November 9, 2009 9:44:00 AM
Hooray for pro-life and traditional family values!
I wish to congratulate the voters of Maine -- one of the most liberal states in the Union -- for rejecting the counterfeit and oxymoronic notion "same-sex marriage."
Homosexual activists are hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be wrong and a dead end. They remind me of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner.
The vote is significant because we are dealing with forced affirmation of homosexuality -- under penalty of law. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children.
Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which the question has been put to a popular vote.
The time has come for a federal amendment banning homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Gerry Jones, Columbus
A Gay late and a dollar short commented at 11/9/2009 2:19:00 PM:
Maine commented at 11/9/2009 3:03:00 PM:
I am not "one of the most liberal states in the Union." Outside of the biggest cities I am quite redneck and backwards, like some other states I could mention.
Mainer commented at 11/9/2009 11:45:00 PM:
I'm proud of the folks back home. Thanks for voting it down. I was told along time ago that Mainers were rednecks but didn't know it. Now that I have lived in the south for more than a decade I can see that this is true. But rednecks are good folks just like Mainers.
Support Gay Rights commented at 11/10/2009 12:09:00 AM:
After reading the narrow-minded and ignorant comments of Gerry Jones, I felt compelled to respond to this "hate-speak".
Let's begin by examining the incorrect use of the word "oxymoronic". The term refers to a situation in which two contradictory words or phrases, such as "poor little rich girl", are combined. The term "same-sex marriage" can only be considered oxymoronic if one adopts a myopic viewpoint as to which members of society are to be accorded both the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
How presumptuous and insulting of Jones to refer to homosexual activists as "hurting and broken"! I am privileged to have many gay friends, and they lead vibrant, productive lives. In many cases, when they are hurting it is due to being treated like second-class citizens or not being able to express their feelings for one another in public, as heterosexuals can.
Once again, some clarification regarding word usage seems to be in order. Jones refers to an "objectively deviant lifestyle". A quick check of my dictionary indicates that one definition of "objectively" is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased". Given this information, Jones has apparently confused "objectively" with "subjectively", one definition of which is "placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric".
What magical powers has Jones been endowed with to be able to be able to see into "their heart of hearts"?
To equate the sexual orientation of homosexuals with "spoiled children...refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner" is utterly disingenuous, and, at best, incredibly simplistic. It has long ago been established, by widely-recognized experts and organizations in the fields of medicine and psychiatry, that homosexuality is neither a mental disorder nor a "choice", despite the protestations of many right-wing evangelicals, who choose to ignore established scientific facts (Can you say "global warming"?).
Yet again, Jones exhibits poor judgment in regards to word choice (or, perhaps this is intentional) in referring to the "forced affirmation of homosexuality". "Affirmation" is defined as "the assertion that something exists or is true". There is no doubt as to whether homosexuality exists. What is really being decided is whether homosexuals will be accorded the same rights that are bestowed upon heterosexuals. Not too long ago, both women and African-Americans were denied basic civil rights that were enjoyed by, respectively, men and Caucasians. Would Jones argue that those two demographic groups should not have been given equal protection under the law?
Jones then falls back on that old catchphrase of the evangelical right: "minds and souls of our children", as if affording equal rights to gay people represents some sinister threat to children everywhere.
In the letter's closing sentence, Jones displays one last example of ignorance, in advocating a "federal amendment banning homosexuality and same-sex marriage". Unfortunately, it is possible to ban same-sex marriage. However, homosexuality cannot be banned any more than having red hair or being nearsighted can be banned.
One last thought - for those individuals who choose to selectively advocate a literal interpretation of bible verses, viewing the following YouTube video may prove enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI.
Mainer commented at 11/10/2009 10:51:00 AM:
Gays can have rights as individuals, just like everyone else. But it is unnatural for same sex to be together. Look at nature. What if the ark had been loaded two by two with the same sex?
A gay late and a dollar short commented at 11/10/2009 11:36:00 AM:
I support gay rights as well, but your condescending style and obvious attempt to sound more intelligent than you are is wasted on someone like Gerry. This is about gay rights, not about you and your fancy dictionary.
