Sarah Stubbs (letter. Jan. 11) suggests that we take a step back and look at reality as it relates to homosexuality, so let’s do that.
First, let’s clear up the misconception that there is credible scientific evidence of a “gay” gene. If that were true, there would not be an ongoing dispute over the issue.
One only needs to look at human anatomy to perceive the intent of the design and see that homosexuality is an aberration.
No dispute with Sarah’s statement that some people are gay, sex is not only for reproductive purposes, and people fall in love with members of the same sex. That is obvious, but how does that make it right?
Likewise, broader acceptance of these practices by society does not make it any closer to right, but speaks to society’s decline in moral standards.
Now we come to the issue of tolerance versus acceptance, and the fallacy that acceptance would eliminate the problems associated with homosexuality.
Disapproval of homosexuality is often labeled “hatred” and elicits anger by those engaged in it, much like a child who becomes angry when corrected by a parent. Our human inclination is to do what we want to do but, regardless of how you pose the argument, wrong never becomes right even when you sincerely wish it were so.
The authority for right and wrong comes from God, and neither his standards nor his word provided in the Bible are subject to revision by man. Those who choose to disregard biblical truth will suffer the consequences, and I literally cannot imagine the shock and regret some will feel at the moment of death when they find out they were wrong and the consequences are eternal.
I can imagine them wishing someone had told them the truth, and that is my only motivation for writing.
Sadly, many have not been exposed to sound biblical teaching and, therefore, lack the information necessary to make informed decisions on critical questions, such as “where will you spend eternity?”
Larry Richards

Ron Bores (letter, Jan. 12) is both confused and a bit naive when it comes to the last presidential election.
He doesn’t understand, probably because he only pays attention to the mainstream media — now the tail of the Democratic Party dog — which is a joke in search of a comedy club when it comes to red herrings.
Jim Jordan’s Freedom Caucus is doing the media’s job as watchdog of the truth as to what occurred in the election.
The Mueller investigation was launched as a result of a phony “dossier” on Trump invented by an ex-MI-5 spy and paid for by Clinton’s campaign.
The law was broken many times. The investigation, after months of digging, has found no Trump-Russia connection. On the contrary, there is much evidence of a Clinton-Russia connection.
It doesn’t seem that Bores, the Democrats or the media much care about the law or truth. Jordan does.
Michael Janton

In response to Ron Bores (letter, Jan. 12), “Why chase red herrings,” I cannot speak of Rep. Jim Jordan’s reasons for continuing his investigation into Hillary, only my reasons for him to continue on this path.
Russian involvement in our most recent presidential election included the purchase of $100,000 in Facebook ads, none of which named any political candidate. (Wikipedia)
I ask Bores to name the only U.S. ex-president to be paid a half-million dollars for a speech in Russia by a Russian bank?
In June 2010, Bill Clinton gave a speech for $500,000 paid for by Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank.
In January 2013, the Canadian firm Uranium 1 was sold to a Russian company, Rostrum, giving control of 20 percent of our mined uranium to this Russian firm. Must be sheer coincidence?
The reasons for this investigation can be found in this October 2017 article in the Chicago Tribune: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-clinton-foundation-investigation-russia-20171120-story.html)
My last question for Bores is in the aforementioned article: Since Hillary’s defeat, how many speeches has Bill Clinton given inside Russia?
The answer is zero.
Craig Nichols

I see that the Hancock County commissioners have renewed the contract for a flood-control engineer and a sanitary engineer.
While the fees don’t seem to be outlandish, as compared to Stantec’s flood-control contracts, I question the need.
Didn’t Steve Wilson perform those very duties when he was the county engineer and, after his retirement, wasn’t he the interim engineer until a replacement was installed?
I understand the interim part, but after we got a new county engineer, should not those duties be returned to the engineer’s office? Just wondering.
Don Kinn