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

Same-sex marriage

July 13, 2013

Dear editor: Father John Neff’s article about the welfare of children of gay parents is just too much....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(52)

BrookP

Aug-01-13 3:33 PM

archaeo1, I agree. There is an abhorrent lack of parenting skills in some of the heterosexual community. A loving single parent or a loving gay parent, as well as loving heterosexual parents, produce vastly better people than do unloving or abusive heterosexual parents. It's inconceivable that a child would say: give me an uncaring straight parent instead of a gay parent who loves me with all her/his heart.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BrookP

Aug-01-13 3:25 PM

Stonewall, sometimes your lack of 21st century knowledge amazes me. Being gay is not a "choice of activity." People are born that way just as some people are born with big ears. People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight. It's their orientation, not choice. It is also not a man-made characteristic. Same sex couples are found in several species. It may not be the norm, but it is normal, just like big ears may not be the norm, but it is normal in nature for them to occur. Perhaps it would do you good to actually talk with gay people and learn their personal history, and to understand that there was never a choice. It was a characteristic with which they were born.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jul-31-13 9:15 AM

archeao1, it is clearly evident that you do not believe in God or His precepts. Do you believe in "nature"? If so, you MUST admit that it is quite un-natural to embrace the ss lifestyle. Nature dictates that you could not even have loving gay parents. NOT POSSIBLE. It takes one male and one female to create life, with worms being a rare exception to the rule. The ss life is a man-made perversity.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Jul-30-13 6:33 AM

4 disagrees , you mean you wouldn't rather have gay loving parents? They are equal to the rest of us. Do some of you think your better than your Gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Jul-28-13 9:21 AM

Nice to see more folks for gay marriage and adoption than against.welcome to the 21st century..A proud day for warren County. Stoney , "coming in thru the back door" ..Really? Id sooner have the love of gay parents than a lot of what I see today.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jul-26-13 12:46 PM

For the record: st0newa11 opposes ALL violence against LGBTs, as in the Wyoming case. I DO NOT hate them. I love them as fellow humans and treat them with due respect. I do believe that their choice of activity is morally wrong and damaging. I oppose ss couples adopting children. If they want kids, they should embrace natures way of having them, not a back-door method. They want it both ways.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cstoutEMT

Jul-25-13 12:14 PM

Thank you Fr. Neff. And I mean that sincerely.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-19-13 2:31 PM

PCR: Does this bother you?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Jul-19-13 2:24 PM

Quiensabe: It is not a red-herring. It is that basis of the law suit that is now going before the state supreme court. The governor must appoint legal council to defend the law of the commonwealth (I thought that was the attorney general's job, but I guess when you get that job you get to pick and choose what you want to do).

The suit is totally about the passing of assets from one person to another in a tax favored manner even though they do not meet the statutory obligations of the tax code to receive such preferred treatment.

The suit does not mention and the state does not dispute that the people were a couple, committed, in love, or anything else. The dispute is over whether or not they fit the legal definition to receive preferred tax status.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-19-13 1:22 PM

I just fail to see how injustice of any sort to the LGBT population is in any way less tragic than that of other hated minorities.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-19-13 1:08 PM

Garypayton: If I am not mistaken, the murderers in that case were swiftly brought to justice and the incident was not covered up an dismissed by the police and general populace. I am not marginalizing the tragedy of any murder, but comparing the scope of the suffering of the black community to that of the LGBT crowd is an injustice.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-19-13 1:03 PM

Quiensabe: Yep, I've seen that. My daughter is an LGBT and woman's rights activist that actually walks the walk -- working in women's shelters, rape crisis centers and working in a Muslim country in Africa. I could refer you to the same types of articles about the Irish in the mid-1800's, or the Jews since the founding of colonies here by the English at Jamestown and Plymouth or the Dutch at Manhattan and don't get me started about the railroad laborers on the West Coast. I am not a homophobe and I could care less if gays get married, I would just prefer that we focus on the real issue and quit fanning the flames over this religious argument. I don't see how all of this rhetoric really helps the LGBT crowd.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-19-13 1:00 PM

Matthew Wayne Shepard (December 1, 1976 – October 12, 1998) was a student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered near Laramie, Wyoming in October 1998. He was attacked on the night of October 6–7, and died from severe head injuries. During the trial, it was proven that Shepard was targeted because he was gay.