KJ commented at 11/10/2009 12:16:00 PM:
Yes, bigots won in Maine, as they have here in Mississippi and elsewhere. But even with churches brainwashing children from birth and filling their little minds with hatred for others, bigots won't be able to stop the inexorable march of progress towards the promise of equality made by the Declaration of Independence. Best celebrate now, bigots, because the future is going to erase the stain of your hatred soon enough.
nungwa commented at 11/10/2009 12:57:00 PM:
Gerry Jones is BOGUS! Letters to the Editor identical to this one have been sent to more than 10 papers. Each time Gerry portrays him/herself as local.
Either Gerry gets around, or Gerry's been lying.
MB commented at 11/10/2009 1:10:00 PM:
If homosexuality was right and normal then the individuals involved would be able to procreate with each other. Churches do not brainwash people but are teaching what the bible says. Since when is teaching what is right by the bible and by science brainwashing? People trying to justify un-natural behavior are the ones doing the brainwashing. Just because someone does not agree with a lifestyle because it is un-natural does not make them bigots!! The people voted and it was decided that the majority does not support the lifestyle of a few individuals. If you allow same sex marriage then where do you draw the line? Are we going to start allowing people to marry animals? Are we going to start allowing polygamy? Are we going to start allowing older people to marry young teenagers or minors? We have to draw the line somewhere and if you give in to one you will have to give in to another.
JC commented at 11/10/2009 1:38:00 PM:
If you allow men and women to marry each other then it is almost inevitable that you must allow pigs to marry toasters. It's a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line?
I say we draw it just this side of whatever my personal bigotry is.
JC commented at 11/10/2009 1:42:00 PM:
Oh, and it appears nungwa is correct about the bogusness of Gerry Jones (Google "gerry jones hooray for maine"). Way to go, Dispatch!
KJ commented at 11/11/2009 3:38:00 PM:
It's brainwashing if, with no undue outside influence, people are not spontaneously capable of discovering your god, your resurrection beliefs, or your particular set of values. If we didn't allow kids to have their heads stuffed with religious beliefs as children, precious few of them would decide as adults that they made any sense. Teaching the laws of physics wouldn't qualify, since they are discoverable on their own by rational and curious folks.
Not agreeing with a lifestyle doesn't make you a bigot. Codifying discrimination through a majority vote does.
The line is two people marrying one another. Fear-mongering about bestiality is another indication of bigotry. And a rather grotesque one at that. As far as polygamy goes, it has historically been the norm. Marrying just one person, for love, for life, has not. Heterosexual marriage today in the U.S. is very different than it was when the country was founded. Today, it isn't homosexual couples ruining marriage. It's people who take advantage of no-fault divorce, it's people who are pressured into bad marriages because of a ridiculous and unrealistic abstinence message from churches, it's the David Vitters and Newt Gingriches of the world who consistently pander to a religious-leaning constituency but divorce their cancer-suffering wives on their death beds and spend their free time in Washington with call girls.
If Mississippi cared about marriage, Mississippi would address divorce, not homosexuals. But Mississippi doesn't care about marriage more than it cares about denying equal rights to homosexuals, and that, my friend, is bigotry.
Megan Morgan commented at 11/13/2009 5:12:00 PM:
Marriage is a civil right. You cannot vote on civil rights. You cannot put them up for a referendum. They are naturally possessed by the citizens of a country. If we'd had to wait for popular assent in granting excluded groups their basic rights, we'd still live in a slave-owning country where women and men who didn't own property couldn't vote. I am tired of hearing people say that the "people have spoken." The people are WRONG.
