Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Response

February 13, 2014

Dear editor: I am a former resident of Warren who was recently alerted to a homophobic letter to the editor printed in the Warren Times Observer....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(59)

25or624

Feb-24-14 8:42 AM

Fair enough, Stonewall. Let's rely for a moment on your fractured logic. Same-sex marriage is accepted by law in 17 states. Can you tell me which of those states also accept under their laws incest and polygamy? I didn't ask you about incest and polygamy laws in my previous question, because they are not part of the discussion, just as shoplifting is not part of this discussion. I asked you what a ban on same-sex marriage accomplishes. You apparently have no answer to that question.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-22-14 10:16 AM

Go ahead. Ignore the relationship. It's like talking to a wall. Have a nice day.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-22-14 6:14 AM

Once again, this debate is about one law and one law only and whether or not there is any justification for denying marital rights to same-sex couples.

I am not here to debate whether or not incestual relationships or polygamy should be allowed by law.

Your logic is anything but sound. You are employing straw man tactics to justify your arguments.

Allow me to put it another way. You can say a box is not like an orange because an orange is round and orange in color. That does not mean that an orange is like a basketball. Just because they share some similar properties does not mean you should not be allowed to eat an orange because a basketball is inedible.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-21-14 8:48 PM

624, same-sex marriage is currently against the law in Pa, as is incest and polygamy. See, they're all in the same canoe! Employing the term "red herring" does nothing to negate the sound logic. So what does PA's law against the two latter cases accomplish? You tell me.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-21-14 8:44 PM

Rancor, I apologize if my following your logic, and using YOUR words can be construed as "putting words in your mouth. Please explain to me how the one does not follow the other. Both actions are immoral, and between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. And saying that you, personally, think that homosexuality is NOT in the same category as incest isn’t evidence. It’s a moral judgment, and the Supreme Court has ruled against laws based on personal moral judgments. Thanks for the input. The same applies to your query, Chicago fan.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Feb-21-14 10:37 AM

Stonewall, you propagate your arguments with red herring, as Rancor has correctly noted. I posed a simple yes or no question about equal rights that no one wants to answer. So, allow me to pose this one. What does Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage accomplish other than denying a certain right or legal recognition to a segment of the population that has neither been accused nor convicted of any crime? Is it necessary to protect public health and safety? Is it essential to maintain order, protect property rights, etc.? What is it for?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-21-14 7:53 AM

Stonewall, please don't put words in to my mouth.

I’m arguing for one law, and one law only: Legal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Anything else is a different policy argument altogether. Overturning bans on gay marriage has no legal effect on polygamous, incestuous, or — sigh — human being-animal relationships. Those are separate areas of law, and they won’t be affected by the existence of marriage rights for gay couples.

If you’re saying that allowing gay marriage will set a legal precedent for legalizing other types of relationships, you need to have some sort of evidence as to why that might happen. And saying that you, personally, think that homosexuality is in the same category as incest isn’t evidence. It’s a moral judgment, and the Supreme Court has ruled against laws based on personal moral judgments.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-21-14 7:08 AM

"Homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults and holds no inherent harm beyond that already associated with sex and relationships in general." So, Rancor approves of a father marrying a daughter, or brother getting physical with an aunt, if they're "TWO CONSENTING ADULTS"? FYI, I totally agree with your assessment that Pedophilia is EXTREMELY harmful to a child and indicative mental instability in the adult.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

25or624

Feb-20-14 11:00 AM

Well, I see this subject still has traction. But everyone seems to be dancing around the real issue because they are caught up in an endless theological and moral argument about homosexuality. None of you on either side is going to change the other's mind. The real question is should LGBT people be afforded the same legal rights as straight people in our society? Yes or no. Because in Pennsylvania and some other states, they are not. And if you justify saying no with some theological argument then you are proposing an establishment of religion in law. And what does the first amendment say about that?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rancor

Feb-20-14 2:40 AM

Stonewall, while I feel your comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia is entirely inappropriate, you seem quite intent on receiving an answer. To most of us the question is offensive because the answer is obvious:

Pedophilia is EXTREMELY harmful to a child and indicative mental instability in the adult.

Homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults and holds no inherent harm beyond that already associated with sex and relationships in general.

The idea that this isn't obvious to you scares me.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lifelongresident

Feb-19-14 12:44 PM

We're good Backwoods, love discussing any topic with you.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lifelongresident

Feb-19-14 12:44 PM

We're good Backwoods, love discussing any topic with you.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Backwoods

Feb-18-14 8:47 PM

LLR - you are correct, my post was very inappropriate. SORRY

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lifelongresident

Feb-18-14 10:52 AM

Backwoods, FYI I stopped conversing after you referred to me as swine. So there you go throwing stones in your glass house.

