W-b, Firefighters See Victories In Contract 
For The First Time Since 1980, An Agreement Is 
Reached Without Binding Arbitration

Admitted Stalker Begins Monitored House Arrest

Friday, August 16, 1996 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 





Anti-gay sentiments defy reason and holds progress back in the Valley &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 I am glad The Times Leader allowed John Gibbons to comment on gay marriage
and its effects on local and federal government (Aug. 7). In doing so, the
general public now has the definitive example of illogical argumentIf you
would allow me the same opportunity you so graciously gave Mr. Gibbons, I
think I can tear his treatise apart. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As you may remember Mr. Gibbons main problem was with government
"redefining words." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Namely, he argued, homosexual unions should not be considered marriage. I
suppose Mr. Gibbons is defining marriage like all narrow-minded, illiterate,
"Leave It To Beaver" fans throughout the region. That is to say, marriage is
one man, one woman, and nothing else. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Having studied sociology I found this point most interesting. Paging
through one of my textbooks, I came across the definition of marriage:
"Marriage is a socially approved mating relationship." The author continues,
"Note that the definition does not specify gender, the number of people
involved, love, age, religion, ethnicity, or race." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 When I consulted other texts, dictionaries, and anyone with a cerebellum,
they all defined marriage the same way. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 After his opening statement, Mr. Gibbons listed several problems likely to
occur as a result of homosexual marriages. He states, "Freedom of religion
would be altered." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 One would think that any house of worship would be tolerant of any
lifestyle God created. Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church frowns upon
homosexuality. But do we really think homosexuals would want to be joined in
holy matrimony in a church that scorns their behavior? I think freedom of
religion is pretty safe. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Mr. Gibbons elaborated on the problems with calling homosexuality a "civil
right." He suggests any hateful thing said or done to homosexuals would be
viewed as a violation of civil rights. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 It is wrong to show disdain for anyone whether gay, straight, black, white,
man or woman. Would Mr. Gibbons like it if white, middle-class bigots were the
minority and packs of homosexuals picketed against straight marriages? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Finally Mr. Gibbons tackled the education process. Perhaps he is concerned
that sex education courses will end up taking field trips to the Masters and
Johnson clinic and watching "Caligula." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 If anything, the public education system should be teaching all lifestyles
so students can start understanding the entire scope of sexuality. Do not be
frightened, Mr. Gibbons, teaching about homosexuality will not turn kids gay.
Hopefully, students in the future will learn tolerance and acceptance. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The real problem, Mr. Gibbons, that will certainly "unravel society," is a
system of beliefs based upon ignorance, intolerance, and stagnation. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 If the executive director of the Center for Responsible Government in
Wilkes-Barre cannot see that the real problem in this country is its
insistence to remain hateful, we can all be assured Wilkes-Barre will lag far
behind culturally, socially, and economically. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Henry Bisco &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Wilkes-Barre &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Anti-gay Sentiments Defy Reason And Holds Progress Back In The Valley 
I Am Glad The Times Leader Allowed John Gibbons To Comment On Gay Marriage And 
Its Effects On Local And Federal Government (aug. 7). In Doing So, The General 
Public Now Has The Definitive Example Of Illogical Argument.

Anti-gay Sentiments Defy Reason And Holds Progress Back In The Valley I Am Glad The Times Leader Allowed John Gibbons To Comment On Gay Marriage And Its Effects On Local And Federal Government (aug. 7). In Doing So, The General Public Now Has The Definitive Example Of Illogical Argument.