ShareThis Page
E-mailing with gay abandon |

E-mailing with gay abandon

Dimitri Vassilaros
| Monday, December 20, 2004 12:00 a.m

I just knew I would regret it.

Yet in a recent column I still asked readers to help me understand why so many people throughout history have detested homosexuals.

Even though I requested they not make biblical references, almost everyone ignored me. Who would have thought so many of my readers, on both sides, knew chapter and verse of the book of Leviticus• Or that Krispy Kreme doughnuts could help make a point about accepting homosexuality?

The following e-mail snippets reflect how many feel about the gay thing. I could not resist adding my two cents at the end of each. Well, I could have resisted, but chose not to.

  • Widespread and socially acceptable sexual deviancy is one of the characteristics of a society in decline. Such things will be found in the latter years of formerly successful cultures, such as the Roman Empire.

    But weren’t the latter years of the Roman Empire when we found widespread acceptance of Christianity?

  • Democrats are afraid that someone, somewhere is making money. Republicans are afraid that someone, somewhere is having fun. Gays obviously are not having sex for procreation. They must be doing it for fun, thus posing a major annoyance to those resenting others having a good time.

    Is that why both parties dislike Libertarians?

  • Your request (no biblical references) is tantamount to “Tell me why it’s important to obey traffic intersection lights on public roads, but please don’t refer to the traffic laws on the books.” I find a total of eight laws (in the Bible) that speak to the unlawfulness of homosexuality.

    So you should yield the right of way, but not to temptation?

  • Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it is an abomination. I do need advice, however, regarding other elements of God’s Laws. Leviticus 25:44 states I may possess slaves provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend claims that applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Why can’t I own Canadians?

    Why would you want to, since the National Hockey League is on strike?

  • I don’t see any intolerance. Gay people have the EXACT same rights I do. I cannot marry a man even if I wanted to. And I am hetero.

    Why did you need to declare that you are not gay?

  • People are raised to harbor hate against people who are different. You become what you know. I was taught to treat each person with respect and kindness. Life is so short. We cannot harbor hate and bitterness.

    Not even against the French?

  • We are told that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. All of us have certain predispositions. A lot of people have a genetic flaw that causes them to overeat. However, no one is holding a gun to their head, forcing them to ingest that last Krispy Kreme doughnut. And no one is demanding the rest of the populace embrace gluttony as an acceptable lifestyle.

    Are you actually suggesting most Americans have not embraced gluttony as a lifestyle?

  • Mary and Jane both love John. And John loves Mary and Jane. He wants to marry both. How could you say, “No, you can’t!” Wouldn’t you think a man being in love with two women is more natural than a man being in love with a man• But this would be bigamy — having one wife or husband too many. Some would say the same is true for monogamy.

    Surely, there is something in Leviticus that addresses that.

    Categories: News
  • TribLIVE commenting policy

    You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.