Abraham commented at 11/14/2009 9:02:00 AM:
May I ask a silly question? What part of the constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry?
alderaan20 commented at 11/15/2009 7:41:00 PM:
Talk about your traditional bible-thumping, poorly educated dolt. A federal ban on homosexuality? Have you even ever been outside of your little southern hole? Wow. Every time our country tries to accept anything outside of Christian ideals, it gets rejected by narrow minded holy-rollers. What next? A ban on any religion other than Christianity? Good luck with that. A large portion of our big ole world has views and practices that would make your little brain melt with confusion. It's called basic human rights. Individual liberties. Aperson's rights are meant to extend so far a to not infringe on the liberties of others. But you wouldn't know that. The south is reknowned for it's poor education. And poorly educated people are easy to control. History is filled with examples of poorly educated cultures being controlled by the church. You may be pinging at the fact that someone else's lifestyle contradicts with what you read in some fiction book, but remember we are founded on separation of church and state. In case you need an explanation, it means government is restricted from making laws based on religion. Somehow they seem to get through, mostly in the south, but it is unconstitutional. Like the dry county laws.
Now please excuse me while I await the Baptist lynch mob at my doorstep. You guys still do that, right?
anonymous commented at 11/15/2009 7:53:00 PM:
And will people please quit using biblical references in place of facts? The bible is not fact. Science is. A large portion of the world doesn't even regard the bible, which brings light to the fact that it's not some all-inclusive reference to explain everything in life.
alderaan20 commented at 11/15/2009 8:59:00 PM:
And part make it ok for heterosexuals to marry? I believe you'll find the answers the same. And that, cupcake, is a classic double standard.
Abraham commented at 11/17/2009 9:02:00 AM:
alderaan20, which of your posts above addresses my question? Please forgive me for my not understanding what you intended to convey. Thanks in advance for your reply.
Abraham commented at 11/17/2009 9:11:00 AM:
Anonymous, you said, "The bible is not fact. Science is." I guess it would depend upon how you view the Bible and science as to what degree you believe they are factual.
For the record, there is no book of science. What many people call science today is simply interpretations of various data. So I guess you can understand it if some people like my self do not accept these interpretations as fact.
I think we waste our time in these discussions if we are not willing to open up our thinking to examine the challenges of others who do not agree that a certain position has a factual basis.
KJ commented at 11/18/2009 2:28:00 PM:
The answer to your question, Abraham, is that there is a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Because we make a secular civil institution called "marriage" available to heterosexuals via law, homosexuals are entitled to the same access.
A common refutation to this is that homosexuals can get married: to spouses of the opposite sex. However, this is not an equal outcome and therefore spurious. In general, homosexuals have no agenda to destroy marriage. The goal is participation in, not destruction of, the civil institution.
None of this has anything to do with access to religious ceremonies or facilities, except insofar as they qualify as "public" facilities and are subject to anti-discrimination ordinances in return for tax breaks or similar consideration by government. And it isn't about criminalizing christianity or limiting free speech. It's about the ability to participate. But what we see time and time again is religious bullies--who believe that their freedom of religion includes the right to impose their belief and value system on the general public--claiming that they are the victims of a very small percentage of the population.
Hope that helps.
Abraham commented at 11/19/2009 8:25:00 AM:
KJ, just saw your comments. Thanks for sharing your explanation. If you don't mind, could you make this post in the thread "Same-sex marriage" thread (http://www.cdispatch.com/opinions/article.asp?aid=3757)? That way we can have the discussion under one thread. Thanks in advance for you considering my request.
Anonymous commented at 11/19/2009 9:55:00 PM:
Abraham, you make a good point about interpretation. But that gives another counterpoint. Since there are so many interpretations and viewpoints, how can we only accept one as law? My question was in respone to the question where the law stated it was legal for homosexual to marry. But where does it say heterosexuals can? It doesn't. The right is implied by not being denied.
Abraham commented at 11/20/2009 11:59:00 PM:
Anonymous, you ask, "Since there are so many interpretations and viewpoints, how can we only accept one as law?" I believe we ought to accept an "interpretation" over another ONLY if the evidence dictates that we do. Many interpretations can be excluded by evidence and reasoning. If we are talking about the constitution, then it seems that we need to interpret it as the original framers intended. Is there any one today who believes that the framers of the constitution intended to grant same sexes as a part of marriage? If not, then to me, it is not reasonable to "interpret" marriage in such a way that it includes same sexes. Just my thoughts.