Tradition can’t be ignored
In a recent letter, Mary Rose Silva expressed her opposition to HRJ-3, citing her intimidation as a young child, which I understand well, as I too experienced the same at approximately the same age. My intimidation was more physical and a bit more painful, but I do acknowledge her point.
My agreement with her turns abruptly away when she waves her academic achievements at us presumably to bolster her position. Surely, Ms. Silva, in pursuit of your Physics and Juris degrees some of your instructors explained to you the basic biological design of the male and female body and the normal function of reproduction contained in its “design,” or in your case “evolution.” If not so, you should ask for your money back from those who have failed you.
To accept Ms. Silva’s demands we must ignore thousands of years of teaching and common practice, interrupted by the occasional rise and fall of empires which practiced unnatural sexual activity, and to replace it with an “if it feels good do it” attitude. Whether you subscribe to biblical teaching or not makes no difference as to what history tells us about deviate sexual behavior. In just the last 50 years in this country we see an accelerating decline in both internal and international standing due greatly to this behavior.
The academic community continues to fail by not pointing out the downside of this issue, but encourages even militant confrontation by homosexuals, while ignoring consequences. It is my and many others wish that this bill was not needed; however, conditions do require its consideration by the electorate. So, feel free to pursue your sexual desire, but do not expect us to redefine our thoughts and attitudes by legally redefining marriage to accommodate that desire.
— Bill Jaeger
Apply issue to late-term abortion
In response to a Jan. 15 editorial titled “It’s time to end divisive battle” concerning the proposed Indiana constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:
Really? Then why not use this philosophy on the late-term abortion issue?
It meets all of the posed criteria in this editorial.
• Shift in public attitude toward the horrific practice of killing a fully formed and viable baby.
• Democratic liberals have changed their minds or are now undecided on the practice.
• World leaders deplore the practice as barbaric.
• There is discrimination against both the unborn child and Americans against this practice.
So, as your editorial stated, lawmakers should not shrink from their responsibilities. It’s their job and duty to represent the “greater good” on behalf of all citizens born and unborn.
— Dominick DaCosta