ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

'CHINO' theology

| Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

I disagree with the column “Gay marriage” (Dec. 9 and TribLIVE.com) by C.S. Pearce, who's merely another example of a liberal theologian in a school of theology expressing her liberal views. The Catholic Church has firmly stated its opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, as have all of the true, 100-percent Bible-based Protestant churches; it's only the liberal branches of Protestant churches that embrace it, the “CHINO” (“Christian in name only”) churches.

One example would be the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which allows gay pastors to lead the flock.

Just because “everybody's doing it” doesn't make it right. If 10 people jump from a bridge in front of you, will you jump, too? My guess is that Ms. Pearce belongs to one of the liberal Protestant CHINO church sects that allows gay pastors. She does not speak for the larger group of Protestants who oppose homosexuality as aberrant, abnormal behavior.

In states that have approved gay marriage, what's next? A man marrying his dog? A woman marrying her two cats? The U.S. Constitution does not provide any civil rights for abnormal behavior.

William D. Mayercheck

Hempfield

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.

click me