Re. Melissa Charlton's letter, “Open our minds to gays” (Jan. 13.), which was critical of my letter, “Gay marriage (Jan. 5): I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay, a pedophile, a druggie or a prostitute. But if they were all born that way, the chance for change would be slim to none. But we do know that some people are able to change their lifestyle, homosexuals included. I have personal knowledge of two who did.
Ms. Charlton says she's a libertarian, but my guess is she's a liberal. While gay people do adopt children, I question if that environment is best to raise a child.
She correctly states there were homosexuals when the Bible was written — Sodom and Gomorrah offer proof of that. Jesus didn't abolish the Old Testament and replace it with the New Testament.
Ms. Charlton completely missed my point that gay marriage could lead to people wanting to marry animals. My point was marriage is more than just love. There are physical differences that must be addressed in order to consummate a marriage and this difference makes marriage impossible for same-sex couples.
Prior to President Clinton's “Don't ask, don't tell” policy, the military discharged homosexuals as soon as they were discovered. This was done to reduce the threat of venereal disease and had nothing to do with one's ability to do his job.
Homosexuals used to live their lives and keep to themselves. They didn't demand others accept their lifestyle as normal. That changed when public schools started teaching homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle and encouraged some students to experiment with it.
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.