In response to ‘Family Values’ in Aug. 10 issue, allowing gay couples who work for the state to receive medical benefits: What is wrong with Americans? What are we afraid of? That gay will “rub off” and my kid will choose gay? That gays are the cause of our government challenges? No! No! No!
The article stated “... producing children into stable unions that will raise those children in the circumstances that have proven optimal.” Now I am a mother of three and heterosexual. A “stable union” to me is two adults who work together, uplift, adore each other, have a loving intimate relationship. Just because I’m married does not guarantee this “stable union.” Look at all the divorces “proven optimal” by whom? Is there love and kindness in the home? Is there physical sustenance to help the child be healthy? I think that should be the “optimal environment.”
At least the gays have a job, and are paying taxes and buying homes, and food and clothing. They contribute to society. My gay friends are amazing people; they are fun, happy, productive citizens of the US.
Let’s leave the gay issues alone. Gay is not a disease. Let’s focus on what will build America: cooperation, respect, being self-sufficient.
Ilene Whipple
Gilbert
Engaged Voter posted at 7:14 pm on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
Well said Ilene!
I anticipate an influx of hateful homophobic comments to follow in the near future.
Not pessimism, just experience with the posters on this forum. ;)
Dale Whiting posted at 7:27 pm on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
Ilene,
May I ditto Engaged Voter's comments.
And I appologize for the headline choosen by our editors. Clearly you do not classify anything about Gay issues as being problematic for society. It is those who do classify gay issues as problematic who are the problem. And judging from the headline, that group includes our editors!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:39 pm on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
Marriage has always been a "blending" of a man and a woman to establish a home and procreate. If gays or lesbians or trans-genders or trans-sexuals or cross-dressers want to establish a home = great.
But to say that all gay (and the above groups) have stable, loving and caring homes is a bunch of baloney. Or that "ALL" homosexual groups are "amazing, tax-paying, job-holding, fun, happy productive Citizens of the US = again = B.A.L.O.N.E.Y.
As for being ...."homophobic"....about bringing up obvious arguments about gay marriage = you are the ones with the phobia against facts and the truth....and what happened to all that ..............."CIVIL DISCOURSE"...that the Libs and Obama were preaching to America after the Tucson Shootings.......boy, that ended quick....if it ever began.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:58 pm on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
P.S....growing up in Los Angeles and working in and socializing with the Airline-Travel Agency-Cruise Line groups that the so-called "MARRIAGE"....portrayed by Robin Williams and Nathan Lane in the old movie...."THE BIRD CAGE"...is more the ...."NORM"....than the ..."EXTREME".
Engaged Voter posted at 9:22 pm on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
Ah, another parrot squawking about "traditional" marriage.
Leon, maybe you can answer this (none of the other homophobe commenters have had the fortitude to answer) - Where does this Tradition of a "one man, one woman" marriage come from? You seem to think it's a worldwide NORM (it isn't), so you probably have no idea where it came from. But surprise me, tell us where!
Abstract01 posted at 11:57 pm on Thu, Aug 16, 2012.
One man and one woman marriages are more than traditions. These were set down as the rule when there was only one man and one woman on the earth!
The aberration of having more than one spouse, or of allowing the privileges of marriage without the commitment became the "norm" when men (and women) chose to no longer be guided by a higher purpose.
The God of the Old Testament has two sets of rules for behavior. The one that most people are familiar with (the Ten Commandments) is a lesser law. These ten commandments were instituted because the people could not (or would not) strive to obey a higher law, so it was not required (otherwise, nobody would avoid condemnation).
This is similar, if you will, to the rules for graduating from high school, and the rules for qualifying for honor roll. The higher reward requires better behavior and more diligent performance.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:49 am on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
The list of hateful homophobic comments
1) Abstract101
So far, not as bad as Engaged Voter likely imagined!
