Just when I thought we were even temporarily free of willful ignorance about abortion and gay marriage, we're reminded of it again a little less than 2 weeks before election day.

Abortion advocates should be called pro abortion rights. Not pro death, which is more up the GOP alley anyway. Death from war, death from poverty, death from lack of insurance coverage, and let's not forget the death penalty support. Pro choice voters more than likely oppose war, oppose policies that don't solve poverty, oppose giving insurance companies more excuses to deny basic coverage and oppose the death penalty.

The mere killing of what happens to be genetically a human being does not constitute murder any more than a miscarriage or stillbirth are manslaughter. They are both biologically abortions, the expulsion of a zygote/embryo/fetus from the womb. One is elective, one is involuntary.

Many abortions aren't even done when the "baby" is even remotely viable, so killing them is not unjust in that they had a chance. And I would rather not have a child than either give it up to be potentially left to the state's discretion or try to raise it with the economy as it is.

But this is why support of contraception and education about its use is of such prime importance. If people use birth control, there will be that many less abortions. As Planned Parenthood puts it, "abortion should be safe, legal and rare," (Emphasis on the rare)

And do I even need to comment much on the idiocy of claiming Eden actually existed and somehow ordained marriage? It's as ridiculous as the notion that we all came from literally just 2 human beings interbreeding with each other in the worst kind of incest next to the stereotypes that exist of the South.

I fully support this and am writing something similar, with obvious limitations, since it's a letter to the editor. I felt you could've covered how his stances on marijuana legalization, abortion and gay marriage are still compatible with conservative values, but you still gave a very compelling argument even without it.

So you wouldn't vote for someone who otherwise supports your political positions because he doesn't agree with you religiously?

And when you say it's bad for the U.S. to be a place of protection for homosexuals, are you suggesting that we should just let them be killed in countries that allow that? No one's forcing you to give moral acceptance to homosexuals, but tolerate their coexistence with you as Americans, as human beings!

MILDRED H. GUSSOW- Gary Johnson is Christian himself, yet insists that marriage equality is a basic civil right. He's not arguing based on his religion, so that should be a point of support. He doesn't support Medicare as it is, but he doesn't want to make it a voucher program as Ryan and Romney want to. A block grant system is preferable to a voucher system, if that's what you're criticizing in terms of the Medicare position.

If you're not voting for Obama because of the gay marriage thing, people could easily point out other reasons not to besides that.

WILLIAM HOLBROOK

Technically we have three choices. The delusion that we must conform to a two party system is what has maintained this idiocy and partisan politics for so long in not only the media, but society in general.

I will vote Gary Johnson, even if our state suddenly shifted to Obama support, I would cast my vote for a candidate I believe in, not someone who is popular because they're catering to neo con trends to appease ignorant voters who don't know any better half the time.

F. DOUG CRAIG- I too will be voting Libertarian, not only because apparently our electoral system has made its choice based on a new standard I wasn't aware of, but because this state is already so strong Romney, a vote for Obama wouldn't make a dent.

GAIL BLAYLOCK HUDSON- If you want to inspire people to change, don't use fear tactics based in superstition and the example of a culture fairly different and less diverse than our own in both religion and socioeconomics

Seems to me cult is an unnecessarily complicated term compared to calling it heresy or false teaching, which would by far be more precise and simple by comparison of using a term rife with varying definitions.

I'm aware of the use of cult in Christianity and general orthodoxy is a term also holding ambiguity, since Trinitarianism is only popular due to persistent argument to its truth, though there are equally compelling teachings in the form of Modalism or Unitarianism.

I don't claim to be a Christian, but I don't make these claims without some backing in basic facts and knowledge, especially as a student of religion and philosophy.

JAMES WEST-

If you're going to accuse Mormonism of being a cult, which it certainly has traits of, similar to evangelicalism and fundamentalism in Christianity at large, at least use a more accessible and precise definition of the term cult. The most general and yet specific definition applies to any group that is remotely new and differs markedly from generally accepted doctrine in a particular religious culture.

But your critique hinges on claiming that Mormonism is heresy or otherwise false teaching, both of which are condemned in so called orthodox Christianity. If that's your point of attack, then call it that and go with that angle. Don't confuse the issue by making claims about something that are more based in social acceptability and not religious dogma or doctrine and conformity or lack thereof to it.

Of course you can say that anyone is lying about their religion to get votes, but that's politics. I'd rather take people at their word unless they explicitly diverge from the most basic ideas and beliefs of their faith. In that case, they would get a different term applied, whatever that might be. Obama is certainly not a Muslim in any strict sense of the term

I'm not even a remote science major: religion actually, but I see no evidence in the strict sense of the term for creationism. Anything you see as support is correlation, speculation and conflation of your perception of patterns with actual scientific experimentation or investigation.

If creationism were true, your God did horribly with humans in particular, though you'd easily deflect any claims of unintelligent design with your superstitious idea of the Fall and a literal Adam and Eve to explain the explicit incest entailed in spreading the human race.

Not sure where we get this nonsensical view that morality has to come from religion. Part of it is that people refuse to think for themselves and let famous people or otherwise "wise" people tell them how to believe, or they try to appear philosophical and fail at being critical of their own thoughts and get to the root. And morality's roots are not in religion, but in psychology and philosophy.