To Steve S. wrote on Jan 3, 2007 4:08 PM:
" Like Jim Muir, you seem to have a disconnect between life as a child and life in the big real world. Of course life was much less complicated in the 1950s - you were a child experiencing it from a sheltered and narrow environment. For your own parents, life was likely much less complicated in the 1930's. Why make the 1950's some target date for the end of social development?
Hmm...the marvelous 50's...school segregation, McCarthy witch hunts, beginning involvement in Vietnam, nuclear bomb drills in the public schools, rigid family roles, even more rigid color barriers, and everyone pretended to be much more pure than they were. That was a time of orphanages in every city of any size, illiget children being born in hidden facilities, people shamed for life just because they got pregnant (well, except the man involved). . .yeah. . .it was a great time for straight white men who could keep the little woman home, make the blacks drink at separate water fountains, and ship the gays off for electric shock "treatment." Ahh...if a woman wore a red dress, she was a hoe...if a man raped someone she was "asking for it"...no interracial marriage cuz God didn't like it. . .maybe it was so simple back then. That was when the minority hetero white male controlled everything with a system of ironclad "traditions" which used the Bible as backup to enforce hegemony in this 'free" country.
"
Lyn Schmidt wrote on Dec 30, 2006 9:20 AM:
" In my opinion it matters what is in your heart and your actions, NOT the color of your skin, religion or sexual orientation. Remember "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, be they yellow black or white, they are precious in his sight. . as are ALL decent human beings! "
To Steve S. wrote on Dec 29, 2006 11:24 PM:
" if your loved one had diabetes, would you tell them to avoid insulin since it isn't natural, is derived from cows or other animals and created in a laboratory? Or tell a friend with a dying child to not treat leukemia since the cure is derived from technology and biochemistry and it is more natural to just let the child die? Or tell your mother if she developed breast cancer not to seek treatment since dying from breast cancer was how it was in the olden days and she should just accept her fate and die a natural and painful death? Dying from disease used to be a unavoidable FACT twenty years ago or fifty years ago. It isn't always a fact today since there are a whole lot of survivors out there who would be six feet other if not for medical science. Maybe there are man-made or natural laws, but scientific advances are also man-made and are available because someone with God-given talents figured out how to cure disease. If the Almighty didn't want these researchers to figure it out, the Almighty would have stopped them from finding answers. Treatment for any disease, terminal or not, is between a patient and their doctor and if it my loved one who has a malfunctioning organ, I am going to support their choice to get whatever treatment remedies their illness. Quality of life can be improved by medicine and it is the patient's choice whether or not to pursue all options for treatment. It's their body and their life, not mine. "
Melody wrote on Dec 29, 2006 10:34 PM:
" To WIT; HIV and AIDS is not just a Homosexual affliction. I know people who have contracted HIV and AIDS and have never been in such a relationship. AND EVEN IF it was, if homosexuals were allowed to legally wed. Then there might be less of an epidimic among them. As, a binding, legal arrangement tends to help keep one from going astray. If they were legally married they would have to think about the consiquences of going outside a marriage looking for gratification. Just as, a Hetrosexual couple has to think before they leap. There are many facets to a divorice, like splitting the wealth, home, vehicles and yes, children. I know if it came to deciding what I was or wasn't going to do, outside my marriage, I sure would think long and hard before I lost everything I had worked so hard for. Most Gay relationships would be the same way, and maybe so much of the Gay, HIV and AIDS connection you mentioned, wouldn't be an issue at all. "
Steve S. wrote on Dec 29, 2006 8:43 PM:
" There will always be criminals... Always have, always will. Seems now however, criminals have found new ways to defile themselves so I guess crime is being tinkered with too. Not many positives there which I think was part of my point. Another way that things have been tinkered with is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime anymore thus more heinous crimes. May have to go with the death penalty for parking violations to even it up. A bit more conservative on that front. I was a child of the 50's and it just seemed life was less complicated or violent then. Maybe going back to those ideals just might improve things. Wishful thinking on my part but it probably wouldn't hurt. "
To Steve S. wrote on Dec 29, 2006 12:42 PM:
" I guess your "natural order" argument would also explain why rapists, murderers, child sexual predators, spousal abusers and child abusers are all naturally afforded 'marriages" which procure hundreds of benefits but cannot be terminated solely by the state.