Leon's are anti-gay but not so much hateful and homophopic. He's not affraid of gays, nor does he appear to despise them. But still, as Ilene suggests, Leon could use more focus on "cooperation, respect, [and] being self-sufficient."
CSalafia posted at 8:32 am on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
"One man and one woman marriages are more than traditions. These were set down as the rule when there was only one man and one woman on the earth! "
1st - The story of Adam and Eve is allegorical.
2nd - They weren't married.
"The aberration of having more than one spouse, or of allowing the privileges of marriage without the commitment became the "norm" when men (and women) chose to no longer be guided by a higher purpose."
Wow.. I wonder if God knew that when he sanctioned multiple wives and concubines in scripture....starting with Abraham.
Engaged Voter posted at 9:17 am on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
"These were set down as the rule when there was only one man and one woman on the earth!"
Oh great, another Holocaust denier.
"The aberration of having more than one spouse, or of allowing the privileges of marriage without the commitment became the "norm" when men (and women) chose to no longer be guided by a higher purpose."
One problem - you imply the Bible is the source of this...and the Bible is FULL of polygamy, concubines, sex slaves, and even rules on how to get rid of a wife you don't like! There are even at least two stories where INCEST is condoned! You are confused if you think the Bible endorses a "one man, one woman" union, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT.
Now, would one of you "traditional" people grow a spine, step up, and once and for all tell us where your idea of "traditional" marriage comes from, because it sure isn't anywhere in your holy book.
VofReason posted at 2:54 pm on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
Hey good points. If gay people have children adopted by the not natural parent and all live together in the same house, let them be treated like a married couple for State Health Coverage. So homosexuals make up 3-5% of the population and I will guess a small % of those have children. So I agree, this doesn't amount to anything in the big scheme of things. However, it shouldn't extend to "casual" relationships with children or without in the same way that heterosexual uncommitted couples should not be extended benefits. Problem solved
Engaged Voter posted at 3:51 pm on Fri, Aug 17, 2012.
VofReason, where in the article is it even implied that gay couples are trying to get anything other than equal rights? Your specious claim of "it shouldn't extend to "casual" relationships with children" is a complete fabrication (lie). No one is asking for that.
Oops! Busted again! [beam]
sockratties posted at 11:53 am on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
If anyone is worried about gays taking over, forget it. Evolution doesn't allow groups who don't reproduce to propagate. If they are caretakers for the children of others who have abandoned their responsibility, so much the better.
The Ten Commandments are a Christian standard, but are a social agenda designed to establish three things that were tantamount to survival at the time Moses myths were being handed down. First; the unity and stability of the family such as honoring parents and avoiding adultery. Second; social rules such as theft and murder. Third; sanctity of the Church and God. Family, society and the Church. Other religions have similar tenets such as the Buddhist Eight-Fold Path, the Tao-Te-Ching of Taoism and the Sutras of Hinduism. The egocentric character of Christianity is not unique among religions but applies blinders to those who practice it.
In regards to the letter, there is no reason civil unions shouldn't be provided as a function of law. Insurance companies and lawyers don't want to lose revenue and those who pay benefits stand to make less from a couple than two individuals. Politicians love to pontificate about family values but confuse law with religion. Taxes are also reduced for couples. Civil unions should provide two individuals who chose to join in a civil union the same rights and privileges as those who chose a traditional male-female marriage. Civil unions are administrative and legal concerns. Marriages belong in a church, temple, mosque or synagog and should include a civil union contract.
VofReason posted at 1:33 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
OK let me explain. The State doesn't have free money to hand out to everyone and people should primamrily be responsible for themselves. If I have a current girlfriend, should I be able to ask the State or any employer to cover my girlfriend for Health Insurance. Of course not. Why should gay people? Should polygamists get coverage for all their wives?
Engaged Voter posted at 11:08 am on Thu, Aug 23, 2012.
I just knew someone would try the Polygamy Fallacy.
Just like the opponents of interracial marriage...at least he didn't try to bring bestiality into the conversation (yet)!