• Who we are
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Extra extra read all about it

    2012 - 08.26

    Today’s Forum carries a number of letters as well as a column about gay rights issues. As one correspondent states, the paper’s been giving this lots of attention the past few weeks.

    As Terri stated in her response, it is in fact legal to fire an employee in the state of North Dakota because they are gay. It is also legal to fire someone in the state of North Dakota because he has a bad hair cut.

    Is this wrong? Sure it is. Does it happen? In my opinion I don’t think as often as either side of the debate might think.

    Someone once said that society’s behavior moves at least a decade faster than government legislation; and the forces that make us think something is wrong often alter the behavior and shift cultural norms so what was once acceptable changes to unacceptable, perhaps even shocking. Then people start organizing to change laws.

    We’ve spent at least the last decade in a place where moderate society frowns on legalized discrimination against gay people and it’s time our laws change to reflect that.

    There were also a number of thought provoking, well written letters outlining how God and Scripture have made their position very clear on homosexuality.

    For those who haven’t read TGA over the years, I’ve taken the position that it’s wrong to use scripture to support an argument or point of view to force behavior on someone else.

    I went to Sunday School. I have a computer. I know how to ‘google’. I could remain at my kitchen counter until I’m dead tossing verses right back at each individual who presents a “God would rather you not be gay” verse. I start with the stoning non-virgin brides of Duet 22; move on to Jesus’ position on divorce in Matt 19. Then my opponent invariably stomps off in a huff when I drag out Luke 14:26.

    It’s nearly impossible to dredge up verses to support how I misunderstood Jesus’ very specific direction outlined in verse 26. Take a moment and read the whole chapter. It’s a beautiful lesson on humility, modesty and common sense, especially as related to biblical law. Qualities lost on far too many Christians, in my opinion.

    Luke 14

    Thanks for coming back! Yes, Brad the homo actually has some favorite biblical passages and lessons that I find an inspirational outline for living a godly life.

    There’s a couple fundamental (pun intended) problems with the arguments presented today: In contrast to popular belief of some, America was NOT founded on Christian principles. The story of the Pilgrims and the Mayflower is abundantly clear that these folks left their home country because they were tired of the government forcing its religion on every citizen, and they wanted to worship as they choose.

    Regrettably, the irony of this is lost on far too many people who are working tirelessly to force their religion on all of society.

    Which leads to the second issue: laws based on ethical behavior and human decency are a good thing. Using the argument that public policy must be based on one religion’s holy book and having absolutely no other reason for insisting on this regresses us right back to pre-colonial England.

    Today’s Gay Agenda: Now the ‘if you don’t like it here, why don’t you just go somewhere else?’ argument makes total sense. Again, I’m sure the irony of that is lost on many.

    Tags: , , , , ,

    17 Responses to “Extra extra read all about it”

    1. jerry says:

      Quit forcing YOUR gay agenda on the rest of us.

    2. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Whoo, Jerry!

      Yours is the first post I’ve had to edit WAY DOWN in order to remain on line. Glad I caught it before the newspapers got complaints.

      You’ve got quite the gay sex imagery going there.

      It’s been my experience that guys like you with such a vitriolic hatred of homosexuals need to find a boyfriend.

      The frustration is going to cause you to stoke out or turn to substance abuse.

    3. Avatar of opinionated opinionated says:

      Squirrel, you’ve got us all wrong. We do not want to take away your rights or to limit your exhibitionism beyond what our laws allow today. The queers of the world are simply not allowed to force their agendas on moral America and we the people are not required to corrupt our legal system to accommodate every fetish your group can dream up. Play house if you want, but we are not required to welcome you or to serve you up your every wish on a silver platter. If you want some advice, look for a group rate on mental evaluations and treatment for your little club go after the real root cause of your problem instead of altering society.

      And Mac, you can edit comments like you did with Jerry’s all you want, here in this forum, but you can’t erase the imagry and realistic recognition society has of your little club. Even a Pink Pearly couldn’t take that one on (pink pearl, now that’s funny, no pun intended but what a hoot!).

      • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

        Hi Opie, glad you’re able to respond quickly. Must be back in town or else got let go for some inappropriate behavior. Or else you’re not grounded and your mom restored your internet privileges.

        I’ve never said anyone’s trying to take away rights. I’d just like the same rights and laws to apply to all couples in committed relationships.

        It’s strictly for selfish reasons: we’d like estate laws to protect our beanie-baby collection which I know is going to rise in value, and I want Ricky to collect on the social security taxes I paid in. Current marriage laws allow an individual with and xx chromosome and and individual with an xy chromosome to benefit from these laws. I say, let’s stop with the genetic testing (it’s unbiblical I’m told) and just let couples buy the damn license and get the benefits!

