'Yes' to civil unions, 'no' to same-sex marriage -- Marriage, L...

On March 30, the vice chair of the Allentown Human Relations Commission wrote a letter headlined "Discriminatory amendment would hurt Pennsylvania ." I disagree.

[Brian]

This thousand year argument. How many African, Native American, Eastern Indian, and tribal European cultures from the last 10,000 years have you studied? Are you sure that in every single instance of matrimony there was one man and one woman. Not, perhaps, two men and one woman. How about two women and one man? Or one woman for an entire village? There is archaeological evidence of all these combinations. There is also evidence of same-sex marriages throughout history.

You may be right that gays and lesbians haven't been welcomed into mainstream Christian matrimony. But I'm not a Christian. My partner's not a Christian. And most importantly, my country is not Christian. I am free to be who I am without the approval of the church because this, friend, is America. You can't appeal to God like you and Him kick it on weekends and tell me what's right and wrong. If that's what you're looking for, get out of my country and move to the Vatican.

[snowball]

Brian, I appreciate you remarks and agree. I do have a little problem with your last line ... which would indicate your disenchantment with your Church ... and maybe rightly so. However, all Christianity ... all religions ... do not get the green light from the Vatican. The Vatican can influence its believers ... but there are a heck of a lot more people out there than Catholics. I just read the other day where Muslims now out number Catholics as the largest religious denomination in the world. Good luck to you and your friend ... and I hope someday, all of this irrationality will disappear. In any case,[from my believer's point of view] God loves every one of his kids ... not matter what they do ... because they are his kids!

[Have Faith]

We are a traditional marriage. Our home is surrounded for blocks by homes with traditionally married couples. I do not know what they do within their homes, whether they fight, or make love, or how they make love. If we were to come to find out that my neighbors do something in a way that we don't, we would not be likely to feel threatened or insulted by it. We know who we are. When our daughter was still in grade school, so many of her friends' parents were getting divorced that she wondered when we would be getting a divorce since it seemed to her that divorce was standard procedure. Divorce may be a threat to traditional marriage too, but it wasn't a threat to our marriage. Our daughter is married with a child of her own. She grew to learn that divorce is not communicable or inevitable and that her marriage is only defined by the love she and her husband build every new day. Whether our government does nothing, embraces civil unions, or passes same sex marriage, that will have no effect on our marriage. It need not have an effect on any others either. Have Faith.

[Pagan and Proud]

Sounds like Bill Hubbard needs to get his facts straight and quit attempting to represent Bigotry as being any more than it is. Marriage has changed for every society, form women being little more than property and breeding stock to be traded for favors to marriage being defined by the Race of individuals involved, Marriage will continue to evolve to suit the needs of the society.

[Jade]

Have Faith wrote:

We are a traditional marriage. Our home is surrounded for blocks by homes with traditionally married couples. I do not know what they do within their homes, whether they fight, or make love, or how they make love. If we were to come to find out that my neighbors do something in a way that we don't, we would not be likely to feel threatened or insulted by it. We know who we are. When our daughter was still in grade school, so many of her friends' parents were getting divorced that she wondered when we would be getting a divorce since it seemed to her that divorce was standard procedure. Divorce may be a threat to traditional marriage too, but it wasn't a threat to our marriage. Our daughter is married with a child of her own. She grew to learn that divorce is not communicable or inevitable and that her marriage is only defined by the love she and her husband build every new day. Whether our government does nothing, embraces civil unions, or passes same sex marriage, that will have no effect on our marriage. It need not have an effect on any others either. Have Faith.

I wish your views were shared by so many more. I see why your marriage was strong and a success, you are one together person! Bless you and your family!!

[Resist Ignorance]

In what way would it be "discriminatory to every married man and woman"? Would they loose their special tax status? Their life/health insurance? Their survivor benefits? No one ever answers that question! They always just make blanket statements with nothing to back it up.

One thing is for certain though, withholding marriage privileges from LGBT couples IS discriminatory.

[Anathema]

It's not up to the government to preserve the sanctity of anything.
Speaking of definitions:
Sanctity: the quality or state of being holy or sacred.

If you are worried about the sanctity of marriage, talk to your priest, preacher, shaman, druid, whatever.

But the practical legal aspects of marriage, such as establishing legal parental responsibility, rights of inheritance, shared property, etc., don't require that the partners be of the opposite gender, or that they perform any type of archaic ritual.

We shouldn't be letting the government define legal relationships according to religious precepts.

Here's an idea. Remove the term "marriage" from the legal definition, and leave "civil unions" for everyone.

Then you can go get "married" according to your on personal mythology, at whatever temple you wish, without bothering anyone else.
Or not.

[Kate OHanlanMD]

Bill Hubbard 3' opinion is bereft of history and information. While homosexuality used to be considered mental illness, our country's laws and social constructs reflected this thinking. But by 1973, over 40 years of mental health research had shown no evidence of associated mental illnesses among homosexuals, so the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses. However, the extreme societal stigma from that designation has persisted into today into Bills opinion.
Now with over 75 years of research reviewed, The American Psychiatric Association confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society. Because civil marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed access to civil marriage by same sex couples. This means that there is no ethical reason in the world to discriminate against homosexuals.
Bill, as well as our legislators and jurists, should all support an end to discrimination by sexual orientation in our existing state and federal laws.