If that's not an old school lynching, what is?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-19-13 7:45 AM

Sisyphus: Go to Wikipedia, search "violence against LGBT people in the United States."

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-18-13 6:18 PM

And one more thing. Comparing the "plight" of gays and lesbians to that of blacks prior to the Civil Rights movement is abhorrent and does a disservice to all of those that have worked so hard for racial equality. People may dislike or disagree with the gay or lesbian lifestyle, but I haven't ever heard of nationally organized groups of masked marauders lynching gays and lesbians with little or no fear of reprisal.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Sisyphus

Jul-18-13 6:09 PM

Sigh!! I didn't say it was about the tax code; I said that gays and lesbians were looking for the same bundle of legal rights available to "married" people, but the arguments have focused on religion rather than those legal rights. Quiensabe provides a good list, but you will note that each of those items involves tax treatment except hospital visitation. [By the way, I don't believe for a minute that a hospital rule would keep me out of the room of my life partner.] People have been vilified for their religious and moral beliefs since the dawn of man and you cannot legislate St0newa11's moral acceptance of gays. The gay and lesbian community focused the argument on religion because they knew that could win that one as opposed to arguing over the real issue -- dollars and cents. Quiensabe admits that thousands/millions of same-sex couples have maintained long-term relationships. The change in law gives them new economic benefits but it won't make St0newall accept them a

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-18-13 4:50 PM

AGREE, AGREE, AGREE!!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-18-13 2:47 PM

After all, there are thousands, maybe millions of same-sex couples who have maintained long-term relationships in the face of the sort of scorn heaped on them by people like Stonewall, who calls them perverts and lumps them in with murders and rapists. I would imagine they would like some official recognition of their personal commitment.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-18-13 2:44 PM

Except that all this talk about the tax code is really a red herring, since the 1996 Pennsylvania Statute doesn't mention the tax code. The tax code is just one example. It also doesn't mention retirement benefits, IRA disbursements, hospital visitation rights, inheritance. Yet, these are all things affected by marital status. It could be conceivable that the courts may ultimately rule that the tax code and these other statutes are at fault, removing special benefits for married people. I would imagine if that was the case, there would still be a impetus to promote the acceptance of same-sex marriage or civil unions.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-18-13 2:06 PM

PCR, could you use the same argument if you said "How are black people harmed by the current law other than by the tax code?" If the tax code were written to benefit only white people or only Protestants. Well, I guess Fr. Neff would have something to say about the latter.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

garypayton

Jul-18-13 1:36 PM

It seems that anti-gay bigots think more about gay sex than gay people do. Just because you can't clear your mind of "icky" thoughts, doesn't mean that gay people shouldn't enjoy the same liberties, rights and freedoms as everyone else. America is here for everyone including those you don't like. Argue economics, religion, tradition, one man/one woman, etc. Y'all are hung up on the sex part. At least admit it to yourself even if you won't admit it here.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProudCountyResident

Jul-18-13 1:18 PM

How is a gay couple harmed by the current law? Only in the tax / financial realm. Please read the below arguments that there is not true equality in the tax code.

If it is a "basic human right" for someone to be "married" to anyone that they love provided that the love is reciprocated, then what is the argument against polygamy?

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-18-13 12:34 PM

Sisyphus: "Why is gay marriage different?" Exactly. No one is proposing that the government force Catholic priests or anyone else to perform same-sex marriages or prohibiting anyone from shopping around for those services. As for Stonewall's list, 7 of those nine pursuits are criminal in nature. That is, they harm innocent people. Are you harmed, other than the offense to your religious-right sensibilities, by same-sex marriage?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

st0newa11

Jul-18-13 11:16 AM

"Equal means equal, in all aspects of life" Sorry, but I do NOT equate myself with rapists, muggers, dope fiends, pedophiles, wife-beaters, child-abusers, perverts (same-sex), lazy bums, pimps, malingerers, etc. Some things ARE wrong! Every "aspect of life" is NOT equal. "Anything goes" equals immorality and anarchy.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

quiensabe

Jul-18-13 8:22 AM

And, thus, people whose skin was dark were also seeking equality of such mundane things as a seat at the lunch counter, even the ability to marry someone of a different color and financial equality in the workplace. Equal means equal, in all aspects of life, and especially in the eyes of a government that is supposed to be based on the premise that all men are created equal.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 52 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