        BTW, I don’t think I’ve ever deleted or edited an Opie comment, and you’ve said some frightening things. Generally, they’re worth the comic value though. But Jerry’s was so far over the line I seriously thought the papers would get complaints.

        May have to rethink his auto-approve status.

        • Avatar of opinionated opinionated says:

          Frightening? Here I thought the Pink Pearl eraser comment was a perfect example of my usual sharp witted self and one of my classic tasteful commentaries. Or maybe,….yes maybe you are finally realizing what I say is actually true and that itself is what you find so frightening? Oh my, I’m so Happy for you to finally be coming out of the closet I think I’ll raise a glass of 2004 Barolo and toast you. “Prosit Scoiattolo!”

          • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

            It used to bother me when I have no idea what you’re talking about (pink pearl?) but not any more.

            Ricky wondered why you toasted ‘cheers, squirrel’ :)

          • Avatar of opinionated opinionated says:

            I’ll type slower this time. Pink Pearl is likely the most famous eraser in the world. Didn’t you ever have a large eraser in grade school? What brand name was wrote across it? This morning you had your magic eraser out editing a post? And if ever you were going to buy an eraser I would only assume the Pink Pearl would be your weapon of choice? You don’t see how this all ties together do you…

            FYI, Cheers isn’t quite the correct translation but close enough, both are salutations.

      • Avatar of Katydid Katydid says:

        opinionated says:
        ” Play house if you want, but we are not required to welcome you or to serve you up your every wish on a silver platter. If you want some advice, look for a group rate on mental evaluations and treatment for your little club go after the real root cause of your problem instead of altering society.”

        I wonder how many people made that same exact argument, or a variation of it, when “debating” people that wanted the right to marry someone of a different color/race pre-1967. It certainly has a familiar ring to it.
        And….we all know how that turned out, eh? ;)

    4. Avatar of Ms. C Ms. C says:

      I am with you 100% – Teri’s column became the focus of my blog as well. We (North Dakotans) can do better. I am so tired of the ignorance surrounding this discussion and the use of religion to spread hate. My prescription for removing discrimination in society – all those who discriminate against others should be made to experience said discrimination firsthand for a few years. If only I ruled the world – or at least North Dakota. ;-)

    5. Sandy says:

      I’ve been married for 35 years, and we have three children who are all now happily married. But I’ll be brief – I believe in Jesus, and I believe all God’s creations are perfect in their own way. God made you and he made someone for you to be with, so why shouldn’t you be together and happy? Keep up the fight. I believe today is the anniversary of women winning the right to vote but it’s amazing how long it took for common sense to take over and make that a possibility.

    6. Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      There is a surplus of people who claim they know what “good morals” are–they are certain they know gay couples are not practicing “good morals”.

      There is a shortage of people who can explain why homosexuality has anything whatsoever to do with bad morals. At least, they don’t show up on this blog.

    7. Avatar of opinionated opinionated says:

      Adults shouldn’t have sexual relations with little children or farm animals. That’s exhibiting bad morals. Of course by your typical baseless argument they must also be acceptable until someone has proven to actually be immoral too? Way to go and not let us down there Jon.

      Everyone sets their own bar for where they feel moral behavior is either acceptable, or lacking. In the real world the vast majority of the humans species does not approve of queer attributes. That’s just the way it is, and we do not need to prove it physically, quantitatively, or empiracally for it to be so.

    8. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Alrigjty then. Gonna have to have some stats to back up that most of humanity statement.

      Do the Chinese know you’re speaking for them?

    9. Avatar of Kory Kory says:

      I’m a little shocked by “opie’s” vehemence in his statements. Several years ago I voted for the man and woman definition of marriage in ND. I now regret that vote. In the last couple years I came to belive that although I don’t agree with same gender marriage based upon how I understood my Christian faith. I failed to look at the picture of our US Constitution. It enables the freedom of religion (and lack thereof) to be just as important for others just as it does for me. That stated, how is it fair for me to place my belief over anothers?

      In casting my vote I took away someone else’s ability to pursue happiness. In that manner alone it should be legalized. Perhaps Opie you too will some day awaken and find yourself in a mindset that you finally discover that what other people choose doesn’t effect you in any way. So why prevent them from being able to have the same protections under the law that I am able to enjoy with my wife by filing for a marriage license and having a ceremony. That is all they are asking, and it isn’t too much. I doubt that you will be subjected to seeing what goes on in their love life or that they’d want you to be any more than most people would want to be witnessed during the most intimate of moments.

    Your Reply