Letters to the Letters to the editor pt.1

Stupidity has no bounds, and at times, freedom of speech caters to this lackluster event of what some might consider "a thought".


Letter to Editor- Title Too bad, atheists: Marriage is out.

Marriage is not just a social union, or legal union, it is a religious union. If the doctrines of the faith set requirements for what marriage is, and who can be married, then the only way to truly be married is to fulfill those requirements. In a relationship between a man and a woman, there are some positives: A man is made to protect a woman and be good to that woman, and a woman is built to produce children, which is why her sexual organs are made to not only allow objects to leave her body but allow objects to enter her body easily as well. A woman born a woman is a woman: a man born a man is a man, no matter what society and people say. In the case of homosexuality it is a deadend relationship; for a man and a man or a woman with a woman can not make a child biologically.
John - ------ (censored to protect the ignorant)


My response title: Who gave you a pen?

Not only is your argument so scattershotted that you start off your 'opinion' - as lightly as i can even consider it a true opinion - remarking to atheists about marriage, but you then set the gender issue back about 2000 years, and then go onto homosexuals.

First, a little history lesson. In the beginning there was man: as in the race, not gender. And man, like other species in the animal kingdom, have to reproduce to survive. Now, eventually man became intelligent, well...it is reasoned to believe. Some people in this species decided it is probably not best to act like a dog and hump everything in sight, be it same sex, opposite sex, a tree, or a leg, but rather to procreate so that the human race can live on.

Second, religion came before any civilized governing body. Religion is the first government, and is more based on a cultures ideas, ideals, and laws than it is actually about spritual development (read the bible some time, i did and it didn't develop me and it won't develop you, but it could cure insomnia for that matter). Now, again with this intelligence in the human race bit, most people in the world are religious, and as i said, that tends to come before any governing body over a civilized people. And what makes up government? People and their ideas and ideals and morals from their own culture. So of course, if they are going to adapt a body of government to their culture, their gonna steal some stuff from religion.

Now that the history lesson is over, on to your 'argument'. One can be married by law, or by religion. If you get married by law, the church, or any church, does not recognize the marriage even though in reality you are married, you can file joint tax forms, claim eachother as beneficiaries, support eachother with benefits from work. If you get married in a church...you're...married in a church and therefore recognized by the religion. What does this give you? Nothing.... Why??? You still have to fill out paperwork to signify to the political body that you are now officially married and some sort of rite has taken place, bringing in marriage by law. It seems as though you don't have to deal with religion at all in this day and age, and if you only get married in church then you really don't reep the benefits and reasons for being married, to support eachother with all that you have because you truly deeply love and care for that person.

On to your second, uh.. point. What a man and woman are meant to be. Now that you demonstrated what men and women really are, men to protect a woman and fuck them to have kids, and women just to have children, then I finally get the point of the mormon church. I'm moving to Utah and sign me up.

If that is all marriage is for you, albeit go out and try to find the right girl for you. Once they hear and understand your view on marriage your phone will be ringing off the hook!

In this day and age, a man can do as many things as women can do, and vice versa. In that statement you set the equality movement back 1000 years and showed how chauvenistic people can truly be. As stated, there's a lot more in marriage than procreation, like living together! Most people can't live together, and feel that because they can't stand the person now - something they should have found out before marriage - they get a divorce. And these are straight couples. Shows how highly the sanctity of marriage is viewed by a populace to begin wiht. Anyway. A man is able to protect and provide for a woman, and a woman is able to do the same. A man, duely, is also able to protect and provide for another man and the same goes for women. How? Well, one, it can be just by being nice, or they truly care for the person, and it doesn't even have to be sexual. Wow, that's something. A relationship without sex involved? Impossible.

Some of the matters at hand with gay marriage are the fact that outside of this "sacred bond" some couples wish to be able to provide and protect (benefits and benificiary issues) those they truly love, but due to the fact that they are not wedlocked or kin, they cannot legally do the things they wish to do. This is one of the major issues I see raised in this debate, and you put it so bluntly that you summed up how most people who support the religious version of marriage view it, stupidly.

As for your trail off into the absurdity of your argument, a homosexual couple may not be able to produce children, but they are able to adopt and raise a child the way they may deem fitting. And for matters at hand, even without children, it is not a dead-end relationship because if you only see children as the only possible outcome of a relationship then I hope to god you don't reproduce, because that result would be bad.