[John_K]

What a warped sense of reality this Mr. Hubbard III has. You're absolutely right sir, STRAIGHT couples are the victims of discrimination-- on Mars in Bizzarro World, but certainly not in reality. Get a clue.

[John_K]

PutBack...: The plumbing fits, I assure you. Otherwise, we wouldn't do it...

As for the reproduction argument, we all know that infertile and old straight couples can marry, so your argument doesn't fly. Guess you're the one who is "scrood" up here.

[Pagan and Proud]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

Rule One on Marriage:
If the plumbing doesn't fit, you can't produce children...
therefore you can't be married.
Simple.

ROFLMAO! No such rule exist, phobe boy. One does not even need the intent to breed to marry.

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

And it's never been debated in the western world for the last 1000 years.

False again. Marriage has changed every few decades to suit the needs of the society that recognized it.

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

It must be a sign of high civilization.
You've become so open-minded that your brains have fallen out.

Far better to be open minded than stuck in the 1800's.

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

Why don't you digress to reading the arguments of great moral societal causes from G.K. Chesterton and his contemporaries from the beginning of the last century? They were far more astute back then as to moral issues and cause & effect arguments, not scrood up by relativism as we are today.

Nope, not worried about what was thought in the past, that's dead and gone, the future lies in adjusting the laws to suit the needs of ALL of society, not just those who wish to enforce bigotry.

[The Lib Terminator]

Bill,

I appreciate your opposition to gay marriage.

Civil Unions sound ok to placate extremists on the issue. But I disagree with you on that.

This would mean that my tax money and that of most good Americans will go to support an immoral lifestlye.

I think that is just as wrong as gay marriage.

[Nephilim]

The Lib Terminator wrote:

Bill,
I appreciate your opposition to gay marriage.
Civil Unions sound ok to placate extremists on the issue. But I disagree with you on that.
This would mean that my tax money and that of most good Americans will go to support an immoral lifestlye.
I think that is just as wrong as gay marriage.

I agree with you. However, why should they not get healthcare, tax benefits etc. I can judge that the lifestyle is not for me yet, as a sinner I believe we should be fair to all and not judge others to the point they suffer without healthcare etc. To me that is just as over the top and extreme.

[JBF]

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

<quoted text>

I don't understand how this amendment would be discriminatory...

Letter-to-the-editor http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all...

--------

Bill, here's one reason why the proposed amendment is discriminatory.

Domestic partnership benefits currently provided by local governments, business and organizations would be invalidated. That is taking away existing rights.

That's because, the proposed amendment clearly says, "No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth."

--------

No. 1250 Session of 2008
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/...

[JBF]

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

<quoted text>

I think the Marriage Protection Amendment would protect all married couples from being discriminated against. If we establish civil unions for gay couples with all the ensuing legal rights and at the same time guarantee the sanctity of marriage

Letter-to-the-editor http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all...

--------

Bill, have you actually read the proposed amendment?

The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment prohits civil unions for gay couples.

That's because, the proposed amendment clearly says, "NO UNION other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth."

--------

No. 1250 Session of 2008
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/...

[JBF]

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

<quoted text>

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Letter-to-the-editor http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/all...

--------

Bill, you appear to be very weak on history.

Your claim that marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

Polygamy, divorce and concubines are all part of the Old Testament tradition.

The most commonly approved form of marriage in the past (and the one mentioned most often in the first five books of the Old Testament) was polygamy - one man, many women.

[JBF]

PutBackupBeepers OnFags wrote:

<quoted text>

If the plumbing doesn't fit...

Post #9 http://www.topix.net/forum/source/the-morning...

--------

The following video might interest you:

What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?
http://paradisevalleymedia.com/resources/movi...

[JBF]

The Lib Terminator wrote:

<quoted text>

...immoral lifestlye...

Post #13 http://www.topix.net/forum/source/the-morning...

--------

Why should YOUR religious views control this matter?

What about the relgious views of people who support marrige equality?

Do you really believe the state should be requiring everone to live by your religious beliefs?

[John_K]

JBF wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should YOUR religious views control this matter?
What about the relgious views of people who support marrige equality?
Do you really believe the state should be requiring everone to live by your religious beliefs?

Of Course he does, that's how these people's minds work.

[Bill Hubbard III]

JBF wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should YOUR religious views control this matter?
What about the relgious views of people who support marrige equality?
Do you really believe the state should be requiring everone to live by your religious beliefs?

John_K wrote:

<quoted text>
Of Course he does, that's how these people's minds work.

No, John K. That's not how my mind works. It sounds more like how yours does. But I don't know you so I won't jump to that conclusion.

The Marriage Protection Amendment would require the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ratify it, not my or anyone else's religious beliefs. Most everyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) would certainly play a part in each of our votes for or against the amendment. That's what the constitution of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Pa. are all about. The freedom to vote as we see fit.