Oh, I don't know where to start with this, really, but I guess a good place is to simply post what this lady had to say:
Is everyone supposed to accept gay marriage now that a Ravens' linebacker and a few other players have put their stamp of approval on it ("Tackling homophobia," Oct. 8)? From the size of the article and the photo of Brendon Ayanbadejo, you would think so, but this is just one man's opinion.
The majority of people still think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. After all, that's the way it's been since the beginning of the human race. The special relationship between the sexes was and always will be essential to the survival of the human race. No amount of approval from athletes can change that.
Let gays and lesbians do their thing, but don't call it marriage. Can't they be creative and come up with a different name? Don't degrade marriage it by linking it to a lifestyle that most theologians and the Bible call immoral.
Mary F. Kollner, Baltimore
Here is a better question, in response to her first question: Is everybody supposed to disagree with gay marriage just because a 2000-year-old book says they should? From this woman's response, you would think so, but this is just one woman's opinion.
Why should religious dogma dictate society's laws? The majority of people of this world are not Christian, and while the majority of this country might be, that doesn't mean their religious dogma should dictate the lives of everybody else in it. If those people do not wish to accept gay marriage, then they do not have to have one.
Mary seems to think that marriage has to deal with procreation and she also suggests that it's been around as long as the human race. On the contrary, anthropologists and social-theorists who understand anything about the history of the institution could tell you that before marriage existed, the human race existed, propigated and repopulated. Not until society existed and permanent settlements became norm did marriage exist. Once society became interested in "I've got mine and you've got yours", an insurance policy against raising children not of your bloodline had to be invented: marriage.
Is everyone supposed to accept gay marriage now that a Ravens' linebacker and a few other players have put their stamp of approval on it ("Tackling homophobia," Oct. 8)? From the size of the article and the photo of Brendon Ayanbadejo, you would think so, but this is just one man's opinion.
The majority of people still think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. After all, that's the way it's been since the beginning of the human race. The special relationship between the sexes was and always will be essential to the survival of the human race. No amount of approval from athletes can change that.
Let gays and lesbians do their thing, but don't call it marriage. Can't they be creative and come up with a different name? Don't degrade marriage it by linking it to a lifestyle that most theologians and the Bible call immoral.
Mary F. Kollner, Baltimore
Here is a better question, in response to her first question: Is everybody supposed to disagree with gay marriage just because a 2000-year-old book says they should? From this woman's response, you would think so, but this is just one woman's opinion.
Why should religious dogma dictate society's laws? The majority of people of this world are not Christian, and while the majority of this country might be, that doesn't mean their religious dogma should dictate the lives of everybody else in it. If those people do not wish to accept gay marriage, then they do not have to have one.
Mary seems to think that marriage has to deal with procreation and she also suggests that it's been around as long as the human race. On the contrary, anthropologists and social-theorists who understand anything about the history of the institution could tell you that before marriage existed, the human race existed, propigated and repopulated. Not until society existed and permanent settlements became norm did marriage exist. Once society became interested in "I've got mine and you've got yours", an insurance policy against raising children not of your bloodline had to be invented: marriage.
1. Source
Posts
Internet Warrior,
ReplyDeleteLet me guess, you are an Obama supporting liberal that still lives in your parent's basement? How dare you take my mother-in-law letter's to the Baltimore Sun and place it on this blog? Why is it that since somebody doesn't agree with you, they are considered stupid? If you don't agree with them, that's fine, but stop being disrespectful.
First, where I live is 100% of no-concern to anything I wrote here, if I owned a mansion, a shack, lived in a commune, lived with my parents, rented a $2000 a month apartment, or live where I live now, it would not matter.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, what my politics happen to be are barely of concern. I pick on both sides here.
As for how dare I write about her letter here and be disrespectful? This blog is all about being disrepectful to people that seem stupid. This is my blog and she wrote to a public newspaper to let her opinion be heard. How dare I write about it here? How about... How dare she have the audacity to make her opinion public, then!
I use this blog to pick on stupid people from both sides of the aisle. Your mother-in-law just happens to be one of them. Your mother-in-law's letter is pathetic, unscientific drivel, through-and-through. She ignores historical facts about marriage in a blatant attempt to shove her beliefs down the throats of others (i.e. "it's not natural because it cannot lead to procreation"). She also throws around the Bible and theology. Last I checked, this isn't a theocracy, and we all have freedom of religion, therefore, religion shouldn't dictate our laws.
I'm sorry that your mother-in-law is a stupid person that chooses to ignore historical facts about marriage and the nature of human romantic relationships, but those are the breaks.
You still never answered my question. What makes someone "stupid"? Because they don't agree with your beliefs?
ReplyDeleteThis is why no one takes your liberals seriously. Everything you do is out of angry and bitterness.
You have your beliefs and she has her beliefs and that's cool, but calling someone "stupid" for their beliefs is not right and you know that.
Nobody takes people like your mother-in-law seriously.
ReplyDeleteARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING THAT LIBERALS ARE THE ANGRY AND BITTER PEOPLE? HELLO, WE'RE NOT THE ONES RESTRICTING PEOPLE'S LIFE CHOICES AND TELLING THEM THEY'RE WRONG FOR BEING IN LOVE.
You are, without a doubt, an idiot. That's what makes someone stupid: the inability to think logically or to keep up their own point. You can't even make a point.