More gay marriage
More gay marriage
Only in America could the Defense of Marriage Act generate such animosity. If I had read the liberal playbook, I would have known that those who favor traditional marriage — one man, one woman — must hate homosexuals.
Using that logic, if you think:
• Our borders should be secure, you hate immigrants.
• Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, you must surely be racist.
• Abortion is government-sanctioned killing of the unborn, you must hate women.
• It's wrong to put a 65-pound pack on a woman, give her a rifle and send her into combat, you must hate women too. Is this what the normal person wants for his wife, daughter or granddaughter? Even feminism has it's limitations.
Presidents Clinton and Obama never served in the military, but were given the title of commander in chief with the power to send our sons and daughters to war. Clinton was clueless concerning problems associated with military life, which include morale, health and responsibility to family. Obama is exactly the same.
There was a time in America when you could hate the sin, but love the sinner. Apparently those days are gone forever.
Today, if someone disagrees with you — but can't win the argument with logic and facts — they accuse you of hate crimes and revert to name-calling. And if that's not enough, they attack your religion. That's disgusting!
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.
- Race & society
- Wrong on GOP view of Obama
- Social Security woes
- Challenge & media
- Need bus service in West Vandergrift
- AKA joint effort?
- More radio woes
- Laborers’ choice
- Self-serving & corrupt
- PETA as ‘last resort’
- ‘And another thing...’