Since rape and violence are an inherent part of human culture, this explains why con-servatives are so hesitant about questioning the rights of those heterosexuals to engage in relationships. "
wit wrote on Dec 28, 2006 12:04 PM:
" It a sad commentary on the moral state of the USA when all we have to talk about is sex. I'm with some of these others who suggest that gays and heterosexuals alike keep what they do behind closed doors to themselves. Gays and many straights have such a perverted view of sex. We in this nation are obsessed with it. I believe our Creator made us to enjoy monogamous sex with our spouses and that any sex beyond this is sin. Christianity aside, look at the physical impact and cost of promiscuous sex. The HIV virus is spreading the fastest in the homosexual male and prostitute populations. I recently read that it costs around six hundred thousand dollars to treat one aids patient throughout the course of a lifetime. Millions of dollars are being spent on aids research every year. This disease could be irradicated in a fairly short amount of time if we would just control our selfish urges. "
Steve S. wrote on Dec 28, 2006 11:20 AM:
" Don't need anymore laws.. The ones in place whether man made or otherwise are sufficient. The problem here seems to be that human beings can't seem to be satisfied with the way some things were originally set up or intended. They have to tinker with it often with more negative than positive results. This breaks down into many areas but for the subject here, just don't think the way things were intended can be improved on. Sure some males or females are infertile,, a reason for that too. After seeing some of these kids today, probably a few more should have not procreated but that's a story for another day. "
hi so illinois wrote on Dec 27, 2006 11:08 PM:
" to silent majority. there is nothing wrong with being white, xian, hetero, prolife, etc. but this group of people has the history of being extremely intolerant of other groups of people. should we get into them or will you open a history book on your own? to lancelot. did you see the movie borat it was full of them and honestly i dont want them to have rights. that is a joke but as with all jokes it is half truth. and finally kudos to mr pitts for writing this article. yes the subject is old and beaten to death. all people (gay and str8)please keep what you do in the bedroom in the bedroom but please i would like to have the option of marrying my boyfriend if it ever were to come to that. "
To Steve S. wrote on Dec 27, 2006 6:16 PM:
" Uh. . .so what's your point? That men and women need some 1,500 special rights laws to discipline and regulate their behavior because that was why they were put on earth?
We know there are people who can't reproduce. We also know they get married all the time. We know there are people born without specific genital development enough to be either a man or woman; the doctor and family makes the gender decision.
So what does being able to procreate have to do with making medical decisions, funeral arrangements and have automatic access to a partner's property? You can't testify in court against a spouse because you two "fit" together and can procreate? Give me a break. . . "
doesn't always take two wrote on Dec 27, 2006 5:36 PM:
" a recent news report said a monitor lizard who resides in a zoo has produced two fertile eggs with out the aid of a male lizard. they say she will only produce males in this manner so as to jump start steve s's contention. its said other members of the animal world have this same capability so as , i would guess, to forgo go their becoming extinct. guess steve s might be partly right if one only considers reproduction. i have to believe there's way more to life than just reproduction. so saying people who are prewired for something other than the majority have an up hill battle that has finally came to a place where they don't have to hide their feelings unless their of the rev teddie type or a foley kinda guy. i reckon since hetero's don't have to choose then niether should a gay person have to either. i'll admit my being agnostic allows me more room on this one than some christians allow them selves. demo50 had it right when he said live and let live. silent majority has lost sight of the job our ancestors did on the indians and the fact they pretty well had it made before our forebears showed up. they were living off the land as opposed to our supermarket life style. ask them how they feel about our ancestors destroying their life style that had ran longer than ours has. and you feel put upon silent majority ? "
To NoNonses wrote on Dec 27, 2006 12:01 PM:
" So what you are trying to say here is that if the gays stayed invisible and reserved your right to steal their property, dictate how they can be buried and who makes their medical decisions, they are just fine? But I suppose it's "in-your-face" for an obituary, for example, to mention the name of their gay partner. . .even though its about them and not you. . .
