo wrote:
I wonder if these people are so quick to defend others' right to object to these peoples' lifestyles - or is this going to turn out to be another "my rights are more important than your rights" situation?
Sure, you have the right to object, but, you also have to back up that objection with relevant information. "Sour Grapes" simply doesn't cut it.

JBF

Since: Mar 07

Pennington, NJ

#6 Mar 13, 2008
Mike Calo wrote:
<quoted text>

...these peoples' lifestyles...

Post #3 http://www.topix.com/forum/source/baltimore-s...

--------
Sexual orientation is a choice?

Actually, sexual orientation is determined at birth: it's genetic and involves what happens in the womb. As reported in the New York Times, "Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs."

--------

Pas de Deux of Sexuality Is Written in the Genes
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10ge...

JBF

Since: Mar 07

Pennington, NJ

#7 Mar 13, 2008
Mike Calo wrote:
<quoted text>

...citing the Bible to suit your needs...

Post #3 http://www.topix.com/forum/source/baltimore-s...

--------
You seem confused, Mike.

The Old Testament contradicts one of the letter writers.

The letter writer, Joseph Melchor, claimed that God ordained marriage as the union between one man and one women. The Old Testament contradicts that assertion.

That's because the form of marriage most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament is polygamy --- one man, MANY women.

(Please remember that all it takes to disprove an assertion is a one contradicting example.)

See post #2 http://www.topix.com/forum/source/baltimore-s...
Just as Quick

Baltimore, MD

#8 Mar 13, 2008
Mike Calo wrote:
People are very quick to claim the "right" of marriage of two same-sex people, and to its incumbent rights and protections for them.
I wonder if these people are so quick to defend others' right to object to these peoples' lifestyles - or is this going to turn out to be another "my rights are more important than your rights" situation?
I would say yes, we are. People have everywright to object to other peoples lifestyle. They do not have the right to control it.

If someone disapproves of interraacial marriage they can feel free to state thier objections. They should not how ever be entitled to block it.
Chuck Anziulewicz

Charleston, WV

#9 Mar 13, 2008
DEAR JOSEPH MELCHOR ("State can't redefine nature of marriage"):

That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.

For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else.

The fact remains that the term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no "right" for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least as far as the federal government is concerned. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to.
Ironman Carmichael

Venice, CA

#10 Mar 13, 2008
It's a good thing we have role models like the soon-to-be former Governor of New York to teach us about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
Douger

United States

#11 Mar 13, 2008
"Actually, sexual orientation is determined at birth: it's genetic and involves what happens in the womb. As reported in the New York Times, "Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.""

Hmm...can you provide citations for that?

To the best of my knowledge, the "gay" gene hasn't been isolated.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#12 Mar 13, 2008
Douger wrote:
"Actually, sexual orientation is determined at birth: it's genetic and involves what happens in the womb. As reported in the New York Times, "Human sexual behavior is not a free-form performance, biologists are finding, but is guided at every turn by genetic programs.""
Hmm...can you provide citations for that?
To the best of my knowledge, the "gay" gene hasn't been isolated.
It's right there in the post.
M Johnson

Baltimore, MD

#13 Mar 13, 2008
I think my position has been stated by Ms. Polyak above. All of those who wish to protect marriage and regain its "sanctity" meet me down in Annapolis and pass a law against pre-marital sex, and extra-marital affairs and divorce (all very clearly condemned in the New Testament) and give spousal abuse a mandatory 10 year prison sentence. I suspect that it will be a non-starter. Many seem to be very willing to use the state to pass judgment on everyone else's personal lives until the state starts passing laws to restrict their own.
jay

Baltimore, MD

#14 Mar 13, 2008
Our green governor in a gas guzzling car?
Take a look at tghe real man behind the curtains and wake up Marylanders and vote this self serving jackass out of office!
Mike Brown

