Open our minds to gays
Regarding Rudy Gagliardi's letter “Gay Marriage” (Jan. 5): My question is, why would anyone choose to be gay? Does he think being gay is a choice? I don't. It is genetics, like people having red hair or being left-handed.
I guess I'm one of those libertarians Mr. Gagliardi decried.
Gay people have adopted children and have been successful raising them. It might not be normal to some conservatives, but it's working out just fine.
And I'm sure there were gay people back when the Bible was written. Most of the references are from the Old Testament, and there are very few homophobic statements in the New Testament, which was written after Christ came to Earth and tasked us with being our brother's keeper.
Gays have been persecuted, ridiculed and in some countries — including our own — killed because of their sexuality. Is this what the Bible says to do? Of course not.
Mr. Gagliardi's statements that allowing gay marriage is like allowing a “young lady to get a license to marry her horse or an elderly gentleman to marry his dog” are ridiculous and so degrading to gays.
Where is the compassion and empathy for our gay population? They serve in our military and do the same jobs everyone does. Why do people have to make those kind of homophobic remarks?
It is time we all spread our wings and open our minds and hearts to welcome everyone — those similar to us and those who are different. It would make the world a better place.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Poisoned long ago
- Appreciate caregivers
- EPA not the problem
- Bible under attack
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- Voting insanity
- For their own benefit
- Give thanks for vets
- The real big spenders