I'm still waiting for some heterosupremacist to explain why any gay citizen of this country is supposed to give a damn about his/her opinion of gays? Or is there some reason why that should carry more weight than, say, some straight person who marries someone you think is wrong for them? "
To Silent Majority wrote on Dec 27, 2006 11:57 AM:
" Hmm...I don't think that list is a qualification for racist, homophobic bigotry. Of course, tantrums screaming about how white, male, "christian," heterosexuals should practice tyranny because they are the "majority" and the only ones deserving of special rights is. . .well, bigotry. One would think con-servatives who practice such a philosophy would be proud instead of trying to claim they are victimized because they don't "accept" someone different. Why is it that you think your opinion of others matters to anyone unless you believe you are superior? "
Steve S. wrote on Dec 27, 2006 10:21 AM:
" My own feelings apart here, I did not say gay was right nor did I say it was wrong. What I said was,, that for whatever reason, males and females were put on this planet just as different races were put here. A bunch of you are questioning that FACT. There IS a reason for it no matter what any of you want to surmise. Now, what you people think you can do to change these FACTS is up to you. I know what I'm going to do. You all can risk changing it if you want to. That's on you. I just happen to think it's a pretty good arrangement the way it was originally set up. But that's me. "
no nonsense makes sense wrote on Dec 27, 2006 7:52 AM:
" Hmmmsez; I'm bored with the gay thang and its seemingly endless perpetuity here abouts on various S I articles from time to time and the accompanying back and forth it generates between the heteros and gays be they pro or con. That sentence is as long and drawn out as is this seemingly never ending discourse. Like demo50 sez: Live and let live, and like nononsense sez: Keep it to your self unless of course its discourse between friends. Enough already. ...Adios "
lil help here wrote on Dec 26, 2006 8:47 PM:
" The fear runs deep in so ill.
Sad.
Fear is taught.
You can't catch gay.
Pigment offers protection from the sun.
Someone else being gay doesn't take one "Gold brick" out of your street in heaven.
Spewing hate speech might.
Sin =Sin, All people sin. WHy is that hard?
Steven? que? "
To:steve and his reasons wrote on Dec 26, 2006 8:37 PM:
" Who knows maybe the reaosn there are different races is God's way of testing us,(steve you might want to look into remedial social sensitivity training).
It would be much too easy to get along if there weren't any differences amongst people...
but if thats the case that puts people like.. steve and others outside the grace and or will of God.
So what if gay is wrong. Pointing it out and spreading indifference,(which is the true opposite of love, and if God is love then...wel.....)is just as wrong.
"
natural/unnatural wrote on Dec 26, 2006 6:20 PM:
" Science has redefined what's natural or unnatural. So has the civil rights movement, politics, religion. "
Democrat50 wrote on Dec 26, 2006 3:48 PM:
" To Infertile Chick: My argument (well it is really a cribbed version of US News and World Report contributing editor John Leo) is pertinent because the crux of the anti-homosexual rights crowd is that "gay marriage is unnatural." Along that same line, invitro-fertilization is also unnatural (don't worry, I still support it). Look at the recent news surrounding Mary Cheney, and the fallout from the religious right. My philosophy is live and let live. We are all Americans and we all benefit from the 5th and 14th Amendments which provide for the equal protection of the law both at the state and federal level. To me, equal rights means equal rights. A person travels down a dangerous path when attempting to split hairs with the substantive clauses of our nation's fundemental rights and freedoms. "
Infertile chick wrote on Dec 26, 2006 2:39 PM:
" Democrat 50, most people do not know they are infertile until they have been married awhile. There is no medical test to prove or disprove the ability to procreate until a couple actually tries to procreate and fails. That's how infertility is diagnosed. A year of trying to get pregnant naturally and no pregnancy results. With or without medical intervention, you don't know if a pregnancy will result in a living child until a full-term pregnancy and birth occurs. So, following your logic, how can you prohibit marriage of the infertile? There is no way to identify who is infertile with accuracy. Plenty of tests to try to figure out the reason someone can't concieve but no doctor runs those tests until the patient tries for at least a year and fails. Sorry, I don't see how this argument of yours fits with the topic in any way whatsoever. To whoever says that a lesbian couple can't procreate, ever heard of donor sperm? Gay men can also elect to find a surrogate to carry a pregancy for them, provide the donor eggs and become parents in that way. The stork isn't the only source for building a family anymore. For some parents, where babies come from is the test tube or the adoption agency. Although China just changed their rules so unmarried adoptive clients can't adopt anymore from that country. Things changed a long time ago with the first in vitro child, who is now a mother herself. I guess most of the world who gets pregnant without a doctor present in the room at the time of conception doesn't understand the reality of it. "