Stevensville, MD

#15 Mar 13, 2008
First it will be marriage of same sex couples. Then we will have people wanting to marry their pet Collie. Remember, we aren't allowed to discriminate in the affairs of others, or so the liberals tell us.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Mar 13, 2008
Mike Brown wrote:
First it will be marriage of same sex couples. Then we will have people wanting to marry their pet Collie. Remember, we aren't allowed to discriminate in the affairs of others, or so the liberals tell us.
Oh lordy, we can't have that now can we? Give the ho-mo-SEX-uals equal rights and the next thing you knowo somebody's gonna want to marry Lassie. For crying out loud, why is it that the only people who seem to have this dread of somebody wanting to marry the family pet are the ones who can't be bothered to offer any sort of rational reason to deny lesbians and gays equal rights to marriage? One would hope you would realize that even when the definition is expanded to include us, the basic nature of civil marriage will not change. It will remain a contractual arrangement between two consenting adults in a commitment of kinship. Despite your paranoid fears, even as talented as Lassie is, she never could sign her own contracts or a marriage license for that matter. Sorry, but I can't even give you a nice try on that one. You should actually be rather embarrassed for offerring up that straw dog of an argument...

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#17 Mar 14, 2008
Mike Brown wrote:
First it will be marriage of same sex couples. Then we will have people wanting to marry their pet Collie. Remember, we aren't allowed to discriminate in the affairs of others, or so the liberals tell us.
Ah, the strawman raises it's head.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#18 Mar 14, 2008
Mike Calo wrote:
People are very quick to claim the "right" of marriage of two same-sex people, and to its incumbent rights and protections for them.
I wonder if these people are so quick to defend others' right to object to these peoples' lifestyles - or is this going to turn out to be another "my rights are more important than your rights" situation?
Why would a minority feel that others have the "right" to deny them equal civil rights? Gay people have no one "lifestyle"--we make no choice to be gay, yet our marriages are not recognozed by our government, unlike the marriages of other citizens. Our families are considered second class, despite the contributions we make and the taxes we pay.

I absolutely believe that all people have a right to their own thoughts, but when those thoughts are translated into actions that DIRECTLY HARM OTHERS, those actions should not and will not be accepted by any sane person in this country.

Your "right" to harm me, my spouse, and my kids does not trump my right to the same civil rights enjoyed by you and your family.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#19 Mar 14, 2008
Mike Brown wrote:
First it will be marriage of same sex couples. Then we will have people wanting to marry their pet Collie. Remember, we aren't allowed to discriminate in the affairs of others, or so the liberals tell us.
Ah, so my beautiful, loving spouse is on the same
legal level as a dog? My children are compared with the fictionalized offspring of bestiality?

When dogs can make legal choices and sign contracts, your statement might be a bit less idiotic. When do you think that will happen?
Jen

Maryland Heights, MO

#20 Mar 20, 2008
Mike Calo wrote:
People are very quick to claim the "right" of marriage of two same-sex people, and to its incumbent rights and protections for them.
I wonder if these people are so quick to defend others' right to object to these peoples' lifestyles - or is this going to turn out to be another "my rights are more important than your rights" situation?
Mike, you do have the right to object. It's called free speech. You do not, however, have the "right" to take away others' equal rights. You have confused apples and oranges. Let me help you. Compare the following 1. Your right to think and say aloud that black people are inferior and should not be allowed to attend U.S. universities WITH 2. Your "right" to have blacks not attend universities because you think they shouldn't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Catonsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: United National Moving and Storage (Mar '14) Sep 12 Julie Lockwood 28
Fulton community to testify against proposed co... Sep 10 ctider 1
Brooklyn Park residents get educated on gang ac... (Oct '09) Sep 5 pico 9
Brekford Launches Body-Worn Evidence Video System Sep 5 Cephas01 1
Milford Mill students get a boost before they g... Aug 30 jbzook 2
Fight erupts outside Randallstown High graduation Aug 30 jbzook 2
Competition for snowball stands heats up Aug '14 Ynette 1
•••
•••
•••

Catonsville Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Catonsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Catonsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Catonsville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••