letters to the editor
Submit a Letter
sports & rec.
spring break deals
Work @ The Auburn Plainsman
« ThatSpectrumGirl wrote on Thursday, Feb 28 at 03:01 PM »
Pardon my error. If being gay isn't protected because it is* a choice, then neither should religion be protected; religion is a choice. Science backs up the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, whether or not you choose to believe that.
« ThatSpectrumGirl wrote on Thursday, Feb 28 at 02:59 PM »
If being gay isn't protected because it isn't a choice, then neither should religion be protected; religion is a choice. Science backs up the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, whether or not you choose to believe that. In any case, you are welcome to come to any Spectrum meetings and meet the people whom are negatively impacted by your beliefs. We are human too, and deserve the same legal rights.
« iamroy wrote on Thursday, Feb 28 at 02:41 PM »
Toomers is being moved to Foy Hall? What?? This is the first I've heard of this. Will we still be able to roll??
« BestDadAround wrote on Thursday, Feb 28 at 02:44 AM »
Extending marriage rights to gays is a conservative value because true conservatives want to strengthen the family. There are 6 million adults and children with an LGBT parent. Allowing these parents to marry will only strengthen the family. David Cameron once said: 'Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.'" Perhaps all these folks claiming to be conservatives will actually begin practicing conservative values and support marriage equality so that more people, not less, can enjoy the numerous benefits that marriage offers to adults and their children.
« BestDadAround wrote on Thursday, Feb 28 at 02:37 AM »
Being gay is not a choice; however, being an "evangelical Christian" is.
« WarDamnAmerica wrote on Wednesday, Feb 27 at 08:14 PM »
I'm just glad everybody has the opportunity to express their opinion. Obviously, those who disagree with the issue will leave negative comments. Those who agree will leave positive comments. As long as you're commenting, I still feel like I'm living in America. I agree that the family dynamic has certainly changed over the past 40 years. However, all change is not bad. If you'd like to continue living in a "typical" nuclear family with a boy, a girl and a white picket fence, find a spouse that shares your views and act on them. You'd probably be surprised at how many homosexuals want the exact same things as heterosexuals. Arguing will get us nowhere, but honest discussion will. I look forward to The Plainsman expressing their opinion in an editorial again. After all, that's what editorials are for.
« plainguy wrote on Wednesday, Feb 27 at 02:57 PM »
Dude, you realize that "editorial board" means all the editors? Do you need them list all their names? Or could you like, use your common sense (though I imagine your stance on this issue implies there's little enough of that) and think, "OH, EDITORIAL BOARD, I WONDER WHAT THAT MEANS?" And another thing, cap: The purpose of an editorial is to express an opinion. The editorial, by the very nature of its definition, is going to be at the least somewhat one-sided. It's not even considered journalism by the journalists who wrote it. It's an opinion piece. Also, notice how the only people who ever say being gay is a choice are the people who are not gay. You know, they must be the people who really have the authority to speak on the issue, having experienced it thoroughly in a first-hand manner. And why the fuck does it matter if it's a choice? That's what's great about America, everyone is entitled to their own choices in life, aren't they? Wait, I feel like I...read just about that exact sentence somewhere, but...God help me if I can remember where.
« WarDamnPilot wrote on Wednesday, Feb 27 at 02:28 PM »
Dear "Editorial Board," 1.) You are obviously too much of a coward to argue educatedly, you won't even publish the writers real name. For someone to be so out for a cause, I'd at least expect you to be public about it. 2.) So let me get this straight: Because I, an "Evangelical Christian" considers homosexuality to be wrong, I'm a "bigot?" -That means you're essentially "intolerant" of my "intolerance?" Am I getting this right? This is what's great about America, everyone is entitled to their opinion. This article is a great example of one-sided journalism. Also, I love the "straight white Christian men" ending. That made me LOL. Do you know what the difference between being an African-American or a women, and being gay is? Being gay is a choice.
« wmcdouglas wrote on Wednesday, Feb 27 at 02:14 PM »
I take a moment to reply to your editorial of February 27. I would like to challenge it a bit. “If they’re in love, they deserve to get married and enjoy the same benefits as straight couples, no big deal.” Assumes facts -- and quite a few of them -- not in evidence. Assumes that there are no paths to equal financial and legal rights outside of re-shaping what marriage has always meant. “Unfortunately, the more narrow-minded among us don’t agree.” If you disagree with us you are narrow minded. We have a very high opinion of our own opinions. If you hold to a religious set of beliefs you are wrong and therefore not allowed to give voice to your views or argue for them. If you hold a divergent political view from the Plainsman Editorial Staff you likewise are to excuse yourself from the public debate. The casually dismissed "American family" with all of its flaws is the core institution in which children are born, provided for, taught, protected, and which they use as a model for life beyond their own childhood. It is the institution which as it has suffered decay and compromise in the last 40 years has seen the rise of a plethora of ills which plague society. The break-up of families is more expensive -- just in terms of dollars -- than the 2008 Bank collapse and every hurricane and natural calamity and every war in which we are now engaged, put together. It is the fundamental bond that makes orderly and free life possible. Perhaps fundamentally changing the idea of marriage will not harm it. Perhaps it will. It seems a big and unnecessary risk -- trying to make our point the hard way as the saying is. Is there not another road to consider that will yield the stated goals sought by the Plainsman editorial board, (just back from Mt. Olympus in time to save us all.) G.K. Chesterton pointed out that one may free a tiger from his cage but to be careful not to free a tiger from his stripes -- you may find you have freed him from being a tiger. But let's not kid ourselves here -- the goal is actually something else. The real reason for the cheap thrill piece in the paper is to stick a finger in the eye of the imagined adult out there in responsibility land. There is such a thing as getting too much of what you ask for. A culture without foundational institutions will not be able to build fine universities and pay for children to attend them. William Douglas '75
« shug69 wrote on Wednesday, Feb 27 at 02:05 AM »
As a 1969 graduate of Auburn, it disgusts me to see the state of our basketball and baseball programs. There has been a steady decline in the quality of these programs under the leadership of Jay Jacobs and President Gogue. The basketball program is an embarrassment while the baseball program is underachieving as well. Our football program had hit rock bottom before a change was made in that program but it took a 3-9 year to prompt change. It's time the good ole boy system was ended at Auburn and come competent people were hired to lead our school and oversee our athletic programs. I hope I'm not the only one who has had enough and want changes to be made. It's way past time.
next 1000 results
Software Copyright © 2013
. Content Copyright © 2013 The Auburn Plainsman. Business listing data provided in part by Localeze.
This software is in a public beta.
The Auburn Plainsman - A spirit that is not afraid is in Auburn, AL