Silent majority wrote on Dec 26, 2006 12:25 PM:
" "Lancelot" is right on the money (I hope he wasn't being sarcastic because there is a lot of truth in his statement). Isn't it sad how multi-culturalism and diversity has diluted our society? If you're white, heterosexual, Christian, pro-life, work hard (and honest) for your money, are married, and have kids, you're basically considered a hateful racist. Well, I guess Southern Illinois is full of hateful racists like me. "
NoNonses wrote on Dec 24, 2006 8:47 AM:
" I just still can't understand how skin color = sex. I believe comparing the civil rights movement with the gay movement is like comparing apples with oranges. I am anti-gay but not anti-people. I work with a gay, see gays everyday, etc. My 'prejudices' come from experiences I have had with the 'in your face' gay people that want to force me to accept their sexuality. Guess what? Do what you want in your house but don't shove it in my face. Don't brag about your escapeds. Don't talk about your antics. I'm not anti-sex but I believe sex is very personal and beautiful. Yes, I can't even stand to hear hetrosexuals brag about their antics because it cheapens the act. Am I then a fear monger because of my 'anti' or is it possible my experiences have changed my views? Whining and protesting does not help your effert with me. Instead it makes you an 'in my face' person, too. "
lancelot wrote on Dec 24, 2006 7:21 AM:
" you have rights as long as you are NOT a white,straight,religous,pro-american flag waving,child loving,southern born,politically incorrect,conservative,gun owning,christmas celebrating,not on public assistance,drug-free,country music dancing,marlboro cowboy,meat eating,all around good ole boy who can think for himself. "
Abe I. wrote on Dec 23, 2006 11:19 AM:
" For my fellow Christians:
It seems to me that same sex marriage is the flagship issue of the gay rights movement and the opposition to it. I have never hear anyone classified as anti-gay openly propose housing or job discrimination based on sexual orientation, however it always seems to come back to marriage. May I, as a conservative evangelical Christian, offer my opinion?
The biggest problem is our definition of marriage. Marriage as a civil institution is not at all related to marriage as defined in the Bible. For example marriage, as defined by our government, can be dissolved. Biblically marriage can't be dissolved for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness (Mt 5: 31-33), however the divorce rate in evangelical churches is the same as that of secular society. The fact is, no government can legislate a Biblical marriage, which should be the only marriage we are to concern ourselves with. If laws are passed allowing same sex marriage, it would be no more or less of an offense to the Christian institute of marriage than would be a marriage between two lost straight people. There are thousands of heterosexual marriages woefully out of accordance with God's will. "The Sacred Marriage" by Gary Thomas is an excellent resource for married couples earnestly pursuing a God honoring marriage.
It is a delicate dance to toe the line of purity and holiness and to live a life of obedience in a lost and dying world. I firmly believe that homosexuallity is inherently contrary to the will of God, however so is premarital sex, marital unfaithfulness, pornography, lust, and other trappings which naturally ensare Chirstians and non-believers alike. "
Steve S. wrote on Dec 23, 2006 10:31 AM:
" Boy some of you people sure read things into what I said.... I'm just waiting for two females or two males to produce a child. Things are the way they are for a reason. There is a reason for there being different races, there is a reason we have males and females. Trying to change things has concequences. What they are remains to be seen. Each one of us will find out eventually. I'm not judging anyone.. Not my job. It's my choice not to risk it. "
I have a question... wrote on Dec 22, 2006 1:20 PM:
" You always hear gay people whining and crying about how they want "equal rights". Spare me! What rights do homosexuals not have?! Would someone PLEASE tell me? And don't use the marriage argument. It has been proven time and time again that the majority of people (even many gays) don't want marriage re-defined. "
FormerSouthernIllinoisan wrote on Dec 22, 2006 7:56 AM:
" It is a shame when people are so unable to get passed their prejudices and fears. Gay people are everywhere and we all interact with each other every day in so many ways. Ones sexuality is just one small part of what makes up a person, and wanting to be loved and find love is also a trait we share as humans. We all have things in our lives and personalities that others do not agree with or accept, but until we can agree that differences make us a more interesting and great society then our nation will continue to struggle to move ahead while other nations surpass us. I think everyone can agree it is better to stop closing our minds and start opening up our hearts. "
judgement steve... wrote on Dec 22, 2006 4:52 AM:
" how can you pass judgement when your GAWD says judge not? Is this less of a sin than being a homo-sexual?
