To the editor:

Let me please respond to “More than physical,” Pauline Hannaford’s letter to the editor, which was published March 13.

Her use of her meaning and the use of the word “ intercourse” is so misleading. However you have chosen to stand on the gay marriage issue, one should always remember the Old Testament, our bibles, our Torah and what God wanted all of us to believe as “ the right thing to do.”

God seeks punishment for those who deserve it. This point is clear to me anyway. To involve intercourse in her argument makes no sense and hurts her argument about fairness and equality toward gay people.

If you choose not to believe in the word of God, it is still hard to understand Hannaford’s belief that believers of traditional marriage believe there is a “mechanical aspect” of intercourse. This confuses everyone from the start.

Intercourse is something very special for most of us, all religious beliefs aside, for the most part, for a man and a woman to create life. There are also loving reasons other than creating life that a man and woman choose to involve intercourse in their lives, more than an “ intent” or “ physical expression” that Hannaford uses to lose us all.

I have read great commentary in your paper concerning both sides of the marriage issue and this opinion from Hannaford loses its ground in the first paragraph.

Whether the civil unions that have been created in some states are completely effective and/or are fair, the reason for having them and starting them has been to be fair and equal toward gay people and their right to be together.

For Hannaford to dismiss civil unions as an “inadequate substitute” is also unfair. Inadequate in comparison to what? A substitute for what?

Again, civil unions have been created to be fair and use equality when dealing with gay people wanting to be together. This seems very fair and absolute.

Jeff Deletetsky,
Topsham

letters@timesrecord.com