Be clear when criticizing gays
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, March 14, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
Since Oren Spiegler recently trashed my anti-gay comments (“Hate gays, stone adulterers,” Feb. 19), I feel compelled to clarify my remarks, which were taken out of context.
The normal world views marriage as a male-female encounter with reproduction as a natural outcome of that relationship. If the gay agenda were accepted as normal, none of us would be here using normal logic.
I am not a religious zealot. I enjoyed a 17-year very happy marriage with my late wife without children, by choice.
We are all good people and, if that is our choice, we should not be stoned, as Mr. Spiegler suggests. Perhaps my choice of words caused him to think otherwise.
My original comments dealt totally with the gay agenda and logic regarding reproduction. While serving in the military overseas, I was exposed in close quarters to gays, including officers, and it was a living hell. If Mr. Spiegler had that experience, I believe his comments would be different.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion and I'm proud to be in the minority of people with guts to say what they think and believe in.
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.
- Medicaid’s future
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Slots & property taxes
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Putin’s actions I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- About U.S. media
- Obstacles to hiring
- Our nation’s testing obsession