from what i understand a sin = a sin, and all humans sin.
Wouldnt that make straight sinners and gay sinners equal in the severity of their sin?
Steve explain it to us?
Saaaaaaad TO SAY THE LEAST "
Milorad wrote on Dec 21, 2006 6:23 PM:
" I couldn't agree more. . .except to say I'm so sick of seeing pictures of brides and grooms in the newspaper - I don't care what perverse things they might do behind closed doors, or in all the movies, or when political candidates haul out their spouses and children. Why doesn't everyone just stop being so obsessed with talking about anyone's relationships? "
Kevin wrote on Dec 21, 2006 6:15 PM:
" Oh come on now, Steve S. - why is it that heterosexuals seem to know so little about marriage laws? You are living in Illinois, the state which allows first cousins over the age of 50 to marry as long as the wife is UNABLE TO BEAR CHILDREN.
You'll have to find another heterosupremacist argument - procreation isn't the basis for marriage, nor for many of the statutes providing special rights for married people.
You might be interested in a proposal in Washington State, however. . .it's a defense of marriage act which will demand that all straight people produce children within a certain amount of years of marriage or have it terminated. Be careful what you wish for. . .con-servatives. . . "
To Disagreement With Pitts wrote on Dec 21, 2006 6:12 PM:
" Seems to me that you keep confusing the choice of particular "religious" interpretation with some nonsense about "choosing" sexual orientation. If that's the case, you've got a story to tell - and it would make perfect sense not to project that experience onto others. "
To Frustrated wrote on Dec 21, 2006 6:10 PM:
" Would you care to let us all in on how equality of control over universal life experiences for ALL Americans is some scary "gay agenda?"
Since gay citizens happen to be residents of this area, is there some reason why you believe they are supposed to be ignored in the coverage of a "community" newspaper?
"
Steve S. wrote on Dec 21, 2006 10:57 AM:
" If you can show me where a male of any species got another male pregnant or a female did the same to another female,,, you have my undivided attention. Failing that, what is there to talk about? I'm listening... "
Milorad wrote on Dec 21, 2006 8:12 AM:
" Gay...gay....gay...gay...gay. I'm so sick of this subject I could puke! I don't care what perverse things you do behind closed doors. Just quit harping about it. "
Democrat50 wrote on Dec 20, 2006 5:42 PM:
" To Disagreement with Pitts: if marriage was based on the possibility of propagation, then there should be laws banning sterile men and/or barren women from getting married. Do you support this? "
Frustrated wrote on Dec 20, 2006 4:36 PM:
" Yet ANOTHER article printed in the Southern promoting the gay agenda and another reason why I and many others refuse to subscribe and give money to this newspaper. No wonder circulation numbers for the paper are on the decline. People get tired of reading and hearing about stuff like this. If Mr. Pitts has nothing else better to write about, then perhaps he should get a real job. And if the Southern has nothing else better to print, then perhaps they should eliminate their so called editorial page. "
Kevin in Boca Raton wrote on Dec 20, 2006 10:30 AM:
" I nominate Leonard Pitts Jr. for President!!!!! Good Job!!!! btw, I'm sure the person you mentioned who continues to email you is just a closet case, so tell Ted Haggert to get off the computer! "
Melody wrote on Dec 19, 2006 11:03 PM:
" COODOS to you!!! You are so right, one's sexuality does not make the person! I am 49, a straight woman married, we have 7 children and 7 beautiful grandchildren. One of my brothers, however, was Gay. He was a loving, kind, loyal, gracious, giving man and an asset to both the Gay and Straight communities he co-existed in. He joined Job Corps at 16 y/o, and continued to work hard his whole life. Yes, he worked hard, payed taxes and still found time to help others in any way he could. He volunteered with Hospice and helped to make both Gay and Straight consumers feel less lonely, afraid and more loved during thier last days. He cared not what thier race, creed or sexualality was. He knew he was needed, was good at what he did