I like to have great conversations and I try to remain respectful.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-18-14 9:07 AM

Odd. I see a lot of "disagrees", without rebuttal comments. Hmmmmm. No logical response, I guess.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Backwoods

Feb-17-14 11:22 AM

If you do not agree with a progressive they are quick to accuse you of "hating" who or what they are endorsing. They claim that to be tolerant, loving people who except everybody for the differences until you disagree with them. The the insults and name calling begins.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 10:24 AM

Whatever, you're not listening. I don't hate and I don't judge. Not my job, thankfully. Have a great, God-blessed day! Really!!

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whatever

Feb-17-14 10:18 AM

Stonewall - I feel bad for you. I really do. You quote excerpts from the bible as your basis for bigotry. Your bible has taught you to hate. The bible also regards women as lower than cattle. The bible also states that rape of a woman is ok as long as the man pays a dowry and marries her. - - No one is really asking you to accept for embrace anything, what most people here arguing against you ARE asking is that you quit stirring the hatred pot and just leave people be. I would prefer if people like you would just keep YOUR beliefs indoors and to yourselves and just live your lives by what you CHOOSE (since you like using that word) to follow, without using it to condemn others. - You also bring up Abraham......that story amuses me. What loving god would EVER put anyone in that situation? If a story came out today that some person killed their child because god told them to, you would probably be the first one bringing up the decay of our society and how insane the person is.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 10:08 AM

"My god is tolerant and loves everyone." LLR, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. God does love EVERYONE, but He also hates sin. Although He loves the sinner, He will one day punish the sinner, just as you love your child but would punish disobedience. Those who discount His willingness to punish and think that He'll just say, "Oh alright, come on into my paradise" are sadly in error. READ HIS WORD. It clearly warns of the consequences of sinful actions (CHOICES) that we make. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Thankfully, He has made arrangements for redemption of our lost souls through the sacrifice of His only son, and the atoning blood spilled on Calvary. Repent, accept forgiveness, and live by His rules, not man's. Where you spend eternity is your CHOICE.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 9:55 AM

GaryPayton, are people who hate Christians and their morality bigots?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 9:49 AM

RE: Edinboro Feb-14-14 11:47 AM post AMEN, in spades!!

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 9:46 AM

"So I pose this question to all: What gives you the right to look at what someone else is doing in their home! What business is it of yours to be worried about everyone else instead of your own self?" rosedrac, what if you knew that your neighbor was running a brothel in her home? What if on the other side a neighbor was running a meth lab and selling drugs from the privacy of his own home? Would you accept it as "none of your business"? I know that your argument will be, but those activities are illegal. Guess what, homosexuality was once illegal, too. Let's suppose that tomorrow Congress has an epiphany and decides that your neighbors actions are now legit. Still none of your concern? I DO NOT JUDGE GAYS! I am simply pointing out that God condemns their CHOICE and He will judge them. If you don't believe the Bible, then our conversation is moot.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 9:36 AM

archaeo1, re your Feb-13-14 9:44 PM post: let's take the criminal aspect out of the discussion completely. For argument's sake, let's say that child molestation is just as legal as being gay. Why do you think that one is a choice and the other not? Why is one morally wrong and the other not? Why is one "born that way" and the other not? It is gratifying to have you acknowledge the existence of God, and not claim that there is no Supreme Being. You were wrong to say that Christ preferred sinners to saints. He loves them ALL equally, just as He loves gays and straights. He DID disapprove of the pious actions of the priests and leaders. Humbleness and subservience were/are preferred by our Lord. Would anyone like to meet for lunch/discussion some time? I promise not to hate or FEAR you.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 9:22 AM

Lifelong, "what would you do if your grandson our daughter comes to you and tells you they are gay?" Using YOUR logic, the gay "trait" is something that one is born with, engrained in the genes. Neither my, nor my wife's families have any history of gays at all. Where would the new gay member's disposition have come from? It would be like us having a red-headed, green eyed child. Not going to happen. With that said, a neighbor once posted the very same question to me. Of course I would love the child, but would also explain the error of his/her CHOICE, with the ultimate result being damnation in he11 for all eternity. Phil Robertson IS right!

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Feb-17-14 9:14 AM

BTW, BrookP, I know a few gay people and get along with them just fine. We are ALWAYS cordial and have great relationships. Some of them a like very much. I DO NOT FEAR THEIR SEXUALITY. I do love them as fellow human beings. I DO disapprove of their CHOICES in morality (equal to those who would cheat on a spouse), but do not let that interfere with our interaction. I have had gays work for me before and their choices NEVER affected our work relationship. I do believe that their CHOICES have a detrimental affect on society and child raising. I DO believe that it is unnatural.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 59 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web