and was there anytime, day or night when called. He was a wonderful father figure for me and when my mother(God rest her soul) was working 2 and 3 jobs to support us,he was my friend, confidant and teacher. He taught me to fix my hair, put on make up, how to dress, walk and talk like a lady should. He taught me how to love unconditionally, to have faith in my fellow [man], to make good sound decisions based on facts not myths. He taught me how to see right from wrong and not to judge others because they were different in any way. He taught me to be kind, considerate, caring and true to myself. He also taught me to stand up for those who can't or won't for fear of being chastised in some way. He was the most wonderful MAN any girl/woman could have ever been lucky enough and proud enough to call, BROTHER. How anyone could judge someone because they are Gay or Staight is hard for me to understand. One should be judged by who they are, as a person, not who they are in bed. My brother passed away 2 years ago, yesterday, 12/18/04, and he is sadly missed by every person who had the honor of knowing him. I can't begin to tell you the impact he made on my life, as well as, each and every life he came in contact with. He gave me the wisdom to know that, you can't fix stupid people but ignorant people can learn from exposure to the unknown, so PLEASE keep up the good work. Maybe someone out there will open thier hearts and mind and learn there is a wealth of knowledge in diversity.
P.S. He also told me that the difference between Gay and Staight people is; Gay people don't care if your Gay or not...LOL "
Matt wrote on Dec 19, 2006 4:47 PM:
" Leo, you are right. You don't have to be gay to understand human rights for gay people. Thanks for the reasoned reply on what many don't understand. "
Grateful Reader wrote on Dec 19, 2006 2:26 PM:
" Thank you, Mr. Pitts. "
bullsai wrote on Dec 19, 2006 1:53 PM:
" WOW, that was awesome! congrats on the great narrative, Mr. Pitts. Kudos to you for saying what needs to be said! "
Regan DuCasse wrote on Dec 19, 2006 11:34 AM:
" Thank you, Mr. Pitts!
I am a non gay black woman, who refuses to argue with a gay person. About the origin of their orientation, and the hopes, ability and motives they might have.
I don't argue because no one can speak for another's experience, except what we have in common. My sense of justice is offended by what gays and lesbians deal with.
And regardless of what your age, creed or color is...we are human beings and citizens first. And those who claim religious affiliation most of all, can remember that precious directive of treating someone as they'd expect to be treated.
And as you state, that promotes moral coherence more than any other universal rule of civil cooperation. "
Grateful wrote on Dec 19, 2006 11:27 AM:
" I'm always grateful for folks like Mr. Pitts. I have never understood intolerance and hatred, although I've experienced it firsthand all my life. Yes, I'm one of those "awfulll homahsexshuls." People were trying to invalidate my existence way back in the 60s when I was busy marching for black civil rights. It's great to hear someone validate me and my kind, and mean it. "
Disagreement with Pitts wrote on Dec 19, 2006 9:56 AM:
" Mr. Pitts is sincere in his views about gay and lesbian people but is sincerely wrong! It isn't about one's natural sexual orientation, but the choice to follow unnatural impulses and distorted notions of sexuality. If a woman was meant for a woman and a man was meant for a man, the propagation of the human race would occur that way too. But it does not. The Creator had a higher plan for sexuality beyond the satisfaction of personal desire - however love is conceived in the human heart.
Since Pitts raises the issue of race in relation to sexuality, let us also state that whether black or white, or any other race, normal sexuality that propagates the human race and fulfills natural sexual expression occurs as the Creator designed them to function within their designated male-female sexual relationships. "
Jill wrote on Dec 19, 2006 8:20 AM:
" Beautifully put. Thank you! "
pitss & mona wrote on Dec 19, 2006 7:40 AM:
" both have something in common: "They Are Both Boring Beyond Belief. HMmmmm...a bit prose-e butt, true none the less "
